Boundary，Authority and Legitimacy of Journalism
This paper uses “journalistic occupational discourse” to represent the discourse types that interpret the meanings of practices，reports，phenomena，events，figures and other content in journalism，and sorts out previous studies based on this.Generally speaking，previous studies mainly focus on discourse construction and discourse use.The former focuses on the construction of discourse，and emphasizes the nature and connotation of discourse；the latter pays more attention to how discourse is used and what functions discursive interpretation plays.In fact，many studies often mix discourse construction with discourse use，which cannot be distinguished easily.When classifying by the functions of discursive practices，previous on journalistic occupational discourse can be divided into the following three types:
The first type of studies focused on how journalistic communities establish the consistency from the inside and ward off doubts，which were mainly reflected in the research on interpretive community.[53] Zelizer creatively conceptualized the group of journalists as the interpretive community proposed by Fish，and used the “real-time” and “sustained”modes to construct cultural authority in critical incidents.[54] In this process，“journalists make use of discourse to discuss，think，or even challenge the dominant consensus established through news practice，so as to adapt to the changes of technology，environment and news work.”[55] Later，researchers expanded the concept mentioned above.For example，Berkowitz and TerKeurst regarded journalists and sources as an interpretive community，further expanded the scope of the subject of this concept.[56] Based on “interpretive community”，Meyers developed the concept of “Interpretive Memory Community”，and investigated how Israeli journalists make use of the collective memory of their own occupational community to define the dynamic process of their own occupational community through “narrative of things past”.[57] Brüggemann and Engesser regarded climate journalists from different countries with scientific consensus as an interpretive community，in which scientists were also included.[58] Taking political journalists in the general election as research subjects，the author analyzed their tweets and found the application of narrative construction，interpretive community discourse and backstage behaviors.[59] By analyzing civil journalism，Robinson and DeShano and found that civil journalists have not yet fully become members of the interpretive community.[60]
The second type of studies linked journalistic practices with the method of discussing journalism，and examined the response of journalism practitioners to journalistic disputes through the concept of paradigm repair.[61] Paradigm repair exists under the premise that the existence of journalistic paradigm is recognized，which describes a set of world-views shared by journalism practitioners on what is news，how to report，and how to distinguish good news and bad news.[62] Paradigm repair focuses on how journalism practitioners deal with news events that challenge the basic assumptions of existing paradigm，identify how journalists resolve such “abnormal” events，and reaffirm，repair and consolidate the existing paradigm.[63] Most of these studies focus on the journalism practitioners or news organizations that violate the mainstream journalistic paradigm，such as the improper operation of a self-immolation incident by local TV stations，[64] a former Wall Street Journal reporter who claimed to be a socialist；[65] a paparazzi chased Princess Diana and led to her death in the car accident，[66] CNN and Time magazine misreported the ‘Tailwind’ Story of the US military during the Vietnam War，[67] the mainstream media ’s view on tabloids in South Africa，[68] the New York Times ’s response to the plagiarism of Jayson Blair，[69] the storm caused by a TV series reflecting The Baltimore Sun，[70] the forced retirement of senior White House journalist Helen Thomas due to the storm caused by improper remarks ，[71] the challenges posed by an alternative weekly publication that appeared in Israel to the mainstream journalistic paradigm at that time，[72] the violations of professional norms between Indian journalists and a commercial lobbying company，[73] the normative issue of the role of South African journalists in the postapartheid era，[74] GamerGate[75] etc.In addition to these cases that obviously violate the journalistic paradigm，researchers also used them to analyze the impact of online journalism on the mainstream paradigm，such as journalistic perceptions of the Internet as an objective news source，[76] how the mainstream media respond to the challenges and impacts of new media through the paradigm repair and establishment of new operating routines，[77] the attitude of mainstream authoritative media towards Wikileaks，[78] and how to see the vanishing newspapers that disappear under the impact of the Internet，[79] etc.
The third type of research mainly examined the definition of journalistic community through the theoretical framework of boundary work.[80] Boundary Work is an important concept proposed by sociologist of science Gieryn when he studied the demarcation problem of science.It focuses on how scientists construct the boundary between science and nonscience.[81] Journalistic scholars mainly used this concept to deal with two kinds of phenomena: Firstly，the crises or challenges in journalistic field，such as the differences between TV news and entertainment programs，[82] the relationship between the paparazzi who are keen to shoot others ’privacy and the death of Princess Diana，[83] the forgery of direct quotations by reporter of The New Yorker Janet Malcolm，[84] a comparison between American comedy program host Jon Stewart with Edward R.Murrow，[85] the phone-hacking scandal of Murdoch ’s News of the World，[86] journalists ’commemoration of deceased predecessors in the industry，[87] Puerto Rican press circles ’ discussion on the boycott of entertainment program La Comay，[88] the erosion of professional boundaries by fake news represented by The Onion，[89] the identity conflict between in-house media and athlete protest when working for sports teams，[90] the reaction of Swedish tabloids to media criticism，[91] etc.Secondly，threats from outside the journalistic field，especially in the background where new media constantly impacts the traditional journalism，frequent external challenges forced journalism to protect its own boundary，such as the challenges posed by WikiLeaks to the traditional news organization and routines，[92] the tension between open participation and professional control of journalism in the Internet environment，[93] the reader comment column of online news websites serving as the boundary in the journalist-audience relationship and posing challenges to the original system rating in professional journalistic field，[94] the relationship between new types of news and non-journalistic organizations，[95] the “second-order paradigm repair” in the Internet news environment，[96] the threat of social media to the journalistic authority in the report of Sandy Hook shootings，[97] the heated discussion on Gawker ’s organizational identity caused by its reporting of controversial issues，[98] the maintenance and transformation of journalistic boundary by BuzzFeed，[99] journalistic identity construction in the digital era，[100] the role of data analysis companies in news production，[101] the boundary between professional journalists and non-professional journalists in the global fact-checking movement，[102] etc.
Essentially，the three types of studies all investigated how journalism practitioners redefine the boundary of effective journalistic practices by narrating “insiders and outsiders” when facing the invasion of various problems，so as to deal with various conflicts or challenges.[103] Tong Jingrong calls it the re-legitimization of journalism，which reaffirms and strengthens the nature formed in history and reflects the continuity of journalism，so as to form a boundary defense for the trend of delegitimization of journalism.[104] It should be noted that most of the studies mentioned above analyzed the current or recent discourse events in the journalistic field，and some studies introduced the time dimension to study journalistic occupational discourse from the perspective of collective memory，and to construct the community and maintain its social role by making comparison with the past.[105] In the process of constructing collective memory，journalists can form an interpretive memory community，and can also carry out paradigm repair and boundary work.This is because journalists are not only the narrators of the social memory they report，but also the memory narrators of their own professional community.They not only shape the collective memory of historical events，but also actively construct the collective memory of their own industry.[106] Therefore，this kind of memory practice can be reflected in the history from two dimensions:“the historical stories told by journalism” and “the historical stories about journalism”.[107] In the former type of history，journalistic authority is established as an “interpretive byproduct” after journalists participate in the reporting of major historical events；in the latter type of history，journalists become the main body of collective memory，telling the history of journalism itself.Constructing the collective memory of journalism itself is a process of direct constructing，adjusting and enhancing journalistic authority.[108]
Interpretive community，paradigm repair，boundary work and even collective memory are the main theoretical resources used in the previous studies.However，the ultimate purpose of these studies is still to discuss the relationship between the case and journalistic authority and shape journalistic authority by distinguishing and comparing the past and the present，the right and the wrong，the professional and the amateur，the insiders and the outsiders.These theories are not totally different，but often mixed together.Zelizer discussed how TV journalists as interpretive communities use specific narrative techniques to build their expertise and social authority，this process actually involves boundary work.[109] Meltzer and Martik clearly stated that journalists as interpretive communities and journalists as practical communities are all engaged in boundary work.[110] It can be said that the normalization and legalization process of journalism is a process of “boundary work”，that is，to distinguish the boundary of knowledge field between itself and others.[111] The collective memory of journalism can also enhance journalistic authority[112] and play the role of boundary work.[113] Journalism ’s ability to explain reality accurately，truthfully and objectively for the society and the public is not only the boundary of effectively distinguishing itself from the providers of lowquality information，but also the foundation of shaping journalistic authority and the source of journalistic legitimacy.Fundamentally speaking，boundary，authority and legitimacy are just theoretical concepts used by different scholars to solve the issues they are interested in.Ultimately，they all point to the social position of journalism，that is，what role，function and value can journalism，as a discourse system and cultural practice，play in society.Just because the social position of journalism has been constantly challenged by insiders and outsiders in recent years，journalists are forced to establish，maintain，compete for and consolidate the journalistic boundary through different types of discursive practices，and construct the authority and legitimacy of journalism in contemporary society.