Conclusion

Boundary，Authority and Legitimacy: Research on the Journalistic Occupational Discourse in the Chinese Context

Bai Hongyi

Bai Hongyi，Research Professor，Institute of Journalism，SASS

E-mail: baihongyi@sass.org.cn

This paper in Chinese was originally published in Journalism & Communication，2018 （8）.This paper is the result of “Research on Journalistic Occupational Discourse in New Media Environment”，which is a general project of National Social Science Foundation of China （Project No.:15BXW013） in 2015.

Abstract: Scholars in Western countries explored the sources of journalistic authority and legitimacy by investigating journalistic professionalism，and formed two different research approaches: One approach is to investigate how journalism constructs social reality，and explore the characteristics of journalistic expertise by presenting the news production process；the other one focuses on discussing how journalism constructs itself，and uses culture，discourse，narrative and other concepts to discuss how journalists and news organizations make use of their unique narrative power to establish cultural authority.This paper attempts to put forward an analysis path of journalistic occupational discourse，which can be taken as a theoretical tool to study the transformation of journalism in China，according to the second path.Based on a systematic review of relevant Chinese and English literature，this paper summarizes the connotation，types and functions of journalistic occupational discourse，and finally puts forward the methods，topics and ideas for carrying out the study of journalistic occupational discourse in the Chinese context.

Keywords: Journalistic Occupational Discourse；Cultural Authority；Border Work；Legitimacy

Changes in the Meaning of Journalism Studies

On January 1，2017，Oriental Morning Post and Beijing Times，which are two major urban newspapers，terminated the publication of printed newspapers simultaneously.At a moment when the traditional journalism was in deep crisis，the two organizations ’ termination of printed newspapers became a “hot moment” in the Chinese journalism industry，and inspired the memorial narratives of news organizations，practitioners，readers and other subjects.In the past few years，similar key events or hot topics appeared many times.No matter the criticism caused by transgressive news，or the controversy brought by special contributions，the memory and commemoration caused by the retirement，death and career change of people in journalism，they all interpreted the public issues of journalism.The discursive practices represented by these interpretation phenomena have pointed a new direction for journalism studies，and the study of discursive practices reflects the change in the meaning of journalism studies to a certain extent.^[1]This kind of meaning includes two levels: one is the meaning of journalism to journalists；the other is the meaning of journalism in the social context.^[2]

Over the years，scholars in Western countries have explored the sources of journalistic authority and legitimacy by investigating journalistic professionalism，and formed two different research approaches: One approach is to investigate how journalism constructs social reality，explore the characteristics of journalistic expertise by presenting the news production process，and take the professional status of journalism as an established premise，and its “professional attributes” constitute the source of the journalistic occupational authority.The other one focuses on discussing how journalism constructs itself，and uses culture，discourse，narrative and other concepts to discuss how journalism make use of their unique narrative power to establish occupational authority，and pays special attention to the discourse strategies used by journalism in the face of internal disputes and external challenges.^[3] It can be said that both of the two research approaches are mainly based on the long-term stable development of journalism，where journalism plays an important role and has important functions and status in the society beyond any doubt.Reese even considered that there was almost no external force that could pose challenges to the operation of traditional journalism for a long time，and the whole journalism industry stayed in a relatively stable state.^[4] Therefore，early journalism researchers tended to pay more attention to the internal production and operational process of news agencies，and seldom analyzed external journalistic environment.^[5] Based on this perspective，Anderson argued that “field”，a concept of social space proposed by Bourdieu，will be a useful analysis tool，which can be used to analyze the professional competition that focuses on different forms of occupational expertise in a specific social space like journalism.^[6] The research on journalistic field shows that scholars began to pay attention to the external environment of journalism，and some had applied it to the journalism research in the pre-Internet era.After entering the era of digital technology，the stable journalistic environment was finally broken，and the existing research approach began to show deficiencies.The introduction of concepts such as field，network，domain and ecosystem indicates that journalism research is undergoing spatial turn.^[7] In addition to journalistic field，news ecosystem has become another important concept of spatial analysis.^[8] Both field and ecosystem are metaphors of space，and they all emphasize the positions of different subjects in the same space.However，the two concepts have different theoretical origins and application scope.^[9] Journalism researchers used field to analyze Buzzfeed and Gawker，which are willing to accept journalistic supervision and seek recognition of journalism，and used news ecosystem to study Facebook，which refuses to recognize its media company identity，advocates automatic algorithm and excludes human intervention.^[10]

Journalism should not only deal with the challenges posed by internal deviants to the existing news boundary or paradigm，but also pay attention to the impacts brought by many new outsiders.In the dilemma caused by increasing uncertainty of journalism，it is necessary to rethink the cultural significance of journalism，“whenever you want to redefine journalism，journalists and journalistic practice，or to reconcile the relationship between technological revolution，economic turbulence，organizational restructuring and cultural forces，you need to understand the new form of journalism from the perspective of meanings”.^[11] In the past journalism studies，the meanings of journalism were revealed and interpreted from cultural perspective.Journalism research from cultural perspective has enjoyed a long history，although it has not become an influential research approach as the organizational or sociological approach of journalism research.Schudson classified and renamed the three orientations of news production research，which were political economy，society and culture respectively.^[12] He separated politics from economy，and formed four parallel approaches，which are politics，economy，society and culture.^[13] Obviously，the research approaches were namely after the actual research work was carried out，and the research from cultural perspective was not limited to news production research.Therefore，Zelizer put it in the journalism research in a broader sense，and systematically sorted out journalism research from cultural perspective.^[14] However，for a long time，researchers only proposed that news can be viewed from cultural perspective，and called it “cultural perspective on the news”，^[15] or “on journalism from cultural perspective”.^[16] Meyers clearly put forward the concept of cultural school of journalism research.He divided the existing journalism research into four categories:individual journalism research，organizational journalism research，institutional journalism research，and cultural journalism research.The first three categories are called traditional school，while the fourth category is called cultural school，which takes news as the product of cultural tradition in a wider field.^[17] It was considered that the cultural perspective or cultural analysis of journalism includes the journalism research from narrative，rite，text，discourse and other perspectives，but discourse is undoubtedly the most important approach.Anderson summarized the journalism research approaches in the United States after the 1970s and divided them into three categories，which were corresponding to three key words: professionalism，discourse and field.The core of discourse is “culture，narrative and discursive community”.^[18]

According to Meyers and Anderson，both the cultural and discursive research in journalism studied the research paradigm created by Zelizer，whose book Covering the Body published in 1992 greatly improved people ’s understanding of the relationship between cultural authority and professional expertise of journalism.^[19] In the book，Zelizer elaborated on how the emerging groups of television journalists maintain their professional status: firstly，through reporting the assassination of Kennedy，and then through their stories about the assassination.^[20] This study created an important approach for current journalism research to discuss journalistic issues from the perspective of discourse；it was considered that journalism constantly constructs the meanings of journalism and its social status in a discourse field.^[21] Many concepts introduced by Zelizer in this book，such as interpretive community and journalistic authority，have been widely used since then.The cultural school represented by Zelizer mainly used culture，narrative and discursive community and other concepts to study journalism，emphasizing that the authority of journalists as “interpretive communities” is related to the sources of narratives in culture，symbols，internal and external occupational space.^[22] Therefore，researchers should search for the foundation of journalistic authority from journalists ’ discursive practices，which not only refer to the narration of news events，that is，how to present the news story，but also include the narration of their journalistic practice activities.^[23]

In terms of previous studies，many studies have taken the discourse of journalists as research object and material.In addition to interpretive community and journalistic authority，scholars have subsequently introduced more concepts and theories，such as boundary work，cognitive authority，legitimacy，professional jurisdiction，field，discourse institutionalism，etc.，to conduct empirical research on specific cases.Meanwhile，a small number of researchers began to develop the theory of this research paradigm based on empirical research.Schudson and Anderson introduced the concept of jurisdiction in sociology into journalism research，and examined the jurisdiction competition among different participants in the journalistic field.^[24] By analyzing the metaphors that are frequently used by journalists，Gravengaad discussed journalists ’self-understanding and their conceptualization of journalism work.^[25] Hanitzsh and Vos established a process model to analyze journalistic roles.They regarded journalism as a discourse system，where different participants，such as journalists，organizations and institutions，negotiate the discursive power in the discursive field，and journalistic roles are formed through different mechanisms in the negotiation process.^[26] Breese introduced cultural sociology into the analysis of journalistic discourse，explored the root cause of journalistic crisis in the United States，which he believed that it was not only the collapse at business level，but also the pre-warning of problems in the meaning system of journalism.^[27] Vos and Thomas adopted the theoretical framework of discourse institutionalism to discuss the discursive construction of journalistic authority by American journalists in a post-truth age.^[28]

The studies on journalistic authority basically discussed the position of journalism in the society.Most of the previous studies discussed journalistic professionalism: Some researchers argued that the importance of journalism is self-evident，so they did not pay attention to whether the journalistic profession produces authoritative knowledge or possesses professionalism，but focused on measuring the professional status of journalism through questionnaire survey；and other researchers were committed to exploring the nature or characteristics of news knowledge through long-term ethnographic research in the press room.The knowledge that is hidden in the background also needs to be made public to consolidate its exclusive position.The research from discursive perspective focused on the knowledge claim，discursive construction and discursive strategy of journalistic authority.^[29] However，fundamentally speaking，most of the researchers still treated journalistic occupational discourse as a kind of research material，and explored other research issues based on the analysis of discourse，without taking occupational discourse itself as a research object worth discussing.It seems that there is little difference between taking it as the research material and taking it as the research object，but it reflects researchers ’ emphasis on occupational discourse.Based on the previous experience and research，Carlson put forward a theory of metajoumalistic discourse，which conceptualized metajoumalistic discourse as a tool to construct or challenge the legitimacy of journalistic practices，journalistic standards and news organizations.^[30] Based on previous empirical research，this paper is designed to think about the concept of journalistic occupational discourse，and propose a feasible theoretical framework for the research methods that can define，classify and explore this concept in the Chinese context.

The Proposal of Journalistic Occupational Discourse

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.

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.

Research on the Journalistic Occupational Discourse in the Chinese Context

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.

Conclusion

The Internet provides a new platform for journal practitioners to discuss occupational discourse，and enables occupational discourse，which was hidden behind the scenes，to enter the “foreground” and trigger many new types of occupational discourses，greatly enriching the field of occupational discussion.Journalistic occupational discourse is not only a widespread industry reality，but also poses challenges to the existing research approaches.This study aims to combine journalism research with the leading-edge results of professional sociological research，put forward the research approaches of journalistic occupational discourse，and use relevant theoretical resources to reveal the contradictions，problems and relations of journalism in China，which are reflected by journalistic occupational discourse.Through this new analytical paradigm，it interprets the theoretical meaning of the construction and use of occupational discourse.

By investigating journalistic occupational discourse，this paper attempts to discuss how journalism in China constructs its own journalistic authority and legitimacy under the new media environment.This research approach is proposed based on the following three realities: Firstly，under the influence of constantly updated new media technologies，the ecological environment of journalism has changed dramatically，the transparency of journalism and participation rate have increased，and threats or challenges from inside and outside the industry have emerged frequently.Journalistic practitioners must face up to and cope with these challenges.Secondly，in the rapidly changing new media environment，journalism itself is also changing constantly.The main subject，time and space of news production are undergoing tremendous changes.Journalistic expertise is constructed through various journalistic practices and narratives，which are the basis for establishing journalistic authority.Thirdly，journalistic practitioners try to establish a relationship between their daily news work and the requirements for journalistic expertise，especially in the face of challenges from inside and outside the industry，which is a long-term and dynamic process to build an appropriate journalistic boundary through continuous internal reflection and self-examination.

The emergence and wide application of the Internet and other new media have led to great changes in the ecological environment of journalism.The characteristics of this study lie in that: Journalism practitioners are regarded as the main players with the ability of active construction，so as to investigate the logic and influence of their discursive practices；in particular，it focuses on the new phenomena and new issues in the current society，and conducts typical case studies.It should be noted that the journalistic occupational discourse is jointly constructed by the interaction between journalistic practitioners and other social entities under the new media environment.It will also change with the change of various power relations in the social context of China，and will constantly be in a dynamic negotiation process.Therefore，the interpretation of journalistic occupational discourse can provide an approach for us to understand the development of journalism as a profession in China in the new media environment，as well as its interaction with other power subjects.

【注释】

[1]A.D.Abbott ，The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor，Chicago:University of Chicago Press，1988.

[2]C.W.Anderson，“Journalism: Expertise，Authority and Power in Democratic Life”，in Hesmondhalgh，D.& Toynbee，J.，eds.，The Media and Social Theory，London: Routledge，2008，pp.248-264.

[3]C.W.Anderson，“Journalism: Expertise，Authority and Power in Democratic Life”，in Hesmondhalgh，D.& Toynbee，J.，eds.，The Media and Social Theory，London: Routledge，2008，pp.248-264.

[4]C.W.Anderson，“Journalism: Expertise，Authority and Power in Democratic Life”，in Hesmondhalgh，D.& Toynbee，J.，eds.，The Media and Social Theory，London: Routledge，2008，pp.248-264.

[5]C.W.Anderson，“Journalism: Expertise，Authority and Power in Democratic Life”，in Hesmondhalgh，D.& Toynbee，J.，eds.，The Media and Social Theory，London: Routledge，2008，pp.248-264.

[6]C.W.Anderson，“Journalism: Expertise，Authority and Power in Democratic Life”，in Hesmondhalgh，D.& Toynbee，J.，eds.，The Media and Social Theory，London: Routledge，2008，pp.248-264.

[7]C.W.Anderson，“Journalism: Expertise，Authority and Power in Democratic Life”，in Hesmondhalgh，D.& Toynbee，J.，eds.，The Media and Social Theory，London: Routledge，2008，pp.248-264.

[8]C.W.Anderson，“Journalism: Expertise，Authority and Power in Democratic Life”，in Hesmondhalgh，D.& Toynbee，J.，eds.，The Media and Social Theory，London: Routledge，2008，pp.248-264.

[9]C.W.Anderson，“Journalism: Expertise，Authority and Power in Democratic Life”，in Hesmondhalgh，D.& Toynbee，J.，eds.，The Media and Social Theory，London: Routledge，2008，pp.248-264.

[10]C.W.Anderson，“News Ecosystems”，in Witschge，T.，Anderson，C.W.，Domingo，D.&Hermida，A.，eds.，The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism，New York: Sage，2016，pp.410-423.

[11]Bai Hongyi，“‘See You at the Next Crossroad’： Study on the Farewell Discourse of Chinese Journalists Leaving Their Posts” ［In Chinese］，Qiang Ying and Jiao Yuhong，eds.，Annual Report on Media Development of Shanghai （2015），Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press，2015，pp.280-291.

[12]Bai Hongyi，“Crisis and Adjustment of Journalistic Paradigm: Based on the Discussion of Ji Xuguang ’s Exposure of Corruption via Weibo” ［In Chinese］，Modern Communication，No.6，2015.

[13]Bai Hongyi，“Journalistic Authority，Occupational Idols and the Construction of Collective Memory: Study on Memorial Discourse of Jiang Yiping ’s Retirement” ［In Chinese］，Chinese Journal of International & Communication，No.6，2014.

[14]Bai Hongyi，“Journalists as Interpretive Memory Communities: Study of the Oral History of Nanfang Metropolis Daily” ［In Chinese］，Chinese Journal of International & Communication，No.12，2015.

[15]Bai Hongyi，“Vanishing Newspaper ’： Study of Meta Journalistic Discourse Based on the Termination of Two Printed Newspapers” ［In Chinese］，The Journalist Monthly，No.4，2017.

[16]Bai Hongyi，Li Tuo，“The “Legitimized” Discourse of Crisis Response Strategies in Journalism: An Exploratory Study Based on China ’s Media Manifesto” ［In Chinese］，Journalism Quarterly，No.6，2017.

[17]Bai Hongyi，Research on the Innovative Discourse of China ’s Journalism: The Case Study of the Founding Manifesto of 19 News Clients，Qiang Ying and Jiao Yuhong eds.，Annual Report on Media Development of Shanghai （2018） ［In Chinese］，Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press，2018.

[18]Ⅴ.Belair-Gagnon & A.E.Holton，“Boundary Work，Interloper Media，and Analytics in Press Room，and Analytics in Newsrooms”，Digital Journalism，Vol.6，No.4，2018，pp.492-508.

[19]G.Berger，，“A Paradigm in Process: What the Scapegoating of Vusi Mona Signalled about South African Journalism”，Communicatio，Vol.34，No.1，2008，pp.1-20.

[20]D.Berkowitz & R.Gutsche，“Drawing Lines in the Journalistic Sand: Jon Stewart，Edward R.Murrow and Memory of News Gone by”，Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly，Vol.89，No.4，2012，pp.643-656.

[21]D.Berkowitz & Liu Z.M.，“Media Errors and the ‘Nutty Professor’： Riding the Journalistic Boundaries of the Sandy Hook shootings”，Journalism，Vol.17，No.2，2016，pp.155-172.

[22]D.Berkowitz & D.A.Schwartz，“Miley，CNN and The Onion: When Fake News Becomes Realer Than Real”，Journalism Practice，Vol.10，No.1，2016，pp.1-17.

[23]D.Berkowitz & J.V.TerKeurst，“Community as Interpretive Community: Rethinking the Journalist-Source Relationship”，Journal of Communication，Vol.69，No.3，1999，pp.125-136.

[24]D.A.Berkowitz & Liu Z.，“Studying News Production: From Process to Meanings”，in C.Paterson，D.Lee，A.Saha & A.Zoellner，eds.，Advancing Media Production Research，New York:Palgrave Macmillan，2016，pp.68-78.

[25]D.A.Berkowitz & Liu Z.，“The Social-Cultural Construction of News”，in Fortner，R.S.&Fackler，P.M.，eds.，The Handbook of Media and Mass Communication Theory，John Wiley & Sons，2014，pp.301-313.

[26]D.A.Berkowitz，Ed.，Cultural Meanings of News: A Text-reader，Thousand Oaks，CA: Sage，2010.

[27]R.Bishop，“From Behind the Walls: Boundary Work by News Organizations in Their Coverage of Princess Diana ’s death”，Journal of Communication Inquiry，Vol.23，No.1，1999，pp.90-112.

[28]R.Bishop，“From Behind the Walls: Boundary Work by News Organizations in their Coverage of Princess Diana ’s Death”，Journal of Communication Inquiry，Vol.23，No.1，1999，pp.90-112；D.Berkowitz，“Doing Double Duty Paradigm Repair and the Princess Diana Whata-story”，Journalism，Vol.1，No.2，2000，pp.125-143；E.B.Hindman ，“The Princess and the Paparazzi: Blame，Responsibility，and the Media ’s Role in the Death of Diana”，Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly，Vol.80，No.3，2003，pp.666-688.

[29]E.B.Breese，Interpreting the News: A Cultural Sociology of Journalistic Discourses in the United States，Ph.D.Dissertation，New Haven: Yale University，2012.

[30]M.Brüggemann & S.Engesser，“Between Consensus and Denial: Climate Journalists as Interpretive Community”，Science Communication，Vol.36，No.4，2014，pp.399-427.

[31]M.Buozis，S.Rooney & B.Creech，“Journalism ’s Institutional Discourses in the Pre-Internet Era: Industry Threats and Persistent Nostalgia at the American Society of Newspaper Editors”，Journalism，2018，DOI: 10.1177 /1464884918765300.

[32]M.Carlson，& D.Berkowitz，“‘The Emperor Lost His Clothes’： Rupert Murdoch，News of the World and Journalistic Boundary Work in the UK and USA”，Journalism，Vol.15，No.4，2014，pp.389-406.

[33]M.Carlson & D.Berkowitz，“The Late News: Memory Work as Boundary Work in the Commemoration of Television Journalists”，in B.Zelizer & K.Tenenboim-Weinblatt，eds.，Journalism and Memory，New York: Palgrave Macmillan，2014，pp.195-210.

[34]M.Carlson & D.Berkowitz，“The Late News: Memory Work as Boundary Work in the Commemoration of Television Journalists”，in B.Zelizer & K.Tenenboim-Weinblatt，eds.，Journalism and Memory，New York: Palgrave Macmillan，2014，pp.195-210.

[35]M.Carlson & N.Usher，“News Startups as Agents of Innovation: For-profit Digital News Startup Manifestos as Metajournalistic Discourse”，Digital Journalism，Vol.4，No.5，2016，pp.563-581.

[36]M.Carlson，“‘Where Once Stood Titans’： Second-order Paradigm Repair and the Vanishing US Newspaper”，Journalism，Vol.13，No.3，2012，pp.267-283.

[37]M.Carlson，“Facebook in the News: Social media，Journalism，and Public Responsibility Following the 2016 Trending Topics Controversy”，Digital Journalism，Vol.6，No.1，2018，pp.4-20.

[38]M.Carlson，“Gone，But not Forgotten: Memories of Journalistic Deviance as Metajournalistic Discourse”，Journalism Studies，Vol.15，No.1，2014，pp.33-47.

[39]M.Carlson，“Keeping Watch on the Gates: Media Criticism as Advocatory Pressure”，in Vos，T.& Heinderyckx，F.eds.，Gatekeeping in Transition，New York: Routledge，2015，pp.163-179.

[40]M.Carlson ，“Making Memories Matter: Journalistic Authority and the Memorializing Discourse around Mary McGrory and David Brinkley”，Journalism，Vol.8，No.2，2007，pp.165-183.

[41]M.Carlson ，“Making Memories Matter: Journalistic Authority and the Memorializing Discourse around Mary McGrory and David Brinkley”，Journalism，Vol.8，No.2，2007，pp.165-183.

[42]M.Carlson ，“Media Criticism as Competitive Discourse: Defining Reportage of the Abu Ghraib Scandal”，Journal of Communication Inquiry，Vol.33，No.3，2009，pp.258 -277.

[43]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[44]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[45]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[46]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[47]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[48]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[49]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[50]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[51]M.Carlson ，“Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control，Boundary Work，and Legitimation”，Communication Theory，Vol.26，No.4，2016，pp.349-368.

[52]M.Carlson ，“The Robotic Reporter: Automated Journalism and the Redefinition of Labor，Compositional Forms，and Journalistic Authority”，Digital Journalism，Vol.3，No.3，pp.416-431.

[53]M.Carlson，“Where Once Stood Titans: Second-Order Paradigm Repair and the Vanishing U.S.Newspaper”，Journalism，Vol.13，No.3，2012，pp.267-283.

[54]M.Carlson，“Where Once Stood Titans: Second-Order Paradigm Repair and the Vanishing U.S.Newspaper”，Journalism，Vol.13，No.3，2012，pp.267-283.

[55]M.Carlson ，Journalistic Authority: Legitimating News in the Digital Era，New York: Columbia University Press，2017，p.13.

[56]M.Carlson，Journalistic Authority: Legitimating News in the Digital Era，New York: Columbia University Press，2017，p.183.

[57]M.Cecil，“Bad Apples: Paradigm Overhaul and the CNN/Time ‘Tailwind’ Story”，Journal of Communication Inquiry，Vol.26，No.1，2002，pp.46-58.

[58]K.Chadha & Koliska，M.，“Re-Legitimizing the Institution of Journalism: The Indian News Media ’s Response to the ‘Radia Tapes’ Scandal”，Journalism Studies，Vol.17，No.2，2016，pp.199-215.

[59]Chen Chujie，“‘There Used to Be a Reporter，But Later He Started His Own Business’—Media Entrepreneurship Narrative and Construction of Entrepreneur Identity” ［In Chinese］，The Journalist Monthly，No.3，2018.

[60]Chen Chujie，“Meanings，Journalistic Authority and Cultural Structure—A Cultural-social Approach to Journalism Research” ［In Chinese］，The Journalist Monthly，No.8，2018.

[61]Chen Chujie，“The Three-fold Media Commemorative Narratives of Yang Weiguang:Boundary Work，Professional Nostalgia，and Cultural Authority” ［In Chinese］，Chinese Journal of International & Communication，No.12，2015.

[62]Chen Chujie，Yuan Mengqian，“The Competition of Social Media，Occupational ‘Non-Journalists’ and ‘Journalists’ over Cultural Authority — The Case Study of Disputes Caused by Ji Xuguang ’s Exposure of Corruption via Weibo” ［In Chinese］，Journalism Quarterly，No.5，2015.

[63]Chen Min，Liu Yuqi，“Pursuit of Freedom”： The Construction of Discourse in Chinese Commentator Community in the Age of Social Media” ［In Chinese］，Chinese Journal of International& Communication，No.2，2017.

[64]Chen Min，Zhang Xiaochun，“Farewell to the Golden Age: An Analysis of the Content of 52 Traditional Media People ’s Notice” ［In Chinese］，The Journal Monthly，No.2，2016.

[65]M.Coddington，“Defending a Paradigm by Patrolling a Boundary: Two Global Newspapers ’Approach to WikiLeaks”，Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly，Vol.89，No.3，2012，pp.377-396.

[66]M.Coddington，“Defending a Paradigm by Patrolling a Boundary: Two Global Newspapers ’Approach to WikiLeaks”，Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly，Vol.89，No.3，2012，pp.377-396.

[67]B.Creech & S.Rooney，“‘Death of The New Republic’： Discursive Conflict between Tech Industry Management and Journalism ’s Cultural value”，Journalism Studies，Vol.18，No.11，2017，pp.1363-1380.

[68]R.Davidson，“Two Sides of the Same Coin: The Role of Boundary Work and Isomorphism in the Emergence of Financial Journalism in Israel”，Journalism Studies，Vol.14，No.3，2013，pp.440-455.

[69]Deng Li，“Argumentative Journalists and the Public Ethics — Discussion on the Report of Missing Malaysia Airlines Plane from the Perspective of Public Accountability News Ethics” ［In Chinese］，The Journalist Monthly，No.9，2016.

[70]Dong D.，“Legitimating Journalistic Authority under the State ’s Shadow: A Case Study of the Environmental Press Awards in China”，Chinese Journal of Communication，Vol.6，No.4，2013，pp.39-418.

[71]S.Eldridge Ⅱ，“Hero or Anti-Hero？ Narratives of Newswork and Journalistic Identity Construction in Complex Digital Megastories”，Digital Journalism，Vol.5，No.2，2017，pp.141-158.

[72]E.Fakazis，“Janet Malcolm: Constructing Boundaries of Journalism”，Journalism，Vol.7，No.1，2006，pp.5-24.

[73]S.E.Fish，Is There a Text in This Class: The Authority of Interpretive Communities，Cambridge:Harvard University Press，1980.

[74]T.F.Gieryn，“Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists”，American Sociological Review，Vol.48，No.6，1983，pp.781-795.

[75]G.Gravengaard，The Metaphors Journalists Live by: Journalists ’ Conceptualisation of Newswork”，Journalism，Vol.13，No.8，2012，pp.1064-1082.

[76]L.Graves，“Boundaries Not Drawn”，Journalism Studies，Vol.19，No.5，2018，pp.613-631.

[77]R.E.Gutsche Jr，C.Naranjo & L.Martínez-Bustos，“‘Now We Can Talk’： The Role of Culture in Journalistic Boundary Work During the Boycott of Puerto Rico ’s La Comay”，Journalism Practice，Vol.9，No.3，2015，pp.298-313.

[78]T.Hanitzsch，& T.P.Vos，，“Journalistic Roles and the Struggle over Institutional Identity:The Discursive Constitution of Journalism”，Communication Theory，Vol.27，No.2，2017，pp.115-135.

[79]E.B.Hindman，& R.J.Thomas，“Journalism ’s ‘Crazy Old Aunt’ Helen Thomas and Paradigm Repair”，Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly，Vol.90，No.2，2013，pp.267-286.

[80]E.B.Hindman，“Jayson Blair，The New York Times，and Paradigm Repair”，Journal of Communication，Vol.55，No.2，2005，pp.225-241.

[81]Hong Changhui，“Community Differentiation — The ‘Chen Yongzhou Incident’ from the Perspective of Journalistic Professionalism” ［In Chinese］，Press Circles，No.12，2014.

[82]W.Lance，L.A.Gressett & W.Haltom，“Repairing the News: A Case Study of the News Paradigm”，Journal of Communication，Vol.35，No.2，1985，pp.50-68.

[83]S.C.Lewis，“The Tension between Professional Control and Open Participation: Journalism and its Boundaries”，Information，Communication & Society，Vol.15，No.6，2012，pp.836-866.

[84]S.C.Lewis，“The Tension between Professional Control and Open Participation: Journalism and its Boundaries”，Information，Communication & Society，Vol.15，No.6，2012，pp.836-866.

[85]Li Hongtao，“Lighting up the Good Old Days: Journalistic Nostalgia and the Myth of ‘Golden Age’” ［In Chinese］，Chinese Journal of International & Communication，No.5，2016.

[86]Li Hongtao，Huang Shunming，“Rebuilding Traditions and Reshaping Role Models:Historical Writing and Collective Memory in the Journalists ’ Day Discourse” ［In Chinese］，Chinese Journal of International & Communication，No.12，2015.

[87]Li Hongtao，Huang Shunming，“Seeking Ways and Food: Nanfang Media Research and Practical Journalistic Professionalism” ［In Chinese］，Contemporary Communications，No.4，2014.

[88]Li Hongtao，Huang Shunming，“Seeking Ways and Food: Nanfang Media Research and Practical Journalistic Professionalism” ［In Chinese］，Contemporary Communications，No.4，2014.

[89]Li Hongtao，Huang Shunming，“Seeking Ways and Food: Nanfang Media Research and Practical Journalistic Professionalism” ［In Chinese］，Contemporary Communications，No.4，2014.

[90]Li Lifeng，“Paradigm Defining Events and the Logic of Routinization: The Case of Hong Kong Newspapers ’ Coverage of Youtube Video Clips” ［In Chinese］，Communication & Society，Hong Kong，No.9，2009.

[91]Li Yanhong，Chen Peng，“Integration of ‘Commercialism’ and Departure of ‘Professionalism’：he Discourse Formation and Its Role in the Transformation of China ’s Journalism in the Context of Digitalization” ［In Chinese］，Chinese Journal of International & Communication，No.9，2016.

[92]Li Yanhong，Gong Yanfang，“Journalistic Professionalism as Reflective Practice — The Case Study of Deng Yujiao Incident Coverage” ［In Chinese］，The Journalist Monthly，No.7，2014.

[93]Lin G.，How Journalists Use Blogs: The Impact of Blogs on the Development of Journalistic Professionalism in China，Ph.D.Dissertation，Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong，2010.

[94]Liu S.，& M.Emirbayer ，“Field and Ecology”，Sociological Theory，Vol.34，No.1，2016，pp.62-79.

[95]Lu Ye and Pan Zhongdang，“Imagining Professional Fame: Constructing Journalistic Professionalism in Social Transformation” ［In Chinese］，Mass Communication Research，Taiwan，No.71，2002.

[96]Lu Ye，Zhou Ruiming，“The ‘Liquid’ Journalism: Rethinking the New Forms of Communication and Journalistic Professionalism — The Case Study of the Report of ThePaper.cn on the ‘Oriental Star’ Yangtze River Shipwreck Accident” ［In Chinese］，Journalism & Communication，No.7，2016.

[97]J.D.Maeyer & A.E.Holton，“Why Linking Matters: A Metajournalistic Discourse Analysis”，Journalism，Vol.17，No.6，2016，pp.776-794.

[98]K.Meltzer & E.Martik，“Journalists as Communities of Practice: Advancing a Theoretical Framework for Understanding Journalism”，Journal of Communication Inquiry，Vol.41，No.3，2017，pp.207-226.

[99]O.Meyers，“Expanding the Scope of Paradigmatic Research in Journalism Studies: The Case of Early Mainstream Israeli Journalism and Its Discontents”，Journalism，Vol.12，No.3，2011，pp.261-278.

[100]O.Meyers，“Memory in Journalism and the Memory of Journalism: Israeli Journalists and the Constructed Legacy of Haolam Hazeh”，Journal of Communication，Vol.57，No.4，2007，pp.719-738.

[101]O.Meyers，“Memory in Journalism and the Memory of Journalism: Israeli Journalists and the Constructed Legacy of Haolam Hazeh”，Journal of Communication，Vol.57，No.4，2007，pp.719-738.

[102]O.Meyers，Israeli Journalism as an Interpretive Memory Community: The Case Study of Haolam Hazeh，Ph.D.Dissertation，Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania，2003，p.13.

[103]O.Meyers，Israeli Journalism as an Interpretive Memory Community: The Case Study of Haolam Hazeh，Ph.D.Dissertation，Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania，2003，p.13.

[104]O.Meyers，Israeli Journalism as an Interpretive Memory Community: The Case Study of Haolam Hazeh，Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation of University of Pennsylvania，2003.

[105]M.Mirer，“‘I Did What I Do’ Versus” ‘I Cover Football’： Boundary Work，In-house Media and Athlete Protest”，Journalism Practice，Vol.12，No.3，2018，pp.251-267.

[106]R.R.Mourao，“The Boys on the Timeline: Political Journalists ’ Use of Twitter for Building Interpretive Communities”，Journalism，Vol.16，No.8，2015，pp.1107-1123.

[107]A.Nadler ，“Nature ’s Economy and News Ecology”，Journalism Studies，2018，DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.

[108]Pan Zhongdang，Chen Taowen，“Journalistic Paradigm Shift in Chinas Media Reforms:Evidence from Media Exemplar Evaluations” ［In Chinese］，Mass Communication Research，Taiwan，No.78，2004.

[109]G.P.Perreault & T.P.Vos，“The GamerGate Controversy and Journalistic Paradigm Maintenance”，Journalism，Vol.19，No.4，2018，pp.553-569.

[110]S.D.Reese，“The News Paradigm and the Ideology of Objectivity: A Socialist at the Wall Street Journal”，Critical Studies in Media Communication，Vol.7，No.4，1990，pp.390-409.

[111]S.D.Reese，“The News Paradigm and the Ideology of Objectivity: A Socialist at the Wall Street Journal”，Critical Studies in Media Communication，Vol.7，No.4，1990，pp.390-409.

[112]S.D.Reese，“The New Geography of Journalism Research”，Digital Journalism，Vol.4，No.7，2016，pp.816-826.

[113]S.D.Reese，“The New Geography of Journalism Research”，Digital Journalism，Vol.4，No.7，2016，pp.816-826.

[114]S.Robinson & C.DeShano，“‘Anyone Can Know’： Citizen Journalism and the Interpretive Community of the Mainstream Press”，Journalism，Vol.12，No.8，2011，pp.963-982.

[115]S.Robinson，“Traditionalists vs.Convergers: Textual Privilege，Boundary Work，and the Journalist-Audience Relationship in the Commenting Policies of Online News Sites”，Convergence，Vol.16，No.1，2010，pp.125-143.

[116]T.E.Ruggiero ，“Paradigm Repair and Changing Journalistic Perceptions of the Internet as an Objective News Source”，Convergence，Vol.10，No.4，2004，pp.92-106.

[117]M.Schudson & C.W.Anderson ，“Objectivity，Professionalism and Truth Seeking in Journalism”，in K.Wahl-Jorgensen & T.Hanitzsch，eds.，The Handbook of Journalism Studies，New York: Routledge，2009，pp.88-101.

[118]M.Schudson & C.W.Anderson ，“Objectivity，Professionalism and Truth Seeking in Journalism”，in K.Wahl-Jorgensen & T.Hanitzsch，eds.，The Handbook of Journalism Studies，New York: Routledge，2009，pp.88-101.

[119]M.Schudson ，“Four Approaches to the Sociology of News”，in Curran，J.& Gurevitch，M.eds.，Mass Media and Society，London: Arnold，2005，pp.171-197.

[120]M.Schudson，“The Sociology of News Production”，Media，Culture & Society，Vol.11，No.3，1989，pp.263-282.

[121]P.Starr，The Social Transformation of American Medicine.New York: Basic Books，1982.

[122]L.Steiner，Guo J.，R.McCaffrey & P.Hills，“The Wire and Repair of the Journalistic Paradigm”，Journalism，Vol.14，No.6，2013，pp.703-720.

[123]E.C.Tandoc Jr & J.Jenkins，，“Out of Bounds？ How Gawker ’s Outing a Married Man Fits into the Boundaries of Journalism”，New Media & Society，Vol.20，No.2，2018，pp.581-598.

[124]E.C.Tandoc Jr，“Five Ways BuzzFeed is Preserving （or Transforming） the Journalistic Field”，Journalism，Vol.19，No.2，2018，pp.200-216.

[125]Tao Wenjing，“Alliance，Reorganization，and Adhering to Democratic Functions: Professional Construction and Transformation in the Research on Digital News Startups in Europe and the United States” ［In Chinese］，The Journalist Monthly，2017，Vol.9.

[126]Tong Jingrong，“Media 2.0 Era: Discourse on Chinese Journalism” ［In Chinese］，Luo Shihong，Tong Jingrong，eds.，Social Media and Journalism，Quality News Development Association in Taipei，2014，pp.106-107.

[127]Tong Jingrong，“Media 2.0 Era: Discourse on Chinese Journalism” ［In Chinese］，Luo Shihong，Tong Jingrong，eds.，Social Media and Journalism，Quality News Development Association in Taipei，2014，pp.106-107.

[128]Tong Jingrong，“Social Discourse of Journalistic Professionalism in the Chinese Context” ［In Chinese］，Communication & Society，Hong Kong，No.1，2006.

[129]Tong Jingrong，“Social Discourse of Journalistic Professionalism in the Chinese Context” ［In Chinese］，Communication & Society，Hong Kong，No.1，2006.

[130]Tong J.，“Journalistic Legitimacy Revisited: Collapse or Revival in the Digital Age？” Digital Journalism，Vol.6，No.2，2018，pp.256-273.

[131]Tong J.，“The Defence of Journalistic Legitimacy in Media Discourse in China: An Analysis of the Case of Deng Yujiao”，Journalism，Vol.16，No.3，2015，pp.429-446.

[132]T.Von Krogh & G.Svensson，“Media Responses to Media Criticism.An Analysis of Response Practices in the Weekly Swedish Podcast MattssonHelin”，Nordicom Review，Vol.38，No.1，2017，pp.47-64.

[133]T.P.Vos & Ryan J.Thomas，“The Discursive Construction of Journalistic Authority in a Post-truth Age”，Journalism Studies，2018，DOH 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1492879.

[134]Wang Haiyan，“Journalists as Alternative Interpretive Community: An Ethnographic Study of an Extra-organizational Journalist Space in China” ［In Chinese］，Communication，Culture &Politics，Taiwan，No.2，2015.

[135]H.Wasserman，“Tackles and Sidesteps: Normative Maintenance and Paradigm Repair in Mainstream Reactions to South African Tabloid Journalism”，Communicare，Vol.25，No.1，2006，pp.59-80.

[136]S.P.Winch，Mapping the Cultural Space of Journalism: How Journalists Distinguish News from Entertainment，Westport，CT: Praeger，1997，p.4.

[137]S.P.Winch，Mapping the Cultural Space of Journalism: How Journalists Distinguish News from Entertainment，Westport，CT: Praeger，1997，p.4.

[138]B.Zelizer，“Achieving Journalistic Authority Through Narrative”，Critical Studies in Media Communication，Vol.7，No.4，1990，pp.366-376.

[139]B.Zelizer，“Achieving Journalistic Authority Through Narrative”，Critical Studies in Media Communication，Vol.7，No.4，1990，pp.366-376.

[140]B.Zelizer，“Journalists as Interpretive Communities，Revisited”，in A.Stuart，ed.，The Routledge Companion to News and Journalism Studies，New York: Routledge，2009，pp.181-190.

[141]B.Zelizer，“Journalists as Interpretive Communities”，Critical Studies in Media Communication，Vol.10，No.3，1993，pp.219-237.

[142]B.Zelizer，“Journalists as Interpretive Communities”，Critical Studies in Media Communication，Vol.10，No.3，1993，pp.219-237.

[143]B.Zelizer，“Journalists as Interpretive Communities”，Critical Studies in Media Communication，Vol.10，No.3，1993，pp.219-237.

[144]B.Zelizer，“When facts，Truth，and Reality Are God-terms: on Journalism ’s Uneasy Place in Cultural Studies”，Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies，Vol.1，No.1，2004，pp.100-119.

[145]B.Zelizer，Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination，the Media，and the Shaping of Collective Memory，Chicago: University of Chicago Press，1992.

[146]B.Zelizer，Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination，the Media，and the Shaping of Collective Memory，Chicago: University of Chicago Press，1992.

[147]B.Zelizer，Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination，the Media，and the Shaping of Collective Memory，Chicago: University of Chicago Press，1992.

[148]B.Zelizer，Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination，the Media，and the Shaping of Collective Memory，Chicago: University of Chicago Press，1992.

[149]B.Zelizer，Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination，the Media，and the Shaping of Collective Memory，Chicago: University of Chicago Press，1992.

[150]B.Zelizer，Taking Journalism Seriously: News and the Academy，Thousand Oaks，CA: Sage，2004，p.16.

[151]Zhang Zhian，Gan Chen，“Interpretative Community as a Double Storyteller of Social History and Journalism History — Research on the Collective Memory of the Chinese Press Circles on Sun Zhigang Incident” ［In Chinese］，Journalism & Communication，No.1，2014.

[152]Zhang Zhian，Zhang Zhen，“Discourse Construction of Journalism Occupational Authority in the Context of Media Integration” ［In Chinese］，Modern Communication，No.1，2017.

[153]Zhou Baohua，“From Backstage to Frontstage: The Visualization of Journalism in the New Media Environment” ［In Chinese］，Communication & Society，Hong Kong，No.25，2013.