Assignment 1A

Mediatization of journalism

Sarah Patsalidou, sarahpatsalidou@gmail.com

Key Themes in Media and Communication Studies
Media and Communication Studies: Culture, Collaborative Media and Creative Industries
Master of Arts
Submission Date: 28/10/2022, First Attempt

REFERENCES Deacon, D. and Stanyer, J. (2014)
“Media za on: Key concept or
conceptual bandwagon?,” Media,
Culture & Society, 36(7), pp. 1032–
1044. Available at: h ps://doi.org/
10.1177/0163443714542218.
Hepp, A., Hjarvard, S. and Lundby, K.
(2015) “Media za on: Theorizing
the interplay between media, culture
and Society,” Media, Culture &
Society, 37(2), pp. 314–324.
Available at: h ps://doi.org/
10.1177/0163443715573835.
Ekström, M., Lewis, S.C. and
Westlund, O. (2020)
“Epistemologies of digital
journalism and the study of
misinforma on,” New Media &
Society, 22(2), pp. 205–212.
Available at: h ps://doi.org/
10.1177/1461444819856914.
Kunelius, R. and Reunanen,
E. (2016) “Changing Power
of Journalism: The two
phases of media za on,”
Communica on Theory,
26(4), pp. 369–388. Available
at: h ps://doi.org/10.1111/
comt.12098.
Falasca, K. (2014) “Poli cal News
journalism: Media za on across
three news repor ng contexts,”
European Journal of Communica on,
29(5), pp. 583–597. Available at:
h ps://doi.org/
10.1177/0267323114538853.
Peruško, Z., Čuvalo, A. and Vozab, D.
(2017) “Media za on of journalism:
In uence of the media system and
media organiza on on journalis c
prac ces in European Digital
mediascapes,” Journalism, 21(11), pp.
1630–1654. Available at: h ps://
doi.org/10.1177/1464884917743176.

CENTRAL Media za on Media za on (Research) Phases of Media za on Media za on (Processes) Media za on (of journalism)
CONCEPT 1

DEFINITION Deacon and Sayner de ne
FOR media za on as “an in uen al new
CENTRAL concept that places the media at the
CONCEPT 1 centre of all kinds of important
cultural, poli cal and social
developments” and express
concerns around its
conceptualiza on and poten al
confusion: “assump ons about
power and causa on, researching
historical processes and concept
design” (pg. 1032). They propose
that it is a concept developed
through me and space, and its
occurrence is instantaneous, and it
should be studied as empirical
universal rather than pseudo-
universal (pg. 1041). They men on
the division into two media za on
approaches: ins tu onalist and
social-construc vist approaches
(Hepp et al., 2015). The
ins tu onalist approach implies that
the media za on process in uences
the adapta on of “non-media
actors” to “media’s rules, aims,
produc on logics and constraints”
(Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999;
Hjarvard, 2008, 2009). On the other
hand, the social construc vist
approach to changing ICTs “drive the
changing communica ve
construc on of culture and society”
(Hepp, 2013; Couldry and Hepp,
2013; Krotz, 2009).
Hepp, Hjarvard and Lundby refer to Kunelius and Reunanen Falasca begins by sta ng that Peruško, Čuvalo and Vozab understand
media za on research as a concept understand media za on as “a media za on is a societal process the media za on process as
that “engages with the complex process in which the construc on “where media have become something that impacts
rela onship between changes in of ‘public a en on’ changes its increasingly in uen al” (pg. 583). communica on processes both socially
media and communica on, and role in the coordina on of Within this process, Falasca and culturally and which has three
changes in various elds of culture ins tu onal ac on” (pg. 369). elaborates that media stand perspec ves: ins tu onal (Hjarvard,
and society” and that it is part of a They divide media za on into two independently and embed media 2008), construc vist/cultural (Hepp,
paradigma c shi . Media za on is phases: the rise of the mass media logic into poli cal logic, taking it over, 2013; Krotz, 2009) and material/
“the ability to bridge various era and its powerful and causing poli cal actors to technological (Jansson, 2014). They
disciplines in frui ul ways” (pg. 316). infrastructure, and the change in habituate in the media environment men on ve macro-level increasing
They di eren ate medi za on from media ins tu ons due to the rise (pg. 583). Even though media za on indicators of media za on within
media on by proclaiming that of social and online media within a is present, via her compara ve digital mediascapes: (a) media are
media za on is the transforming novel, diversi ed media research on di erent news coverage rapidly spread and expected to
poten al of mediated environment where they all must Falasca hypothesises that “the degree undergo commercializa on in media
communica on processes (pg. 316). interact and control public of media za on is depended on a markets, (b) development of crea ve
Drawing on Deacon and Stayner’s a en on in innova ve, variety of factors and varies over me industries and crea ve media culture,
research, they comment that in (fragmented) means (pp. and space” (Zen and Hopman, 2013). (c) globalisa on, (d)audience
some contexts, media za on might 374-375,379). fragmenta on, (e) inclusivity in
“look more like a catchphrase than a poli cal and social ins tu ons
real concept”, sugges ng that most (Peruško, 2017). They refer to the
research a empts to engage with “media zed condi on at the macro-
“the emerging paradigm of level of the digital media system as
media za on” without “engaging point(s) of convergence of poli cal,
with the theore cal framework” (pg. economic, social and cultural forces
315). They nally relate grounded in the local, na onal and the
media za on research to analysing global” (Flew and Waisbord, 2015). The
“interrelated in uences” (Simmer, above are summarised by the
1972 and pg. 320). de ni on of the “media za on of
journalism” which is “the no on of
increased media logic” in journalis c
prac ces (Kammer and Kunelius,
2014).

CENTRAL News Media Logic Digital Journalism Journalism and Journalis c Poli cal (news) journalism Journalis c Prac ces and Cultures
CONCEPT 2 Ins tu ons

tt
tt
fl
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
tt
ff
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
tf
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

 DEFINITION Deacon and Stayner brie y refer to Ekström, Lewis, and Westlund refer
FOR news media logic as a connec ve, speak of journalism as “one of the
CENTRAL addi onal concept to media za on most in uen al knowledge-
CONCEPT 2 dividing it into three sub-dimensions producing ins tu ons in society”
for be er understanding: (pg. 205) that it is challenged by
professionalism, commercialism and digitaliza on and the “di usion of
media technology (Strömbäck and misinforma on” are provoking
Esser, 2014 and pg. 1040). They refer disturbance of the “social role and
to poli cians’ e orts to manipulate authority of journalism” (pg. 205).
journalists via “leveraging their Tradi onally, journalism is
advantage” regarding interes ng synonymous with “veri ed, fact-
informa on to journalists and by based informa on”, a signi cant
“professionalizing news societal aspect both for individual
management” via regula ng and/or and democra c governance as a
censoring agents of media za on whole (pg. 206). Digital journalism
related to journalism due to the represents a change in the media
resistance of their adapta on to the landscape and the “disloca on” of
media logic (Maurer and Pfetsch, news “as it moves from pla orms
2014 and pg. 1036). produced and controlled by
tradi onal news media to pla orms
outside their jurisdic on,
altogether, complica ng how news
func ons as knowledge (Ekström
and Westlund, 2019)
Kunelius and Reunanen begin by
touching on the tradi onal
concept of journalis c ins tu ons
during the mass media era where
they emerged to “manage the
necessarily asymmetrical
informa on ow of modern
representa ve democracies” by
di using informa on to
“anonymous people” from power
holders or by represen ng public
opinions and desires “by power
holders and the audience itself”
(pp. 369-370) Entering the 20th
century, journalism becomes the
voice of public opinion (pg.370).
They reference journalism as an
“expert profession” always being
a er maintaining “ins tu onal
legi ma on” via “controlling its
own work” while being
transparent and integral
(Waisbord, 2013 and pg. 375).
De ning journalism which is “open
and transparent”, they suggest the
poten al incorpora on of
“sca ered exper se and
experiences of the public into
journalis c processes” (pg. 382).
Falasca refers to news media as the
most signi cant informa on source in
and “communica on channel for
poli cs in contemporary society” (pg.
584). She conducts her research on
poli cal news media coverage for
three poli cal journalism stands in
Sweeden: Rou ne coverage, Elec on
coverage and Financial Crisis
coverage, and comments on media
interven onism degree (pg. 584).
Falasca iden es two types of
journalism: interpreta ve journalism
and descrip ve journalism.
Interpreta ve journalism emphasises
the “meaning of news beyond the
facts and statements of sources”,
whereas in descrip ve journalism the
journalist is the observer who states
the facts (Salgado and Strömbäk,
2012 and pg. 587).
Peruško, Čuvalo and Vozab perceive
journalism cultures are “organisa onal
cultures in rela on to shared values or
prac ces in a newsroom, or as na onal
journalism cultures that re ect
historical di erences between
journalists from di erent countries”
(Hanitzsch and Donsbach, 2011).
Media za on of journalis c prac ces
associate with four trends in Danish
and American online journalism: (a)
the use of a ordances in news
websites, (b) radical commercializa on
(c) audience par cipa on growth in
news produc on and (d) the increased
mul -skilling and de-skilling of
journalists (Kammer, 2013). They
iden fy micro-level and mezzo-level
sources of in uence rela ng to “socio-
demographic characteris cs or
journalists’ professional characteris cs,
and the type of media the journalists
work in or the media ownership type
(pg. 1636).

RELEVANT Pseudo-universals vs Empirical Diachronous and Synchronous Journalis c misinforma on Media za on of poli cs Poli cal Framing Digital Mediascapes
PERIPHERAL universals media za on research
CONCEPT

DEFINITION Deacon and Stayner refer to
FOR THE media za on as a pseudo-universal
PERIPHERAL concept that needs to become
CONCEPT empirical universal (pg. 1041).
Pseudo-universals “are concepts
without boundaries that perform an
allusive func on” whereas empirical
universals contain at least one
“rela vely precise a ribute” (pg.
1040). The point here is to debate
prior research claiming that
media za on is omnipresent and to
place the signi cance of observing
the absence of media za on in the
equa on. They further associate
Santori’s “ladder of abstrac on”
where concepts ascend or descend
the ladder according to the addi on
of a ributes and proper es de ning
a concept and therefore elimina ng
its cases (Santori, 1970). Deacon and
Stayner place media za on
processes to a mid-level in Santori’s
ladder, therefore as an empirical
universal concept containing
selected indicators that “increase
di eren a on from other
processes” (pg. 1040).
fi
Hepp, Hjarvard and Lundby refer to
Deacon and Stayner’s proposi on of
diachronous media za on research
as problema c since they support a
lack of historical consistency and
solid “diachronous” data enclosing
the media za on process (pg.320).
They suggest a “framework of
synchronous research” where there
exists the possibility of “indirect
access to transforma ons by
comparing media genera ons” and
“their media prac ces at a given
moment in me, or by conduc ng
biographical interviews on the
percep ons of media
transforma ons and the changes of
the interviewee’s media prac ces”
(Bolin and Skogerbø, 2013 and pg.
320). Via conduc ng such research,
we can draw upon “driving forces” of
transforma on rela ng to media and
communica ons and develop
“communica ve gura ons
inves ga ng situa ons where media
become part of a certain social
en ty but do not necessarily
transform anything” (Hepp and
Hasebrink, 2014).
Ekström, Lewis, and Westlund
believe that journalis c
misinforma on leads to the erosion
of public trust in news media, “the
threatened integrity of electoral
processes, and the intensifying of
social polariza on” (European
Commission, 2018). They claim that
misinforma on might disturb the
legi macy and func oning of
democracy despite successful
business models deriving from
programma c adver sing (Braun
and Eklund, 2019). Misinforma on
or “fake news” places journalis c
ins tu ons t s panic mode and
consequently the rise of
“journalis c fast-checking
prac ces” to avoid misinforma on
escala on (pg. 209). They imply
that the concept of misinforma on
is not necessarily “a problem to be
solved” but a re-evalua on
opportunity of the “everyday
infrastructures that mediate the
circula on of online content” (pg.
210).
Kunelius and Reunanen emphasise
that media za on has made its
way into other “social ins tu ons
and cultural spheres” spreading its
ins tu onal aspects (Hjarvard,
2013). They men on the large
impact on poli cs referring to
Strömbäck’s four interrelated
dimensions: (a) media cons tu ng
“the dominant source of
informa on on poli cs and
society”, (b) media being
independent of poli cal
ins tu ons regarding governance,
(c) media content governed by “its
own media logic” and (d) poli cal
actors “governed by media logic”
(Strömbäck, 2008). Kunelius and
Reunanen summarise the above
by sugges ng a shi from “a
poli cally governed media
system” to a “possibly media zed
poli cal system” where media
logic dominates (pg. 371). They
propose the possibility of the
genera on of “hybrid ins tu ons”
or “hybrid logics” that include
“characteris cs of media
ins tu ons and poli cal
ins tu ons”.
Falasca explains the process of
poli cal framing by saying that it
occurs when “journalists want to be
in control of news stories” (pg. 586).
She divides it into the game frame
and issue frame. Game frame occurs
when journalists expose the strategic
nature of poli cs and poli cal games
(strategic framing), expressing the
“manifesta on of media
independence from poli cal actors
due to an alterna ve journalis c
perspec ve in the news” (pg. 586).
Issue framing eventuates when
“repor ng on the poli cal issues and
events promoted by poli cal actors”
and is associated with lower levels of
media independence “due to the
straight repor ng of poli cal events,
issues and policies” (pg. 586). To
further explore media za on
occurrence between di erent
instances of presen ng poli cal news,
Falasca conducts compara ve
research, comparing poli cal framing
in Sweedish Rou ne coverage,
Elec on coverage and Financial Crisis
coverage, nding that poli cal
framing reaches its highest within
Elec on coverage news.
Peruško, Čuvalo and Vozab de ne
digital mediascapes or media systems
as a “mul -causal construct, explained
by di erent, interrelated variables and
dimensions” (pg. 1634). They divide
mediascapes into four “mul -variable
dimensions”: (a) poli cal and socio-
economic inclusiveness, (b) digital
media market, (c) media culture and
(d) globaliza on (pg. 1634). The
development of digital mediascapes
has tremendously impacted the
tradi onal means of “gathering,
ltering and dissemina ng news”
(Lewis, 2015). They conduct
compara ve research between
European countries to categorise them
into four mediascape clusters
according to the amounts of digital
mediascape dimensions found in each:
Inclusive, Convergent, Peripheral and
Non-inclusive (pp. 1645-1646). The
inclusive cluster is the most media zed
one, whereas the non-inclusive cluster
contains the “less developed media
markets” and it is the least media zed.
Convergent and Peripheral are placed
in the middle.

ft
ff
ff
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti

ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti

ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti

ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti

ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ff
ft
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

fi
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
fl

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
fi
ti
tf
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tf
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
 RESEARCH By the end of the ar cle, Deacon
FOCUS/ and Stayner raise a number of
QUESTION 1 ques ons about the media za on
process and their roles. The most
prominent one would be “What light
does media za on set on the
process of social, poli cal and
cultural change” (pg. 1041)?
Hepp, Hjarvard and Lundby
introduce the opportunity for an
interdisciplinary dialogue around
media za on research and how
media logics in uence religion or
poli cal logics (pg. 316). They raise
ques ons about processes of
change, and one of the ques ons is
“How does media mould social
interac on and shape
communica ve func ons (pg. 316)?
Ekström, Lewis, and Westlund go
deep into the journalis c process of
sourcing, gathering, and ltering
news which relates to “knowledge
claims”. They call into ques on
“How do journalists know what
they know, and how are their
knowledge claims ar culated and
jus ed” (pg. 206)? It could be
argued that these speci c
ques ons related to the strive of
tradi onal journalis c ins tu ons
to maintain legi macy.
Kunelius and Reunanen draw
ques ons about the power and
uniqueness of media ins tu ons
and the expansion of
media za on. They refer to the
past and present asking: “Which
speci c, di eren ated systema c
resource of ins tu onal power
was created as the combina on of
professional, commercial and
technological elements” (pg. 372)?
A clear research ques on deriving
from Falasca’s compara ve research
rela ng to the concept of adap ve
media za on in poli cal journalism is
the following: “If and to what extend
elec on coverage di ers from other
types of poli cal news coverage in
terms of media interven onism and
degree of media za on” (pg. 584)?
Peruško, Čuvalo and Vozab introduce a
research ques on for the rst part of
their research as follows: “How do
mezzo (media ins tu ons) and macro
(digital mediascapes) contexts of
journalis c prac ces de ne journalists’
percep ons of the in uences on their
work” (pg. 1635)?

RESEARCH Following up on the above research
FOCUS/ ques on and focusing on news
QUESTION 2 media logic being part of poli cal
(OPTIONAL) change and governmental e orts to
“manipulate” journalism by
imposing regula on and censorships
in state-owned media ins tu ons I
am forming the following ques on:
To what degree are government-
owned news repor ng pla orms
media zed/undergo change due to
media za on?
Adding on the above research
ques on revolving around social
interac on, an interes ng sub-
ques on would be: Does
media za on play a fundamental
role in social connec ons and
community building within a digital
contemporary context?
Ques ons of legi macy are
incidentally connected with the
concept of misinforma on.
Therefore, it would be interes ng
to explore the rela onship between
media za on and misinforma on
by asking: Does the media za on
of news repor ng ins tu ons go
hand in hand with the increased
misinforma on di usion?
Focusing on the aspect of public
opinion forma on and
journalism’s desire to construct
and manage it, we could raise
ques ons related to the structure
and agency concept: By
manipula ng and ltering content
in favour of other systems while
imposing it as “public opinion”
representa on, does journalism
manoeuvre social illusions?
A sub-ques on deriving from the
above could engage with the levels of
media za on within di erent poli cal
journalism aspects rela ng it to
commercializa on processes and
economic bene ts ques oning the
following: Is it problema c to claim
that the poli cal journalism
ins tu on is media zed as a whole?
To answer this ques on, further
compara ve research is required.
Peruško, Čuvalo and Vozab o er
compara ve research regarding digital
mediascapes and as men oned above
classify European countries into four
clusters: Inclusive, Convergent,
Peripheral and Non-inclusive - they
emphasise the need for further
“theore cal elabora on and addi onal
empirical tes ng outside the European
context” (pg. 1651). Further to the
extended research need outside the
European se ng, an interes ng
inves ga on would be: In which ways
can European countries achieve “de-
clustering” and consequently
mobilisa on between the di erent
digital mediascapes?

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
fi
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti

fl
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti

ti
fi
fi
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
tf
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ff

ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

 Concepts and Definitions

The concepts of mediatization and journalism are either directly or consequentially

interrelated in all articles. All research adds exciting nuances to the various definitions of each
separate concept and the “Mediatization of Journalism” definition as a joint concept.

According to Deacon and Sayner, mediatization is a novel concept characterized by its

influential nature and impact on cultural, political, and social institutions (Deacon and Sayner,
2014, pg. 1032). Their research merges with Hepp, Hjarvard, and Lundby’s research, where
we are introduced to the division of mediatization into two approaches: the institutionalist
approach and the social-constructivist approach (Hepp et al. 2015). Hepp et al. consider
mediatization as part of a paradigmatic shift and progress its definition by referring to the
element of transformational potential within mediatized communication processes and its
“ability to bridge various disciplines in fruitful ways” (Hepp et al., 2015, pg. 316).

Deacon and Stayner briefly connect mediatization to embedding news media logic in political
contexts, despite resistance to the adaptation of media logic from political actors, dividing it
into three sub-dimensions: professionalism, commercialism, and media technology
(Strömbäck and Esser, 2014 and pg. 1040). Ekström, Lewis, and Westlund similarly focus on
the tremendous influence of journalism in society as a “knowledge-producing institution,”
firstly offering its purely traditional definition: a platform providing “verified, fact-based
information” (Ekström et al., 2020, pp. 205-206). They mention that digital journalism
practices place traditional news reporting processes into digital platforms, a process which
interferes with “how news functions as knowledge” (Ekström and Westlund, 2019)

Kunelius and Reunanen view mediatization as “a process in which the construction of public
attention changes its role in the coordination of institutional action” (Kunelius and Reunanen.
2016, pg. 369). They divide mediatization into two phases: the rise of the mass media era and
its robust infrastructure and the change in media institutions due to the rise of social and
online media within a novel, diversified media environment where they all must interact and
control public attention in innovative, (fragmented) means (Kunelius and Reunanen. 2016,
pp. 374-375,379). Similarly, Falasca refers to mediatization as a “societal process where media
have become increasingly influential” to other institutions (Falasca, 2014, pg. 583). She also
seconds Deacon and Stayner’s views on the variation of mediatization within time and space,
suggesting further research via historical and geographical lenses (Zen and Hopman. 2013).
Peruško, Čuvalo, and Vozab capture mediatization as a process influencing media and
communication processes both culturally and socially, acknowledging Hepp et al.’s two
approaches (institutional and constructivist/culture) and adding a third perspective to the list:
the material/technological approach (Jansson, 2014).

Similarly, to Ekström et al., Kunelius and Reunanen propose that the role of traditional
journalistic institutions within a mass media era is to manage the necessarily asymmetrical
information flows of modern representative democracies” by diffusing information to
“anonymous people” from power holders (Kunelius and Reunanen, 2016, pp. 369-370). They
refer to journalism as an “expert profession” which constantly strives for “institutional
legitimation” via “controlling its own work” while being transparent and integral (Waisbord,
2013; Kunelius and Reunanen, 2016 pg. 375). Falasca highlights the significance of news
media as an information source and the main “communication channel for politics in
contemporary society” (Falasca, 2014 pg. 584). She divides journalism into two types:
interpretative and descriptive (Salgado and Strömbäk, 2012; Falasca 2014, pg. 587). Peruško
et. al, perceive journalism cultures as “organisational cultures concerning shared values or
practices in a newsroom, or as national journalism cultures that reflect historical differences
between journalists from different countries” (Hanitzsch and Donsbach, 2011).

A single definition for mediatization deriving from the above definitions would be that
mediatization is a developing process containing the transformation of other institutional
logics into media logics, where contemporary (digital) media influence global cultural and
societal aspects. Journalism can be defined as a diachronous institution of knowledge
production that, if connected with the term “mediatization” (mediatization of journalism),
becomes an influential, inclusive concept.

Research Questions
Deacon and Stayner are concerned about the potential confusion of de-constructing and
understanding mediatization processes if approached as a “pseudo-universal” concept
instead as an empirical universal one, proposing the exploration of “What light does
mediatization set on the process of social, political, and cultural change” (Deacon and Stayner,
2014, pg. 1041). Following their question, I proposed its elimination by focusing on news
media logic possibly implanted in political change and the governmental efforts to
“manipulate” journalism by imposing regulation and censorship in state-owned media
institutions. Supporting the need for empirical research, my research question is: To what
degree are government-owned news reporting platforms undergo transformation caused by
mediatization?

Hepp et al. open an interdisciplinary dialogue around mediatization research and media
logics, asking, “How does media mould social interaction and shape communicative
functions” (Hepp et al., 2015, pg. 316). Building upon the above question enclosing the theme
of social interactions, a sub-question would be: Does mediatization play a fundamental role
in social connections and community building within a contemporary digital context?

Ekström et al. bring up journalistic processes of sourcing, gathering, and filtering news,
associating them to “knowledge claims” – they query, “How do journalists know what they
know, and how are their knowledge claims articulated and justified” (Ekström et al., 2020, pg.
206). The above is connected to the desire for legitimacy maintenance and the concept of
misinformation. I proposed that it would be compelling to explore this relationship between
mediatization and misinformation by asking: Does the mediatization of news reporting
institutions go hand in hand with the increased misinformation diffusion?

Kunelius and Reunanen draw questions about the power and uniqueness of media
institutions related to the expansion of mediatization referring to the past and present. Their
research question is: “Which specific, differentiated systematic resource of institutional
power was created as the combination of professional, commercial, and technological
elements” (Kunelius and Reunanen, 2016, pg. 372). The power of media institutions is closely
associated with manipulating public opinion formation and journalism’s desire to construct
and manage it. Therefore, I suggested a research question correlated to the structure and
agency concept: By manipulating and filtering content in favor of other systems while
imposing it as “public opinion” representation, does journalism maneuver social illusions?

Falasca’s comparative research connects to the concept of adaptive mediatization in political

journalism. It raises the question: If and to what extent election coverage differs from other
types of political news coverage in terms of media interventionism and degree of
mediatization” (Falasca, 2014, pg. 584)? A proposed sub-question engages with the levels of
mediatization within the various political journalism aspects connected to commercialization
processes and economic benefits: Is it problematic to claim that the political journalism
institution is mediatized as a whole? To answer this, further comparative research is required.

Peruško et al. introduce the following research question: “How do mezzo (media institutions)
and macro (digital mediascapes) contexts of journalistic practices define journalists’
perceptions of the influences on their work” (Peruško et al., 2017, pg. 1635). Since Peruško et
al. offer comparative research regarding digital mediascapes: Inclusive, Convergent,
Peripheral, and Non-inclusive, my research question focuses on that part proposing further
investigation on the following: In which ways can European countries achieve “de-clustering”
and, consequently, mobilization between the different digital mediascapes presented?