The Proposal of Journalistic Occupational Discours...
Zelizer used some concepts such as culture，discourse，narrative，rhetoric methods and collective memory to discuss journalism and journalism practitioners，and regarded journalists as “interpretive communities”，which establish authority through the unique narrative power of professional status.[31]The purpose of her research was to explain the nature of journalists ’ community construction and identify the relationship between journalists and social authority system.[32] It can be said that the new paradigm proposed by Zelizer is composed by journalists，which serve as interpretive communities，and journalism，which serves as cultural authority.Interpretive community is the premise，means and method of forming this new paradigm，that is，journalists form a so-called community through interpreting public events；while cultural authority defines，negotiates and reconstructs the value and functions of journalism，and expresses the intention of interpretation.
The concept of interpretive community originated from literature research，which originally described how readers form a community through collective interpretation in the process of reading literary works.[33] Zelizer expanded this concept to the producers and disseminators of journalistic texts，and argued that journalists form a set of common discussion and common interpretation of public events through interaction and practice at different time and different spatial situations，thereby forming a meaningful community about journalism.[34] Later，Zelizer further revealed that journalists manifest their existence as interpretive community through multiple ways: Firstly，journalists converge on a place to discuss critical incidents or hot moments in the journalism.Secondly，journalists create a community by correcting and temporarily re-contextualizing journalistic practices.Thirdly，journalists consolidate their collectivity by discussing their daily work.Fourthly，journalists use collective interpretation to guide their specific practice.[35]
The concept of cultural authority originated from Starr ’s research on medical specialty.He distinguished cultural authority from social authority: Social authority involves controlling actions by issuing orders，while cultural authority is about the ability to provide a service and determine the needs of customers.[36] Therefore，journalistic authority is a kind of cultural authority，rather than social authority.Zelizer defined the cultural authority of journalism as journalists ’ ability to enhance their authority as credible spokesmen of “real events” in life.In the Kennedy assassination event，a group of television journalists who were belittled previously became an authoritative interpretive community through reporting the assassination and narrating the assassination story.[37] However，Winch considered that the cultural authority of journalists comes from the dependence of the public on journalists who are able to provide important information in a coherent and reliable way，and the authority not only exists，but also is reproduced through the daily practice of journalists and the subsequent rhetoric boundary work.[38] Anderson pointed out that cultural authority is a kind of cultural form of power.He defined journalistic authority as the power possessed by journalists and news organizations，which enables them to interpret reality in an accurate and truthful manner，and demonstrate political importance.[39]
There are two methods to shape journalistic authority: One is to directly point out the source of cultural authority，for instance，journalists claim that some attributes in journalism are the foundation of journalistic authority；the other is to seek the source of authority and claim authority by distinguishing good from bad，or inside from outside.But in any case，the core of this paradigm is always to shape journalistic authority through discourse or narrative.[40] Therefore，researchers must attach great importance to the discursive practices of journalists in the process of routine news production，especially the discourse on the events that may affect the professional status of journalism.“By giving explanations to these events，journalists can clarify the boundaries of professional practices，solve the pending issues，and strengthen the standards of professional judgment，so as to repair the journalistic paradigm or promote the social status of journalism”.[41] Journalists ’ efforts to improve their authority may trigger disputes from inside and outside the industry.Therefore，journalistic authority is not a pre-set existence，but a dynamic process，which is constantly updated，adjusted and defended in the face of challenges or doubts.[42] This view on journalistic authority is different from that of Zelizer.Anderson criticized that，Zelizer introduced journalistic authority with the intention to abandon the original professional analysis framework，and emphasized establishing authority through the unique narrative power of professional status，but her understanding of profession was still based on the structural and functional orientation，she ignored the achievements made by professional sociology since then，especially Abbott ’s perspective of combining professional work with practice.[43] Abbott defined the connection between profession and work as jurisdiction，namely，the legal control of profession over work.Multiple professions coexisting in the same work field form an ecosystem，and different professions compete with each other for the jurisdiction over work.[44] There are also demands for jurisdiction in the field of journalism.With the change of media ecology，such demands become more and more urgent.Therefore，from the perspective of relational theory，Carlson redefined journalistic authority as “a kind of situational relationship，in which some participants have the right to produce legal discourse knowledge about events for others”.[45] He divided the components of journalistic authority into three categories:group identity，text practice and metadiscourse，which are embodied in the relationships between journalists and four items，which are audiences，news sources，technology and critics.[46]
If journalistic authority is taken as a social process of competing for the definition and jurisdiction of specific forms of knowledge，then discourse can be the starting point of this new analytical paradigm.That is，we can take journalism practitioners as a “discursive community”，search for the foundation of journalistic authority from the discursive practices of journalism practitioners，examine how the group interprets certain critical incidents，moments，characters，etc.，and discuss the symbolization process of how journalistic authority is produced，maintained，repaired and transformed.In the past studies adopting similar approaches，scholars usually study those cases with the characteristics of “critical incidents” or “hot moments”，because after these critical incidents or hot moments occur，there are often diversified discussions and interpretations of news practitioners in the community，providing opportunities for the discussion of discursive practices.[47] In this paper，a similar discourse is called journalistic occupational discourse，which refers to the discussion of journalism practitioners on various public issues related to the survival and development of journalism.It is not the discourse presented in the news report （namely the news discourse that constructs other things） in a broad sense，but it takes journalism itself as the object of discourse construction.This kind of discourse not only affects the professional identity of journalism practitioners，but also directly reflects professional culture and social practice.Meanwhile，it is also the image of journalism in the society and affects social views on journalism.[48]
In the previous studies，there are several concepts that have similar meanings with the journalistic occupational discourse used in this paper.Firstly，journalistic discourse.Zhou Baohua defined journalistic discourse as the expression，interpretation，criticism and discussion about journalistic ideas and practices and journalistic occupation.It covers how to understand news，how to view media function and the occupational role of journalism practitioners，how to engage in journalistic practices，how to evaluate journalistic text，the performance of practitioners and media reputation.Journalistic discourse mainly comes from professional journalism practitioners，but also includes the opinions of audiences outside the industry， as well as the interaction between professional journalists and audiences.[49] Secondly， “the discourse of journalism”proposed by Tong Jingrong.This kind of discourse “does not refer to the discourse reflected by news products， but takes journalism itself as the object of discourse construction.Its focus is to discuss how journalism， as a profession， is endowed with a certain discourse by other social entities in the current Chinese social context， and how it tries to construct its own discourse”.Her main concern is how media organizations， journalists and the government construct “the discourse of journalism”.[50] Tong Jingrong's discussion on this concept carried forward her previous analysis of the social discourse of journalistic professionalism: three discourse systems，namely institutional （occupational） discourse， official discourse and folk discourse， overlap and restrain each other.She did not take occupational discourse as a separate system， but incorporated it into institutional discourse with interpretation.[51] Thirdly， the metajoumalistic discourse proposed by Carlson.While continuously releasing information about the changes in the world， journalism also constructs the meanings of journalism and its social status in the discourse field.As a description of this discourse field， metajournalistic discourse can be defined as the public expression of journalistic text， production practice and receiving conditions， where everyone can participate in the process of establishing definition， setting boundaries and determining the legitimacy of journalism.It consists of three parts: metajournalistic discourse arises from the distinction between journalistic participants and non-journalistic participants； metajournalistic discourse appears in both journalistic places and non-journalistic places；the topics of metajournalistic discourse are reactive and generative.[52] This concept indicates that many non-traditional journalistic participants entered the discourse field of journalistic participants to discuss， compete and construct meta issues in the journalism， such as what is news， who is reporter， and what is journalism.
Although the three concepts use different appellations， they share Although the three concepts use different appellations，they share many similarities in the research ideas，such as focusing on the discourse construction of the social status of journalism.Their difference lies in that there is an obvious progressive relationship among the research scopes of the three concepts.Zhou Baohua mainly discussed the construction of journalistic discourse by journalists，Tong Jingrong expanded the scope to the discussion on journalistic topics by the government and common people，and Carlson also incorporated many discursive practices of non-journalistic participants into the research scope.In this sense，the first two concepts are all subtypes of metajournalistic discourse.The journalistic occupational discourse proposed in this paper still focuses on the discourse construction and use of journalism，which can also be regarded as a subtype of metajournalistic discourse.In the era where journalism has been gradually opened up，the research object is still restricted to the discursive practices of journalism itself due to the following three practical considerations: Firstly，due to the limited openness，transparency and participation of journalism in the current news ecosystem in China，news organizations and journalism practitioners are still the most important participants and the main participants of journalistic discursive practices.Secondly，under the influence of political，market，technology and other external forces，the current Chinese journalism is in the dilemma caused by three forces of specialization，de-specialization and re-specialization，we should not only pay attention to the daily practices of news organizations and journalistic practitioners in news work，but also pay attention to the interpretation and reflection of meanings made by them as the main participants of discursive practices.Thirdly，Chinese journalism not only has the particularity of operating in a specific political and economic environment，but also has some common features that are in line with the general characteristics of the global journalism，and the shrinking number of audiences，the decline of revenue and the low quality of news，and other media signals indicate that it is necessary to discuss the social status of journalism in the present and future.Those who care about these problems are mainly journalism practitioners.Specifically speaking，the proposed journalistic occupational discourse has the following four characteristics in the Chinese context:
Firstly，the topics of occupational discourse.Journalistic occupational discourse is the discourse of journalism，which includes not only the reports and discussions about specific news reports，news events，news figures，news phenomena，etc.，but also those discussions on journalism in a broad sense.The former is reactive，the latter is generative.It is not called professional discourse；the main reason is that the journalistic professionalism is still not mature in the journalism of China.As a theoretical concept with specific meaning，journalistic professionalism represents the mature state of the development of journalistic occupational consciousness.The word occupation is more inclusive and applicable，and can cover different levels of occupational consciousness.
Secondly，the subjects of occupational discourse.Journalistic occupational discourse expresses journalism practitioners ’ own understanding of on news work.Such understanding can be expressed in two forms: One is an individual reporter ’s statement of his attitude towards a specific object，such as notes，blog posts，etc.；the other is a news organization ’s text，such as editorials and publications，which show the collective attitude.Different from metajournalistic discourse，which incorporates both journalistic participants and non-journalistic participants，the subjects of occupational discourse are limited to journalists and news organizations，both of which are core participants in the journalistic field.
Thirdly，the platforms of occupational discourse.News media and industry journals used to be the most important platforms for the release and presentation of occupational discourse.Now，compared with these traditional channels，forums，blogs，Weibo and WeChat are more important presentation platforms，which not only greatly increase the frequency and quantity of discourse production，but also attract many people from outside the journalistic field to participate in，their interaction makes discourse production more complicated.Therefore，occupational discourse not only converge on some traditional channels，such as newspapers and magazines，industry journals，news textbooks，film and television works，etc.，but also frequently appear on forums，blogs，public accounts and other new media platforms.
Fourthly，the production of occupational discourse.Journalists are professionals who specialize in the production of discourse.News reports reflect their understanding of life and the world，while occupational discourse reflects their own understanding of news work，both of them are produced frequently，but the former is in the foreground and the latter is in the background，so that the former is more frequently seen by the outside world，and the latter exists as an “internal discourse”.It not only appears in the routine news production process，such as the discussion of reports，but also in some important ceremonial moments，such as the Journalists ’Day，news awards ceremony and new year ’s speech.