There is no consensus definition of journalism, at least in part by design. Thirty years ago, examining a definition did not seem necessary. People could rely on obvious physical traits: the broadsheet newspaper and the 30-minute newscast, for example, which were almost exclusively produced by professional and institutional outlets. 

But as the media universe expands, it has become harder to easily differentiate journalism from other content. Social media feeds have largely standardized the way external links look and feel, and the wide availability of high-quality web templates has also blurred once-reliable visual cues. Furthermore, many more people are now involved in the process of getting informed by posting eye-witness accounts, sharing news stories digitally and offering commentary and analysis about the day’s events. At the same time, governments are increasingly defining journalism in policy, both in actions to support journalism and to suppress it. These shifts have made it more important to consider definitions of journalism.

CNTI has been exploring the changing definition of journalism through the Defining News Initiative which includes surveys and focus groups with the public, policy analyses and now this survey of journalists. 

In this lens on how journalists themselves feel about their role in society, respondents mainly focus on the civic function of journalism — its power to support informed participation in public life — and the importance of broad circulation and distribution. But, nearly half of them (45%) think the field is not communicating that value well to the public, and a similar number (51%) think the public cannot identify what journalism is and what it is not. The traits journalists associate with their job — ethical standards, approaching things analytically, and working hard — clearly support the civic function of news. There are some differences by region. While those in the Global North are more likely to say non-journalists can produce journalism, most of the respondents find the public an important source for their work.

Journalists see a lot of value in their field

We asked journalists to define journalism in just a few words. Of the 323 codeable answers in English, Spanish, French, Ukrainian, German, and Arabic,¹ 223 (69%) focus on the professional practice of journalism and 181 (56%) focus on the social function of journalism. These numbers add up to more than 100% because 88 responses (27%) address both. An additional nine responses mention other traits, including six that emphasize downsides of practicing journalism, like poor pay or high levels of risk.

Overall, journalists are most concerned with the civic function of journalism, under the theme of social function (i.e., its power to support informed participation in public life) and the importance of broad circulation and distribution, under the theme of professional practice. More than 75% of responses include at least one of these two concepts. Journalists also emphasize the importance of reliable facts (28%) and the process of newsgathering (25%) as defining professional norms.

Journalists define journalism in terms of both professional practices and social functions

Note: We coded a total of 323 responses, and answers were not mutually exclusive, so percentages add up to more than 100%.

Professional practice

The 223 responses about the professional practice of journalism are varied. At least 142 responses address distribution. A typical answer in this category “Journalism is the practice of disseminating timely and accurate information to the public,” highlights journalism as a process and profession dedicated to communicating, disseminating and reporting.

The next most common response is that journalism is factual (at least 91 responses), followed closely by newsgathering (81). 

Newsgathering and distribution often co-occur in responses. One person writes, for example, “Journalism is a profession of gathering, processing and disseminating information through various mediums.”

At least 50 answers refer to verification, such as “The art of providing verified information to the citizens so they can be well-informed — and make well-informed decisions.” This concept frequently co-occurs with the norm that journalism must be factual. A typical response that includes both: “Collecting information, verifying it and bringing it to the attention of the public” (recueillir l’information, la vérifier et la porter à la connaissance du public). 

Objectivity is a feature of at least 25 answers. As one person writes, journalism means “to make information of interest available to the public in a truthful and objective manner” (dar a conocer al público información de interés de manera veraz y objetiva).

Social function

The majority of responses about the social function of journalism focus on two of the six major roles of journalism outlined by the Journalistic Role Performance project: the civic and watchdog roles. At least 156 responses include the civic role. Many of these comments use language like “informing the public.” Meanwhile, at least 39 responses include the watchdog role. These two roles are highly compatible with one another, and many responses combine elements of both, such as the person who writes, “In pursuit of what benefits and serves the public interest of citizens, condemns violations, and strives to achieve justice.”

Only a small number of responses point to the other roles. At least 15 include the interventionist role. Many of these responses focus on journalism’s ability to support development or offer solutions to social problems. The five we categorized under service point explicitly to journalism’s role in supporting decision-making beyond politics and government. All of these also refer to the civic function of journalism, such as the person who writes, “Giving people the information they need to make good decisions about their lives, their governments and their financial interests.”

Both the infotainment and loyal facilitator roles are roles that journalism sometimes plays in the world, but they are not necessarily compatible with the ideals of journalism. It is no surprise, then, that we do not see any responses that spoke to either. However, three responses that focus on the civic function of journalism also nod to “entertainment” as one of several functions that journalism could provide, like the person who writes that journalism is “Collecting, choosing, writing/speaking news for the audience, enable them to form an opinion or get entertained.”

Other considerations

At least six journalists who do not provide clear definitions focus instead on downsides of practicing journalism, including risk to practitioners and poor pay. As one person writes, “A nice exercise because it addresses the needs of the population, but one that is very risky at present.” (Un ejercicio bondadoso porque se suma a las causas de las necesidades de la población, pero de mucho riesgo en la actualidad.)

Nearly half of journalists think the industry is failing to communicate its value — which leads to public confusion

As the definitions above make clear, journalists see a lot of value in their field. But there is less consensus over how well they think the journalism industry is communicating that value. Only two-in-ten say the industry is doing a “very good” job communicating its value to the public while about three-in-ten say it’s doing a “fairly good” job and a similar number say “not so good.” Journalists in the Global North are much more negative than journalists in the Global South: just 2% of journalists in the Global North say the industry is doing a very good job, compared with 30% in the Global South. It is also important to note some stark national differences: journalists in Nigeria are much more positive than journalists elsewhere in the Global South. More than half of them say the industry is doing a “very good” job.

Just about half of journalists think the public cannot differentiate journalism from other kinds of news and information

Respondents are just about evenly split on whether they think the public can tell the difference between journalism and other kinds of news and information online: 49% say "yes" and 51% say "no." 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the journalists who think the industry is communicating its value well are also much more positive about the public's ability to distinguish journalism from other news and information. A strong majority (68-72%) of those who say the industry is doing a fairly good or very good job of communicating its value say that the public can distinguish these categories of information. Just 4% of those who say the industry is not doing a good job at all agree.

Journalists in the Global South are more likely to say the public can tell the difference between journalism and other forms of news: 55% of them agreed, compared with 40% in the Global North. And, looking at specific countries, journalists from the United States stand out as the most pessimistic. About one-in-four U.S. journalists surveyed thinks the public can distinguish journalism from other kinds of news and information. Meanwhile, half of Mexican and 70% of Nigerian journalists surveyed think the public can.² 

Journalists in the Global South are also much more positive about social media overall (see Technology & AI section). One potential reason for these views could be the vast development of alternative news sources in the digital space, alongside the rise of disinformation that intentionally mimics news media in form. 

CNTI's related report on the public's views of journalism offers some interesting areas of contrast. In that work, we find that publics in the Global South are less likely to draw a distinction between news and journalism. But here we see clearly that journalists in the Global South are more likely to say they do.

Professional training and institutions matter to journalists' self-conception

Despite the growing presence of and reliance on news influencers — most of whom are unaffiliated with news organizations — most journalists who took our survey think that being a journalist requires having a specific type of formal education, working for a news outlet, or both. More than eight-in-ten say that "formal education and training" is somewhat important or very important, and three out of four say the same about "working for a news organization." Indeed, over eight-in-ten journalists surveyed here work for news organizations. 

Journalists in the Global South feel more strongly about both education and working for a news outlet

Journalists in the Global South feel more strongly than those in the Global North that formal education and training are very important (75% versus 32%), with much of the difference driven by specific countries within each region. Journalists in Nigeria feel particularly strongly about formal education: 91% say it is "very important."

Similarly, 22% of journalists in the Global North say that working for a news organization is very important, and 51% of their Global South colleagues say the same. Journalists in Nigeria (67%) are more likely to say that it is very important, compared with journalists elsewhere in the Global South.