Reviews

David Machin and Sarah Niblock (2006) News Production: Theory and Practice

Abingdon, Routledge, ISBN 9780415371414. 208 pages. £16.99. Paperback.

As a freelance journalist pursuing a PhD analysing the discourse of magazines, I have often observed the gap that News Production urges the academy to plug - that between theories of news media and the beliefs and practices of journalists themselves. Though media products come under intense and frequent scrutiny, it is too often the case that understanding of journalism practice falls short. This is not to say that the (sometimes sinister) ideological inferences drawn by scholars are 'wrong', rather that they fail to appreciate the myriad factors at work. Sometimes a journalist has just ten minutes to write their copy, or a sub-editor has the rights to only one picture from many. Machin and Niblock's aim is to show us the journalist at her/his desk, and how this picture can make more relevant and robust our understanding of their work.

The first chapter begins by setting out the contextual factors affecting news production, tracing its historical development and establishing the political economy in which modern news media operate. This is something of a Journalism101 tour, if you like, which more seasoned readers may find unnecessary. It does, however, begin to demonstrate the potential for conflict between real-life and theory. And chapter two, a review of the key literature in the field, continues in this vein: asking questions that ought, according to the authors, to be answered by journalists as well as by their products. The review is divided into six sections, which form the basis of the six chapters that follow. Each of the chapters describes again, in greater detail, the relevant theories. Concerned that these theoretical accounts lack subtlety and either ignore, or want for the tools to examine, the complexities of individual processes, the authors consider these theories in light of ethnographic evidence gathered from various newsrooms and individuals.

The first of these chapters addresses news values. Citing Galtung and Ruge's (1965) seminal taxonomy, the authors suggest that the market-driven nature of today's news is not adequately addressed. The authors are not the first to question the continuing relevance of Galtung and Ruge's work (see Harcup and O'Neill 2001, for instance), but where others still analyse output against their own categories, Machin and Niblock ask working journalists to reflect on their choices and find that the selection and presentation of news stories is increasingly influenced not by values inherent to the story but by the fast-paced nature of the newsroom and target audience. Chapter four is also concerned with the marketisation of news media, and how this has affected newsgathering 'on the ground'. Journalists have been criticised for relying on official sources and 'ready-made' news events (see Fishman 1980), but interviews with journalists suggest that thanks to constant financial cutbacks, desk-based journalism has become an unwelcome necessity, not a choice.

Chapters five and six address in turn conflict and humanitarian reporting and it is in these areas that the authors stress most keenly the need for the insights of journalists. It is a little odd then that what the authors find from interviewing practitioners tells us little in fact to contradict academic accounts of sensationalist, voyeuristic, even propagandist reporting focused on action, fatalities and suffering, and good visuals. It does, however, reinforce the point that product-focused academic approaches fail to take into account the real and various whys and wherefores of journalistic practices: the journalists they talk to critically reflect on the standard conventions and personal attempts to negotiate a more honourable compromise.

In chapter seven the authors take issue with the narrow focus of much academic analysis of 'visual journalism'. In examining the re-branding of a large regional newspaper through the eyes of the sub-editor involved, Machin and Niblock attempt to show that the semiotic, ideological bent of academic work misses crucial practical motivations like aesthetics, time/space and convention. They call for the increased use of multi-modal techniques in order that analysts account for practitioner 'artistry'.

Having taken up a journalism career straight out of university, I found the final analytic chapter to be one of the most engaging. Looking at the socialisation of journalists - i.e., the processes by which the norms and expectations of news organisation become natural to their employees - the authors' interviews with two young writers suggest that conventional theory in this area still holds true to a large extent, but that their broad brush-strokes fail to appreciate the influence of individual backgrounds and the changing nature of the media context as a whole.

It is clear that there remains plenty of overlap between academic theories and reports from news producers on their practices. No doubt the well-versed scholar might themselves come to some of the insights provided. But it cannot hurt rigorous research to get what will inevitably be a more nuanced feel for the situation 'from the horse's mouth', and anyone pursing media research will find something to persuade them of that here. That, essentially, is the point of the book: in standing them up against today's realities as explained by contemporary practitioners, Machin and Niblock do not, for the most part, undermine enduring journalism theories. Rather, they highlight the need for up-to-date, dialogic enrichment in order that they maintain their value.

Georgina Turner, Loughborough University.

References

Fishman, M. (1980) Manufacturing the News, Austin, University of Texas Press.

Galtung, J. and Ruge, M. (1965) 'The structure of foreign news: the presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers', Journal of International Peace Research 1, pp. 64-91.

Harcup, T. and O'Neill, D. (2001) 'What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited', Journalism Studies 2(2), pp. 261-280.