Normative and typologies of journalistic roles

Journalistic roles are a cornerstone of journalism and media research and have been subject to many influential studies (Siebert 1963; Weaver and Wilhoit 1986; McQuail 2000; Christians et al. 2009). The emphasis on journalistic roles comes from role theory in sociology (Goffman 1959) which contends professionals and people take on roles as ‘social masks’ and perform them for wider society. In the context of journalism, a journalist takes on a normative role as an agent in society (Mellado 2020). Donsbach (2008, p. 2605) contends that a journalist’s perception of their roles informs how they conduct their job:

A key purpose of journalistic role studies is not to reduce individual reporters to single journalistic identities, but instead understand which roles are considered more important by journalists than others. To do so, scholars have created extensive typologies of journalistic roles. While listing all the types of journalistic roles is beyond the scope of this paper, there are general categories and overlap between studies. Weaver and Wilhoit (1986) break down journalistic roles into four categories: disseminators, interpretators, adversaries and populist mobilisers. Hanitzsch and Vos (2018) list eighteen possible journalistic roles that cover six functions of journalism: informational-instructive, analytical-deliberative, critical-monitorial, advocative-radical, developmental-educative and collaborative-facilitative. Mellado et al. (2017) summarise journalistic roles into the following higher-level categories: the Fourth Estate which holds authority to account, the ‘facilitator’ which disseminates important information the public needs, the ‘educator’ who explains complex issues to audiences, the ‘civic’ who advocates for issues on behalf of minority or interest groups, and the ‘infotainer’ who creates engaging news. Journalistic roles do not exist in vacuums but are informed by numerous contextual factors, such as a news organisation’s culture, the type of news being produced and national politics (Willnat et al., 2013). For example, Mothes et al. (2020) found that journalists working at newsrooms with editorial codes of conduct were less likely to identify with the facilitator role or write stories that framed the government in a favourable way than journalists working at newsrooms without editorial codes of conduct.

Journalistic role performance has become a key focus for journalistic role studies. Not only are journalism scholars interested in journalists’ perceptions of their roles, but how journalists perform these roles in practice. To determine how journalists perform journalistic roles, researchers compare stated journalistic role preferences to an analysis of the news stories produced by journalists (Mellado et al. 2017; Hanitzsch and Vos 2017). Studies have found there is often a mismatch between journalistic role conception and performance because stories go through editorial and organisational processes that are outside of the journalists’ control (Tandoc and Hellmueller 2013; Mellado and Van Dalen 2014). Other studies approach journalistic role performance as a type of exhibition or acting and explore who the performance is for. In a study of journalists’ behaviour at U.S. press conferences, Godler and Reich (2013) argue that journalists repeatedly ask hard questions, not only because they expect politicians to answer them, but more so that their profession is perceived by others as tough. Yi (2016) argues that Chinese journalists at press conferences ‘perform’ a Fourth Estate role without actually criticising the Chinese government. Yi describes how a script of questions and answers is prepared by the Chinese government to tightly manage all roles at the press conference. Critical questions are performed without actually being enacted and are part of a Chinese Government public relations strategy with an aim to tightly manage their public image.

Studies have also researched which journalistic roles are considered the most essential during crises. When volatility and uncertainty is high, research suggests journalists are drawn towards a facilitator role to maintain objectivity (Perreault et al. 2020). The perceived importance of the facilitator role during a public health crisis is supported in an empirical study by Klemm et al. (2019). They found noticeable shifts in German and Finish health and science reporters during the 2009 H1N1 crisis towards the facilitator or public mobiliser role. Reporters shifted from a Fourth Estate to a more co-operative role because their goals became largely aligned with health authorities. In contrast, emergency authorities tend to view the media as overly critical of disaster responses and are wary of the Fourth Estate role (Veil 2012; Smith and Roberts 2003). Moreover, journalists have been criticised for imbalanced reporting or aggravating fears and panic during crises (Shuchman and Wilkes 1997; Yusuf et al. 2015). While no research on journalistic roles during crises has been undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand, certain studies offer relevant insights. For example, Theunissen and Mersham (2011) argue that despite there being sensationalistic media coverage of the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, emotive reporting constructed the disaster as a collectively significant event and facilitated nation-wide grieving. Furthermore, journalists covering the earthquakes felt personally connected to their news stories and saw advocacy as a key part of their news work (Scanlon 2014). With regard to media coverage of COVID-19 in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is argued that the compassionate reporting of COVID-19 related deaths positioned journalists as supporting the Government’s ‘go hard and go early’ response (Morgan et al. 2021).

The political role of the Aotearoa New Zealand Press Gallery

There has been little scholarly research undertaken on the Aotearoa New Zealand Press Gallery. There are a few published accounts by former Press Gallery journalists that focus on personal reminiscences, but they largely focus on experiences behind the scenes or during election campaigns (Clifton 2015; Riddle 2002). Two scholarly studies focus on the Press Gallery’s relationship to politicians and are critical of their journalistic Fourth Estate capacity. Comrie (2012, p. 116) suggests that in the past 70 years, the relationship between the Gallery and politicians has shifted ‘from meekness to mockery’. She describes the first wave of New Zealand Press Gallery journalists as having a cosy relationship with politicians, partly because politicians set up the first newspapers and there were no scandal sheets. But television encouraged overseas models of journalism with several Press Gallery reporters influenced by the British Broadcasting Corporation’s investigative programme Panorama. Furthermore, market driven news encouraged snappy soundbites and coverage of political scandals as opposed to policies. Comrie suggests the professionalisation of communication and rise of public relations (PR) in politics (e.g. press secretaries and press statements) has also made an impact on the Press Gallery. She argues that manipulative tactics by the Press Gallery (e.g. framing of questions) and counter-manipulation tactics used by press secretaries to control news stories (such as ‘dumping’ information releases late on a Friday) reduce the quality of political journalism. Furthermore, Gallery journalists being used by press secretaries to leak stories to contribute to ‘impression management’, means the Press Gallery is no longer merely the Fourth Estate, but increasingly a part of the politics of Parliament.

Karen Ross (2010) examines the relationship between politicians and the Press Gallery. She draws similar conclusions about the perceived importance of the Press Gallery in the impression management of politicians. Conducting 62 interviews with Members of Parliament (MPs) over two years, she characterises the relationship as the ‘danse macabre’, or to-and-fro battle to influence the public’s opinion. According to Ross, most MPs try to maintain an affable relationship with the Press Gallery due to a perception of their power to sway public opinion. In addition, Ross suggests that the small size of New Zealand’s media industry increases specific journalists’ influencing power to inform the public about politics and politicians. A key takeaway from both Comrie (2012) and Ross (2010) is that the Press Gallery’s political journalism has been sullied by the rise of public relations. While it might be helpful to analogise the Press Gallery’s relationship with politicians as symbiotic (Ross 2010; Comrie 2012) to emphasise their mutual dependencies in a democracy, we should be careful to not reduce the Press Gallery to an instrument of public relations or an accomplice of politics. We know little about the experience of working in the Press Gallery or insider perspectives on holding the government to account.

Inquisitor: an urgent but unpopular role when trust in government is high

All interviewees strongly identified with the Fourth Estate role of holding the government to account. Scrutinising the Prime Minister at press conferences was described as something ‘we’ve always done’ (Walls, NZ Herald) and a role that became ‘heightened’ (McCulloch, RNZ) during a crisis. Jane Patterson (RNZ) characterised the briefings as ‘intense pressure, intense responsibility, an extraordinary news situation and the most important and significant story I’ve ever covered’. Derek Cheng (NZ Herald) suggested the mood inside the daily briefings was exhilarating: ‘you could feel the weight of history in [the briefings] and that made them exciting, as well as quite added to the pressure.’ The pressure that interviewees felt was associated with a perceived responsibility to scrutinise government decisions relating to COVID-19: ‘I felt a lot of pressure to serve the audience well and to do … every aspect of my job whether that was communicating or interrogating or holding the authorities to account’ (McCulloch, RNZ).

Emphasising the importance of the Fourth Estate contrasts to international studies where journalists primarily identified with the facilitator role during a crisis (Klemm et al. 2019; Perreault et al. 2020). This contrast can partly be explained by the Aotearoa New Zealand Press Gallery being a group of political reporters who hold government to account in their day-to-day professional practice. Yet the COVID-19 pandemic has led to more political ramifications than previous pandemics such as swine flu. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Government’s COVID-19 public health response included mandatory lockdown, border closures, and various restrictions on individuals’ freedom of movement. Henry Cooke (Stuff) considered it was vital that the Government explicitly justified these political decisions:

Interviewees described the Fourth Estate as a thankless role they undertook on behalf of the public: ‘our role isn’t to ask questions that people at home may like, it’s to hold those in power to account’ (Mutch-McKay, TVNZ). Patterson (RNZ) reflected that government popularity and effective crisis communication meant their Fourth Estate role would be jarring: ‘people felt that their own team of 5 million effort was being criticised’. But scrutinising Government had its rewards, with interviewees believing that their Fourth Estate role in the briefings improved the overall response to COVID-19. According to Patterson (RNZ), it was media questioning of self-isolation policies for returned overseas travelers that eventually lead to managed isolation quarantine (MIQ) facilities: However, what the Fourth Estate entails depends on the journalist and their news organisation. Most interviewees associated holding government to account with scrutinising key public health measures, such as the decisions to go down lockdown alert levels, or the distribution of personal protective equipment. In contrast, Heta Gardiner (Māori TV) described holding government to account in an entirely different way: ‘in terms of holding the Government to account, look, the primary example is probably Tangihanga.’ Tangihanga is a traditional Māori funeral ceremony which typically take place on marae. During the Q&A at the briefings, Gardiner forced a Government position on tangihanga and pushed for COVID-19 daily case numbers for Māori and Pasifika people. His work appears to meet the criteria of advocative journalism or the civic role, as he acted as a spokesperson for a specific minority group (Mellado et al. 2017; Hanitzsch and Vos 2018). But his advocacy also held a Pākehā government to account for the Māori population of Aotearoa New Zealand. Under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Government is obliged to recognise and protect the rights of Māori. Gardiner’s interpretation of his Fourth Estate role implicates dominant journalistic role frameworks. Scholarly typologies of journalistic roles that distinguish between Fourth Estate and advocative journalism (see Mellado et al. 2017; Hanitzsch and Vos 2018) suggest that holding power to account and advocating for minority interests are distinct journalistic ideals. Such a distinction is less applicable for journalists in Aotearoa New Zealand, where advocating for Māori is holding the Government to account.

Messenger and educator: alongside or secondary to the Fourth Estate

Interviewees also talked about undertaking other journalistic roles. The first of these was the dissemination of public information, or facilitator role (Mellado et al. 2017). The facilitator was referred as a ‘messenger’ by McCulloch (RNZ) and was discussed alongside the Fourth Estate: ‘we are as journalists both messenger and inquisitor’. In other words, Gallery journalists expressed confidence that both roles could be undertaken at the same time: ‘in a pandemic … you have two mandates which is communication of essential public information and accountability … [and] you blend the two’ (Coughlan, Stuff). Tova O’Brien (Newshub) described how multiple roles can be undertaken across a news organisation’s team of Press Gallery reporters:

The Gallery’s confidence to undertake multiple roles without conflict contrasts with previous studies where reporters felt their journalistic objectivity was compromised. In an Australian journalistic role study during the H1N1 virus, Hooker et al. (2012) found journalists experienced role conflicts between assuming a role as independent and neutral public informants and feeling responsible for supporting public interests and officials’ crisis mitigation efforts. The Aotearoa New Zealand Press Gallery did not experience such role conflicts and was comfortable straddling a line between questioning government and disseminating government public health information. Balancing both ‘messenger’ and ‘inquisitor’ roles allowed the Press Gallery to maintain a sense of journalistic objectivity and degree of separation from government.

A few journalists saw their role as educator. Educative journalism embraces the pedagogic function of journalism with journalists acting in the capacity of teachers (Hanitzsch and Vos 2018). Derek Cheng (NZ Herald) shared that he would sometimes ask questions at the briefings on behalf of his NZH colleague science reporter Jamie Morton. Other Press Gallery reporters spoke about taking on the educator role themselves. Marc Daalder (Newsroom) described himself as embracing the educator role: ‘a lot of my journalism is based on like I know this stuff and sometimes it’s technical and complex, but it's important, how do I inform people about sort of the implications of the stuff that I know?’. He partly tied his educator role to the agenda of his news organisation: Newsroom. Newsroom is an online news website which Daalder described as not competing with mainstream newspapers Stuff or NZ Herald in ‘24/7 journalism’ but, instead, aims for ‘value add journalism’ or deeper dive stories for audiences looking for news beyond headlines. Working for Newsroom meant Daalder did not have to frequently consider what is newsworthy on a daily basis and could focus on more technical or scientific issues that he considered needed explanation. Daalder describes himself as Newsroom’s in-house health reporter, ‘not because I knew a lot, but because I knew more than anyone else’. His experience is a reminder that news organisations inform which journalistic roles reporters can inhabit (Willnat et al., 2013), including during public health crises such as COVID-19.

However, the educator role was considered secondary to the Fourth Estate role. There was an awareness that Press Gallery coverage of COVID-19 was political: ‘only fully accredited members of the press gallery were allowed to attend Beehive press conferences, which meant … that the pandemic was through a political lens possibly more than it should have been’ (Coughlan, Stuff). But most Gallery journalists backed their own type of technical expertise in understanding politics and policy: ‘what we were talking about was the operation of power of a Government, which is what we cover, all the time’ (Cooke, Stuff). And part of a Press Gallery reporter’s skillset is combating the PR politics of a press conference and getting their own question in: ‘The Prime Minister … took a frustratingly Presidential style of picking which journalist was going to ask a question’ (O’Brien, Newshub). Anticipating and combating public relations, media training or attempts to control press conferences is a core pragmatic Press Gallery skill that underpins Fourth Estate journalism and is explored further in the next section.

Newsgatherer: making the news sausage

Beyond normative journalistic roles, or what journalists do for society, interviewees shared that their core role at the briefings is to produce news and undertake newsgathering practices. When asked about whether the media’s role changes during a crisis, Jo Moir (RNZ) discussed the practical aspects of the Press Gallery’s role changing: the requirements of social distancing, the sharing of camera equipment and taking questions from colleagues outside of Wellington. Her comments follow former Gallery reporter Oliver Riddle’s (2002) focus on the pragmatics of the Gallery’s ‘role’. Riddle does not mention journalistic ideals such as the Fourth Estate or facilitating public discourse, but how the role of the Gallery derives from its name: the Press Gallery sits in a gallery above the debating chambers to observe politicians debate. He describes the importance of being physically present in the Gallery and seeing politicians’ bodies and facial expressions to provide context to what they are saying. Riddell’s description of the Press Gallery is pragmatic and place-based, seeing their role as part of the operations of producing news at Parliament. Riddle and Moir’s interpretation of ‘role’ is less about a generalised expectation of how a journalist functions for democratic society, but more about how the Press Gallery role functions to create news.

All interviewees referred to the daily briefings as a site for newsgathering. Amelia Wade (NZH) shared that during the COVID-19 updates and speech segment by the Prime Minister and other speakers, they were multitasking: ‘We’re not just sitting in the room listening to the briefing, we are also taking notes, we are thinking of questions, we are tweeting, we are live filing to our news websites’. Others emphasised that the daily briefings were the critical site to create, follow-up on or finish news stories: ‘in the weeks before lockdown and in the first weeks of lockdown it was extremely difficult to get a response from the Ministry of Health outside of one of those press conferences’ (Daalder, Newsroom). Press Gallery reporters subsequently used the daily briefings to not only scrutinise the latest announcements but ask questions in response to stories that they and their colleagues were writing prior to the conference.

Press conferences typically contain two distinct genres of communication: the pre-planned speech by the politician(s) or speaker(s), and a question-and answer (Q&A) session in which journalists pose questions (Ekström and Erikkson 2018). The uninterrupted livestreaming of the briefings via online news websites, television and radio collapsed the two genres into a single news event for audiences. Furthermore, during the Q&A segment, the Press Gallery became performers for daily briefing viewers. Many Gallery reporters felt conflicted by the Q&A segment being broadcast. Cooke (Stuff) felt uncomfortable knowing his questions were being scrutinised by viewers and multiple interviewees associated the Q&A session with ‘how the sausage is made’ (Daalder, Newsroom; Wade, NZ Herald; Walls, NZ Herald). The phrase ‘how the sausage is made’ implies the daily briefings are an ugly behind-the-scenes news-making process that are not made for public viewing: ‘people suddenly had this massive insight into how news is made, and it’s not comfortable, it’s not a comfortable process, we hold the Government to account. It’s not tiddlywinks’ (Patterson, RNZ). Patterson suggests that the Gallery’s collective performance of asking combative questions and holding authority to account is not meant for a public audience.

Yet the Press Gallery’s part in the Q&A performance serves a clear journalistic purpose. Their ‘aggressive’ style and choice of questions is justified as part of the role of newsgathering. As Daalder (Newsroom) explains: ‘aggressive and searching for new angles style of questioning is important because it gets you the answers you need to be able to do the product that you need to do.’ Direct or hard-hitting questions are deemed necessary because of speakers’ media training to deflect or provide non-answers: ‘Ardern … is very skilled at appearing to answer a question without actually answering the question … our job to pick up on that and to follow up and to dig deeper for the answer which is why we ask again’ (McCulloch, RNZ). This seemingly adversarial style of questioning is a reminder that the Press Gallery works day-to-day in opposition to PR informed politics. While being involved in information leaks means Press Gallery reporters can become embroiled in PR politics (Comrie 2012), their aggressive style of questions at the daily briefings is a reminder that Press Gallery rebutsPR in their everyday journalistic practice. The Gallery’s Fourth Estate performance of asking critical questions at the daily briefings is less of an impression management strategy for journalists (c.f. Godler & Reich, 2013; Yi 2016), and more a newsgathering method to combat government driven impression management.

The newsgatherer role drove other journalistic behaviours in the briefings that may have frustrated viewers. For example, questions were often repeated because of the different requirements of news mediums:

Many viewers accused the Gallery of asking irresponsible questions (1pm Daily Update 2021; Donnell 2020). Jason Walls (NZH) received fierce criticism for asking Bloomfield to comment about US President Donald Trump’s suggestion to ingest bleach to combat the COVID-19 virus. Critics felt that Walls asked a ‘gotcha’ type of question, risked normalising or legitimising the ingesting of bleach and such a question did not deserve airtime (Donnell 2020). Several Gallery reporters defended Walls, with Amelia Wade (NZ Herald) justifying the question based on their newsgatherer role: ‘[just] because you ask a question doesn’t mean you’re going to write a story about it.’ Audiences saw the question as news, whereas Walls asked the question to create a news story relevant to New Zealand audiences. Walls shared his rationale for asking Bloomfield to respond about Trump and ingesting bleach: Henry Cooke (Stuff) received similar backlash when asking a question for a story about misinformation relating to ill health effects of 5G radio towers: ‘I asked about this silly 5G theory thing on Instagram, literally just wanting the Prime Minister to say really clearly, Ashley Bloomfield to say really clearly, in no uncertain view, like no, which is useful’. As such, some Gallery reporters considered some criticism of their role was misplaced: Daalder implies that it is unfair to assess a journalist’s role based on their performance at the daily briefing. During the Q&A segments, Gallery reporters are seeking comments or soundbites, and clarifying stories that have yet to go through the editorial and news production process. Evaluating their role at this early point of the news production cycle is akin to judging the raw footage of an actor’s performance before it goes through post-production. Similarly, journalistic role performance is typically assessed by analysing the stories that journalists produce, as opposed to their behind-the-scenes newsgathering practices (Mellado et al. 2017). Future studies could undertake a content analysis of the Press Gallery’s news stories to compare their perceptions of their roles with their outputs. As it stands, airing the Q&A segments without providing the context about journalists’ newsgathering role may have subjected the Press Gallery to unwarranted criticism.

The journalistic role of newsgathering also deserves further scholarly attention. Studies typically interpret a journalistic role in terms of what a journalist does for society, yet the Aotearoa New Zealand Press Gallery often discussed their role as producing news stories. Take for example, the Q&A segment of the briefings. Questions from the Press Gallery had both normative and newsgathering purposes: to scrutinise the speaker, seek clarification about an announced policy, and/or contribute towards a news story. While some studies have approached journalistic roles as ideals that manifest in practice (Mellado et al. 2017; Ryfe 2017), more attention could be paid to newsgathering as a journalistic role per se. What aspects of the newsgathering role supports or conflicts with normative journalistic roles? How does the newsgathering role change for different types or groups of journalists? Considering the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to reconsider the priorities and objectives of journalism studies (Lewis 2020), future research could recognise that newsgathering is perceived and prioritised by journalists as a key role.