Research on the Journalistic Occupational Discours...
In the past，scholars studied the authority and legitimacy of journalism in China within the interactional framework of the state，market and journalism，especially discussed the position of journalism in society and specialization process from the perspective of journalistic professionalism.In addition to various methods that are adopted for empirical research on the occupational role，occupational consciousness，professionalism and other cognitive conditions，journalists also adopted a practical path of discourse: not only to understand what news ideas the journalists set forth，but also to pay attention to how they express these ideas and the purpose of expression.What journalistic occupational discourse revealed is actually from the insider ’s perspective，that is，how journalistic occupational groups continue to maintain and consolidate their occupational status through specific discourse strategies in the new media ecology.
Although researchers focused on journalistic texts and journalistic practices and paid less attention to the intentional discourse construction of journalists，[114] a small number of researchers realized the significance of interpretative discourse earlier.For example，Lu Ye and Pan Zhongdang defined professionalism as a set of discourses on journalistic practices and journalistic system，firstly explored how journal practitioners expect and establish professional fame，investigated the discursive practices of professionalism under the social context of journalistic reform，and regarded the discourse construction process as an important aspect of journalistic reform.[115] While investigating the discourse construction of journalistic professionalism，Tong Jingrong focused on the discourse construction of journalists，and also noticed that media organizations，the government and the public are shaping the connotation of professionalism through discourse.[116] Later，some researches began to make empirical analysis on the journalists ’ discursive practices.For example，Lin Gongcheng took the journalists ’ blog as an important discourse field，analyzed the excellent reports selectively published by journalists on the blog，the discussion on critical elements and the shared notes or autobiographical narration，and investigated its impact on the development of journalistic professionalism.[117] Li Hongtao and Huang Shunming ’s research on Nanfang Media Research introduced the formation and operation of the interpretive community of Nanfang.Their members described their understanding of journalistic professionalism through intentional “self-talk” in industry journals.[118]
At present，the studies on journalism in China have paid more and more attention to various interpretative activities of journalists.Studies on journalists ’ intentional discourse construction and use have begun to emerge in succession，for example，some topics include: discussion on the legalization of journalistic authority in China based on the case study of Environmental News Award，[119] the process of Sun Zhigang incident becoming a professional myth of the journalism，[120] the journalists ’ discursive practices outside the press room，[121] the characteristics of memory work reflected by the discourse of Journalists ’ Day，[122] and the discourse strategies used by commentators to establish industry standards，build identity and strengthen community awareness.[123] The studies mentioned above still discussed relevant issues from the perspective of discourse construction.Another type of studies combined with specific cases to explain how journalism practitioners expand and enrich occupational discourse，especially some controversial events and even news deviant incidents，which become an opportunity to discuss discursive practices collectively.For instance，Li Yanhong and Gong Yanfang studied the journalists reflective discourse in Deng Yujiao inciden，[124] and Tong Jingrong pondered over the journalistic legitimacy reflected by Deng Yujiao incident；[125] Bai Hongyi discussed the former journalist of Nanfang Metropolis Daily Ji Xuguang ’s exposure of corruption via Weibo from the perspective of paradigm repair，[126] while Chen Chujie and Yuan Mengqian discussed this issue from the theoretical perspective of boundary work；[127] Hong Changhui analyzed Chen Yongzhou incident from the perspective of community differentiation；[128] Deng Li studied the discussion on the report of missing Malaysia Airlines plane from the perspective of public accountability news ethics；[129] Lu Ye and Zhou Ruiming studied the controversy caused by the report “Oriental Star” Yangtze River Shipwreck accident.[130] It is worth noting that，with the journalism gradually fallen into the dilemma；the response of journalism to the crisis has inspired more types of discourse.Typical studies include Bai Hongyi ’s research on the farewell speeches of resigned journalists，[131] Chen Min and Zhang Xiaochun ’s content analysis on the resignation confession of journalists，[132] the analysis of Li Yanhong and Chen Peng on the crisis discourse of journalism in China，[133] Zhang Zhian and Zhang Zhen ’s research on new year ’s messages of the media，[134] Bai Hongyi ’s research on metajournalistic discourse through the case study of the termination of printed newspapers of Oriental Morning Post and Beijing Times；Bai Hongyi and Li Tuo ’s discussion on the legitimate discourse of crisis response strategies reflected in three kinds of media manifestos，[135] Bai Hongyi and Li Tuo ’s discussion on the legitimate discourse of crisis response strategies reflected in three kinds of media manifestos，[136] Bai Hongyi ’s research on the innovative discourse used in the founding manifestos of 19 journalistic clients，[137] Chen Chujie ’s research on the media people ’s narrative of entrepreneurial story and identity；[138] a series of studies on collective memory，such as Li Hongtao ’s analysis of “Golden Era”myth in the journalistic field，[139] Bai Hongyi ’s research on Jiang Yiping ’s retirement[140] and 18 years ’ oral history of Nanfang Metropolis Daily[141]，Chen Chujie ’s research on the memorial discourse of Yang Weiguang ’s death，[142] etc.It can be seen that the studies seldom paid attention to occupational discourse at the beginning，then gradually used it as empirical data，and then consciously studied the discovery practices of journalists，which has become an available research approach.
Although many previous studies discussed the construction and use of different types of occupational discourse，many researchers did not regard it as a research field that can be developed，but simply regarded discourse as an analytical material.The concept of journalistic occupational discourse proposed in this paper not only regards occupational discourse as important research material，but also as an important research object.This reflects a change of research perspective.With drastic changes in the current industry，the production of journalistic occupational discourse has become a prominent phenomenon，but the discourse itself is also a research topic worth exploring.In some specific moments，journalists are not only the subject of discourse production，but also the object of discourse.These discourses reflect journalists ’ understanding of the journalism，and are combined with meta-problems.This approach is proposed based on two considerations: reality and research.On the one hand，there are more and more discursive practices in the journalistic field in China.Those classic topics about norms，ethics or professionalism still exist，what ’s more，traditional media and new media have been constantly integrated，and given birth to many new occupational discourses.The objects of discourse demonstrate the mixed features of the old media and new media.On the other hand，this prominent industry phenomenon poses new challenges to journalism research，but the existing approaches have some shortcomings in dealing with the reality.Firstly，“profession” is the leading framework to study journalistic authority，but most of the studies still focused on the structural function of profession，investigated whether journalism has professional characteristics，and discussed the source of journalistic authority from a relatively static perspective，thereby ignoring that this process is a continuous interaction with external political，economic and social forces，as well as a dynamic process to control professional resources and cognitive authority.Secondly，most of the studies investigated the cultural authority of journalism in a stable state.However，with the passage of time，the Internet has reconstructed the contradictions and tensions faced by journalism，in particular，the new media technology has improved the transparency of journalism and public participation，thereby posing great threats to the autonomy of journalism and journalistic authority，and leading to the lack of effective explanations of rhetorical and cultural dimensions in the process of discourse construction and various power factors behind it.
Therefore，this research concept is proposed based on the theoretical development of journal research and the actual development of journalism in China.The emergence and wide application of the Internet and other new media tools have led to great changes in the ecological environment of journalism.The traditional structural functionalism research from the perspective of news specialization has gradually failed to fully explain the reality of journalism.At present，we should focus on the dynamic construction process of journalistic authority in the journalistic field with the participation of different social participants.The interpretation of journalistic occupational discourse can provide an approach to help us understand the development of journalism in China as an occupation in the new media environment，as well as its interaction with other power subjects.By investigating journalistic occupational discourse to discuss how journalism in China constructs its own authority and legitimacy under the new media environment，we can find the solutions to the following questions: What kind of occupational discourse can be used by journalists to define their news work when constructing their own news work？ How do journalists use journalistic occupational discourses to express their purpose and process？ How do these journalistic occupational discourses relate to the discourse construction of other social subjects？ What can we learn from these diverse journalistic occupational discourses？
Currently，the increasingly frequent practices of journalistic occupational discourse provide an important basis for this study.The author preliminarily summarized five types of frequently used occupational discourses as the research objects，and explored the types，content and functions of current journalistic occupational discourses.Firstly，reflective discourse.Journalistic practitioners adopted critical thinking to analyze some emerging industry phenomena，especially the impact of the Internet on the traditional journalism industry，and established the journalistic boundary by absorbing，adjusting and rejecting.For example，Deng Yujiao incident，Ji Xuguang incident，journalists ’cognition of UGC，social media usage standards，etc.Secondly，negotiation discourse.The debates carried out by journal practitioners on some controversial incidents，figures and reports that lack consensus may not reach a consensus conclusion，but will help to promote the development of the journalistic community，such as the reports on “the Bund stampede incident”，Yuan Lihai，Joseeh Punmanlon and “Tang Hui”.Thirdly，critical discourse.Based on the discussion of events，characters and reports that obviously violate the professional norms and concepts of journalism，journalistic practitioners define the concept of Journalism and the role of journalists，so as to establish the professional journalistic paradigm，such as Chen Yongzhou incident，Yao Beina ’s death report，etc.Fourthly，memorial discourse.Journalistic practitioners discussed the founding or closing of some newspapers and magazines，the retirement or death of people in the journalistic field，and the reporting of major events，and other commemorative topics，and made a comparison between the development of journalism in different periods by the way of collective nostalgia，such as the death of Yang Weiguang，the retirement of Jiang Yiping，and the closing of Oriental Morning Post.Fifthly，transformation discourse.It mainly focuses on various phenomena in the process of transformation of journalism，such as journalists ’ resignation，post transfer，job transfer and entrepreneurship，and journalists ’ cognition and discussion on emerging technologies such as algorithms，robot writing，AI，etc.In practice，different types of journalistic occupational discourses are reflected，such as reflection，negotiation，criticism and commemoration，which also reflect the efforts of journalistic practitioners in shaping their own authority from different aspects，such as paradigm repair，collective memory and boundary maintenance.Its core lies in re-interpreting what is good news，what is correct journalistic practice and what is appropriate journalistic norms，and other key elements of journalism value.These five types of discourses are just preliminarily classified based on the existing studies，and cannot cover all the existing discourses.With the development of journalism，new types of discourses may appear in the future.
When studying journalistic regional distribution，on the one hand，specific dynamic “critical elements” can be selected for specific case discussion；on the other hand，empirical research on some static phenomena and topics can be carried out.In this respect，references can be drawn from the cases discussed by the existing studies on metajournalistic discourse.The core of this concept is to analyze the cultural connotations of the public ’s discussion on journalism.Researchers can not only analyze the cases of news deviant events，[143] the vanishing newspaper，[144] media criticism，[145] Facebook ’s positioning in the journalistic ecology，[146] the termination of New Republic magazine，[147] etc.，but also discuss the phenomena in the journalistic field，such as entrepreneurial manifesto，[148] media control，[149] hyperlink，[150] robot reporter，[151] and news nostalgia.[152] Through the in-depth study of individual cases，researchers can reveal how journalists construct，activate and use specific types of occupational discourse.The occupational discursive practices of journalists are not only generated in the formal institutional process，but also，more importantly，generated in the informal spatial and institutional process.Therefore，it is necessary to widely collect and research journalists discussion on the incidents or phenomena to be studied in the formal and informal space，which mainly include three categories: articles published on traditional media and industry journals；special articles published on online forums，WeChat public accounts，blogs and other platforms；discussion materials of journalism practitioners on social media such as Weibo.In addition，in-depth interviews with participants in several cases can be conducted to supplement the insufficient documents.These empirical materials can be used to investigate the formation process of meanings，including participants of dialogue，the place and time of dialogue，under what conditions，dialogue content，speaking manner and ways to spread these words.By connecting this discourse with the process of boundary setting，authority construction and legalization，it explores the relationship between discourse and practice.[153] These occupational discourses are not only the results of journalistic practices in the new social scenarios of new media，but also reflect the contradictions，problems and trends in the current journalistic field.When studying journalistic occupational discourse，researchers should adhere to the research paradigm of constructivism，analyze specific experience materials，describe，explain and understand the process of construction，activation and use of journalistic occupational discourse through detailed case studies，so as to find a more powerful analysis framework to interpret the current changes of journalism in China.