Mapping the sports journalism field: Bourdieu and broadsheet newsrooms

Field theory and the journalistic field

Bourdieu (1996) situates the journalistic field in the overall field of power, within a smaller field of cultural production. In the field of cultural production, Bourdieu locates journalism in the sub-field of large-scale production (see also Benson and Neveu, 2005; Siapera and Spyridou, 2012). Capital is a dominant feature in the field, with an emphasis on the amounts individuals and organisations possess. Bourdieu (in Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992) nominated four main types of capital: economic, cultural, social and symbolic. Of these, Benson and Neveu (2005) assert economic and cultural are the most important measures in society. Economic capital, the more powerful type according to Bourdieu (1986), refers to money, property and assets. Cultural capital is determined by aspects such as education credentials, communication skills, cultural goods and accumulated knowledge (Benson and Neveu, 2005; Siapera and Spyridou, 2012).

In journalism, Bourdieu (1998, 2005) argues the field is based on opposition between market and pure elements (see also Benson, 1999, 2006; Phillips, 2010). The conflict of these two factors in the contemporary field has been further complicated by the competition between newspapers and the world wide web. At the cultural or journalistic axis, elements such as independence, autonomy, industry principles and intelligent or investigative reporting are considered valuable, and more aligned with quality/broadsheet titles (Benson and Neveu, 2005; Bourdieu, 1998, 2005). These aspects can often be in opposition to economic factors, including circulation or audience size, advertising income and profit (Benson, 2006; Benson and Neveu, 2005; Bourdieu, 1998). These conflicts are underlined by the commercialisation of the media (see English, 2013b; Hamilton, 2004; McManus, 2009; Picard, 2004). The two other types of capital can contribute to overall cultural capital. In the journalistic field, actors with large amounts of social capital include those with high-level contacts in specialised fields, allowing access to individuals and information (see Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Siapera and Spyridou, 2012). Symbolic capital occurs through recognition, acknowledgement or prestige, and involves the journalists’ legitimation of their dominance in the field, status or awards (Benson and Neveu, 2005; Bourdieu, 1996; Hovden, 2008; Siapera and Spyridou, 2012). Meyen and Riesmeyer (2012) argue journalistic capital is the combined level of cultural, social and symbolic capital. These elements are particularly effective in determining the amounts and types of capital accumulated by individuals and organisations in the sports journalism field.

Other key factors within the field in relation to this study are the many forces, or invisible structures, pulling at aspects of the industry. Bourdieu (1998) states ‘the field is a structured social place, a field of forces, a force field’ (p. 40). Inside this space are people who are dominant and dominated, highlighting the battles of the actors as they ‘struggle for the transformation or preservation of the field’ (Bourdieu, 1998: 40). While Bourdieu (1998, 2001, 2005) examined the pressures and relationships of television and newspapers, the effect of other media on the print industry remains hugely topical. For example, Bourdieu (1998) discusses how ‘serious’ newspapers and journalists – those closer to the pure or journalistic pole – suffer as they ‘make concessions to the market’ to gain ‘legitimacy based on ratings and “visibility”’ (p. 73). In a contemporary sense, this leads to news organisations either giving away news to satisfy online readers and boost website hits, or saving stories for the print edition to profit from the cover price and more effective advertising. This dilemma highlights the conflict between striving for journalistic capital, through placing content on the website immediately and therefore building symbolic status and dominance, or improving economic capital by holding it for the newspaper. The demands of online journalism have therefore created a range of pressures, constraints and impacts on the traditional newspaper environment. Siapera and Spyridou (2012) recognise how technology in the 21st century, such as online methods, has led to a reduction in journalism’s power. As a result, the online platform has become an important element in the journalistic field, and is therefore worthy of examination in conjunction with sports journalism.

Workloads are also a relevant issue in contemporary media (see Bourdieu, 2001; Deuze, 2009), while the competition for scoops across platforms is another demand on journalists and their organisations. Meyen and Riesmeyer (2012: 398) describe the battle over exclusive news as being conducted for ‘winning positions of power’ in the field (see also Hartley, 2011). However, Bourdieu (1998, 2001, 2005) argues this competition leads not to diversity, but uniformity of content through monitoring of rivals (see also Hamilton, 2004; Phillips, 2010). These forces in the journalistic field place extra pressure, and provide further struggles, for journalists in newsrooms.

The amount of research utilising field theory over the previous 10–15 years led Hovden (2008) to write of ‘a new paradigm for journalism research’ (p. 59) (see also Hanitzsch, 2011). Empirical studies have helped test some of Bourdieu’s concepts in France (Champagne and Marchetti, 2005; Duval, 2005), while Hovden (2008) mapped the field in Norway. Online news and journalism have also been investigated (Hartley, 2011; Hartley and Ellersgaard, 2013; Phillips, 2010; Siapera and Spyridou, 2012). Studies of journalists have focused on specialists (Marchetti, 2005), autonomy (Champagne, 2005; Hanitzsch, 2011) and role perceptions (Meyen and Riesmeyer, 2012). These works reflect how field theory has been employed successfully in journalism research. However, previous scholarship also highlights the absence of wide-ranging analysis of sports journalism.

Sport in the journalistic field

Despite sport forming a significant part of newspapers and homepages, it has often been overlooked for its triviality. Researchers note the absence of sustained and detailed analysis into sports journalism, and state how it is not regarded as important in comparison to other aspects of journalism (Boyle, 2006; Boyle et al., 2010; Cokley et al., 2006; Nicholson et al., 2011). In terms of field theory, sports journalism has not figured heavily in previous research, particularly when its relationship with online journalism is included. This omission allows for a detailed analysis of the sports journalism field, in relation to the broadsheet/quality markets of Australia, India and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, because Bourdieu (1996, 1998) does not break down the journalistic field into sub-categories of specialities, it enables a hypothesis of where sports journalism sits within the journalistic field.

Sports journalism is an aspect that has received relatively minor mentions in field theory studies (see Bourdieu, 1998). While Bourdieu (1999) analysed the sporting field, placing sporting activities in a model of supply and social demand, his sole mention of sports journalists came with them listed in a group providing ‘services required in order to pursue the sport’ (p. 429). Webb et al. (2002) also examined the field of sport, its growth, and ties to the market. They note the role played by media in assisting the shift of sports towards a more economical, legal or media agenda, rather than a purely sporting outlook. Marchetti (2005) discusses sports journalists briefly in regard to journalists moving across specialist departments. Hovden (2008) went further, including sports journalists as a category in his model of the Norwegian journalistic space. Hovden (2008: 137) locates sports journalists slightly to the right of centre, closer to the negative end of journalistic capital than the positive pole. This places sport on the dominated side of the axis. The dominant section, with positive journalistic capital and what Hovden (2008) describes as ‘journalistic power and prestige’, includes foreign, economic and political journalists (p. 130). However, in terms of overall field capital, sports journalists in Norway are more senior and experienced than their counterparts in other specialised rounds except crime. Hovden’s analysis helps to position sports journalism within the journalistic field.

It can be argued that sport sits predominantly on the economic capital side of the axis in the journalistic field, but with a small part of the sub-field in the journalistic capital section (see Figure 1). The sports department has been called ‘the world’s best advertising agency’ (Schultz-Jørgensen, 2005: 4), and sports journalists have been described as ‘fans’ or sycophants (Boyle et al., 2010; Marchetti, 2005). This suggests the market element is more prominent than the journalistic one. Sports desks have also been used in the aftermath of media company purchases by Rupert Murdoch to improve circulation and advertising rates (Boyle and Haynes, 2009). Advertising mentions also occur regularly in sports articles (see English, 2013b), for example, sponsored names of stadia (Emirates Stadium in London), or team names (Chris Froome’s Team Sky cycling squad). These arguments can help to explain why sport is predominantly on the economic side of the axis. However, sports journalism also contains classical investigative reporting, which means agenda-setting news stories are produced. In instances such as exposing corruption, or highlighting financial irregularities or cover-ups in sporting clubs, sports journalists employ the watchdog role often cited when referring to hard news or investigative reporting (for some examples see Conn, 2011, 2013). Elements of cycling reporting also have a tradition of exposing drugs in the sport (see Walsh, 2007, 2013). So while sports journalism undoubtedly has a strong connection with the market pole, it also has a place on the pure side of the axis.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Sports journalism in the journalistic field.

In terms of overall capital, sports journalism can be situated above the mid-point in the positive segment of this space. This reflects the capital the sports department possesses both in economic and journalistic terms, in comparison with other sections of media outlets such as lifestyle journalism. Sport has its own distinct section in newspapers – often at the back or as a standalone lift-out – and is usually positioned prominently on the homepage of news organisation websites. As already mentioned, it has been shown to be an area used to drive advertising and circulation. In terms of professional reputation, Marchetti (2005) argues specialist journalists, including sports journalists (see also Hargreaves, 1986; Rowe, 2013), have a low value due to their technical knowledge and narrow vision. While sports sections do not carry the prestige of the content – or the journalists – compared with the main news sections of the newspapers or websites, they provide a vital element in the balance of coverage. These reasons contribute to the location of sport in the journalistic field in Figure 1. The placement of sport in this way provides a platform for the mapping of the sports journalism field in relation to broadsheet/quality news organisations in the three nations.

Sample of organisations and nations

Field theory allows researchers to analyse a range of factors at micro, mezzo and macro levels (see Benson, 1999), which is extremely valuable in a comparative study. In this case, it includes analysis across six broadsheet/quality news organisations in Australia, India and the United Kingdom, as well as examination of individual roles within those newsrooms. The sample ensures comparisons between two Western nations and India, a developing nation (Hanitzsch et al., 2010; Yin, 2011). Equivalence is a key concept of comparative research to ensure units are relevant for comparison (Esser and Hanitzsch, 2012; Rössler, 2012). The three nations have Commonwealth histories, with Australia and India sharing colonial backgrounds, and therefore strong ties to the United Kingdom. English is a language spoken by large sections of each nation and to ensure a suitable comparison, only English newspapers and their websites have been selected. Geographically, each nation is part of a different continent, with Asia, Australia and Europe represented. In terms of sport, there are diverse interests as well as similarities. For example, cricket has a long-lasting influence in each country and remains popular in its various formats.

Six broadsheet/quality news organisations were selected for analysis: The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian in Australia; The Times of India and The Hindu in India; and the Guardian and The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom. These titles were chosen because they are leading publications in their nations in terms of quality (see Shoemaker and Cohen, 2006). The selection of broadsheet/quality products ensured relatively similar standards of newspapers were being examined. Broadsheet/quality sports sections have been chosen because their content is regarded as more serious and balanced, which can result in an agenda-setting role and influence on society (see Boyle in Schultz-Jørgensen, 2005; Harrington, 2008; Rowe, 2011).

Circulation is an indicator of economic capital, and there were large variations across the sample. In the last quarter of 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald’s weekday sales averaged 157,931, while The Australian’s were 122,428 (The Newspaper Works, 2013). The Sydney Morning Herald’s website received approximately 2,937,000 users in April 2012 (Lee, 2012), while The Australian reported its monthly average at 1.1 million (Day, 2012). In India, The Times of India had a readership in the final quarter of 2012 of 7,615,000, while its website attracted 12,336,000 unique visitors in September 2011 (ComScore, 2011; Indian Readership Survey, 2012). At the same times, The Hindu’s readership was 2,164,000 and its website had 2,850,000 unique visitors (ComScore, 2011; Indian Readership Survey, 2012). The circulation of The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom was an average of 546,438 in November 2012, while the Guardian’s was 203,592 (guardian.co.uk, 2012). The Guardian’s website was the second most popular in the nation with 71,766,288 monthly browsers in October 2012, ahead of The Daily Telegraph with 56,919,647 (Sweney, 2012a).

The publications from each of the three nations have wide distributions and influence (see Rössler, 2012). However, the figures also reflect the economic power of the Indian print industry, in which newspaper sales have been increasing (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)-KPMG, 2011; Rowe, 2013). In contrast, print circulations have fallen in Australia and the United Kingdom since the Global Financial Crisis, while the substantial rises in online traffic have not been able to offset the reduction in advertising (see McNair, 2011; O’Donnell et al., 2012; Simpson, 2012; Sweney, 2012b).

Nations

Overall, it is clear that the pursuit of economic capital dominates the sports journalism field. While this is not necessarily surprising, given the commercial nature of the media analysed in this study, and previous research on sport and the journalism industry (see English, 2013b; Hamilton, 2004; McManus, 2009; Picard, 2004; Schultz-Jørgensen, 2005), it is unexpected that there are such distinct differences between the aims of the companies in India and the United Kingdom. The positioning of the three nations occurs as a result of the placement of the broadsheet/quality organisations within each media system. In India and the United Kingdom, there is significant space between the two newsrooms in this analysis. As a result, India and the United Kingdom can be situated relatively close to each other, above the mid-point line of total capital, and on the economic capital side. The United Kingdom holds slightly more capital in both areas, due to the large levels of journalistic and economic value when the media organisations are combined. Furthermore, there are also not quite the same extremes between the United Kingdom organisations, in comparison with India. This is particularly noticeable in India in terms of conflicting commercial aims and traditional ethical approaches of The Times of India, which seeks large levels of economic capital, and The Hindu, which is more focused on journalistic capital. The Australian publications are the most closely positioned of the three nations, suggesting similar aims, applications of content and technology, and uniformity (see Bourdieu, 1998). It also indicates lower capital as a result of smaller circulations, and reduced revenues since the Global Financial Crisis.

Organisations

At an organisational level, economic capital is the dominant feature in four of the media outlets. In total capital terms on the market side of the axis, The Daily Telegraph and The Times of India are situated the highest. This is due to The Daily Telegraph’s strong economic status and the desire to have unique newspaper content. The Daily Telegraph has continued to make a profit in difficult circumstances since the Global Financial Crisis, with a £54.5 million return in 2011 (Sweney, 2012b). The sports newsroom had been an early adopter of web-first publishing (see English, 2011), but this approach has been relaxed – at least in practice – to ensure more generation of capital through the profitable newspaper. Prioritising the print edition over the web in order to protect material from being seen by rivals, and ensuring fresh content in the paid-for newspaper, were approaches regularly described during the interviews. Workloads among staff were relatively stable in the previous 5 years, while there was a budget for ensuring travel to cover major events.

The Times of India is the most commercially focused organisation in the study, operating at the economic axis through its strident commercial approach, a desire to accommodate corporate aspects – not just in stories, but as an overall department – and the enormous newspaper readership figures. While products and sponsors would be endorsed for use in editorial content, they had to be approved by the organisation’s senior management and be in line with company goals. The heavy commercial focus was described as ‘sad’ by a senior writer, who noted how sports columns were designed around advertisements for alcohol products. Print was undoubtedly the focus, and the workloads of staff were stable. However, the organisation has much lower levels of journalistic capital due to contrasting approaches to producing newspaper and online editions, which result in essentially separate products. For example, there were 859 articles published during the study across the newspaper and website, but only 79 of those stories appeared on both platforms (see English, 2013a). Items in both platforms contain higher capital than those published solely in print or online editions, because they have passed through more publishing gates (English, 2013a). The Times of India’s small number of articles in both platforms reflected the approach to protect the paid-for newspaper content, while populating the website with material not usually considered important enough to appear in print as well. Other factors in the organisation’s placement include being slow to embrace online publishing and Twitter usage, and a less stringent approach to ethics, especially in comparison with The Hindu. One respondent at The Times of India spoke of being under pressure to ‘make up’ information for stories in order to stay ahead of rivals. These factors resulted in reduced journalistic capital for the organisation.

The Australian has a strong economic focus, largely protecting its newspaper content, despite official policies driven more towards online publishing (see Meade, 2012). However, the low circulation, weakened financial position, smaller staff levels and greater workloads result in the organisation being located in the negative half of total capital. One area in which The Australian stood out was the lack of material that appeared online first, and the subsequent importance placed on print. It published the fewest stories web-first in the study at 19.9 per cent of articles. Furthermore, only two of 143 items that appeared in both print and online platforms were published on the website first. These measures result in lower levels of journalistic capital, due to the strong pursuit of economic capital through newspaper cover price. The financial focus came despite some comments from respondents supporting company announcements reflecting a digital strategy (see Meade, 2012). In terms of workloads, a specialist reporter indicated the quality of stories was suffering because writers had lost ‘thinking time’, due to filing for the newspaper and the website. This also indicates a preference for the pursuit of economic capital over journalistic capital.

Similar forces were impacting on The Sydney Morning Herald, with smaller budgets for travel, low circulation, the willingness of senior staff to meet advertisers, and higher workloads. A notable drop in staffing had occurred in the previous 5 years, with the sports manager saying approximately 20 employees had left the department and not been replaced, leaving about 30 remaining. During the interviews, a division emerged between the three writers wanting to focus on the newspaper as the most effective platform for exclusive stories, and the three desk-based journalists who preferred online. This highlighted the different forces affecting the department, and opposition between those charged with finding news and producing it. The newsroom focused more attention online than at The Australian, and while the levels were not as high as in India or the United Kingdom, they signalled higher journalistic capital than its Australian rival. A stated focus on ethics and verification also contributed to the journalistic capital of The Sydney Morning Herald. This included one staff member saying they would not ‘pinch’ a story from a rival without attributing it.

Two organisations are positioned towards the journalistic capital axis. The Hindu possesses the most total capital on this side, due to its principled, ethical and traditional approach, which is in line with the company’s values over the past 134 years. These traits clearly remain essential to the organisation, as made clear by the respondents, and through the content analysis. A particularly revealing comment came when the sports manager described the importance of cross-checking material. ‘Our reporters are told scoops are not important, but it’s important to get your facts right’, he said. In an age when most news organisations crave any form of original material to increase their overall capital, The Hindu remained focused on truth and accuracy. The newspaper’s large circulation ensures economic capital contributes to the high volume of total capital. However, journalistic capital is reduced in this comparison due to the low emphasis placed on online and Twitter methods by all respondents. However, despite the newspaper-centric publishing attitude approach, 38 per cent of content was web-first at The Hindu, and 31.5 per cent was published this way in articles that appeared in both print and web platforms. This placed it significantly ahead of The Times of India in both categories, which enhanced its journalistic capital due to information being made available free of charge as soon as it was ready to be published.

The Guardian, which is owned by The Scott Trust, also pursued journalistic capital successfully. This occurred primarily through its digital-first policy, which was largely applied. For example, 70.4 per cent of its 548 articles in the content analysis were published web-first, more than 30 per cent higher than any other title in the study. While this results in significant journalistic capital in terms of information being provided to the public immediately, increasing symbolic capital through status and field dominance, it causes reductions in the economic measure, due to the online material being free. While the Guardian’s website traffic figures are enormous, this does not translate into financial success due to advertising being less effective online than in comparison with the newspaper. The organisation’s economic capital measure is therefore affected by significant losses in recent years – the parent company lost £44.2 million in 2011 (Sabbagh, 2012) – reduced staff levels and increased workloads. However, journalistic capital is so strong, in regard to applying technological innovations and servicing a wide audience, that it is a dominator in this segment of the sports journalism field. As a result, the organisation is positioned above the halfway axis.

Individual sports journalists by position

The amounts of capital possessed by individual sports journalists vary considerably by position. However, it is interesting to note all roles apart from sports managers sit closer towards the journalistic axis. Given their duties as major decision makers, it is not surprising that sports managers own the largest volume of total capital. While they are consumed by content decisions, financial issues play a significant part in their work, particularly in relation to commercial elements and economic realities. For example, The Sydney Morning Herald’s sports manager said he would now meet with advertisers, while his counterpart at the Guardian believed in trying to ‘monetise’ the sports section. These are direct examples of the increase of commercialisation in the media (see English, 2013b; Hamilton, 2004; McManus, 2009; Picard, 2004).

Senior writers have the second-largest volume of total capital, and are situated close to the journalistic pole. They have achieved high autonomy and status, increasing their journalistic capital. Through the interviews it was evident that they were rarely concerned by – or compelled to cater for – economic issues. This is an example of actors exhibiting agency within company structures (see Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Webb et al., 2002). Specialist reporters also have positive total capital, due to their subject knowledge from distinct rounds, and pursuit of news with higher value. This results in more journalistic capital and autonomy than general reporters, whose roles are considerably broader. Online staff and subeditors are also in the negative half of total capital. This is noteworthy given one is a newer role developed to cater for web technology, while the other is a more traditional newspaper-centric position. Due to the web’s difficulties in making money, online staff contribute more to readership – therefore journalistic capital – than profit generation. However, they are more likely to have embraced usage of Twitter, and can also provide web-only features, as well as work for the print edition. Subeditors have negligible economic capital, but retain some journalistic value due to their back-room production roles. This position is losing traction in some contemporary newsrooms, with outsourcing of subbing, or pools of general subeditors, being introduced in Australia.

Publishing techniques and content

There are contrasting placements for the types of publishing techniques and content. At the economic pole are the newspaper-based approaches, where content is saved for the paid-for newspaper for financial gain. Print-first publishing has high total capital due to it protecting major content from being seen by rivals. The placement of this element changes in relation to Figure 1, with print-first articles possessing more total capital in Figure 2 due to the sports journalists’ responses, particularly in India, and economic forces and priorities in these departments. For example, all organisations except for the Guardian published between 62 and 80.1 per cent of stories print-first. This also applies to the higher capital of paper-only stories in sport. Items appearing in the print and web category contain the largest levels of total capital, having passed through separate gates to appear in both print and web platforms. This measure was designed for this study, and the web element moved this publishing technique away from the economic pole, due to the online edition being free almost all of the time (see also English, 2013a). Both web-based methods are placed on the journalistic side, with web-first publishing having the greater amount of total capital. While web-first content is very low in economic terms, it is important in regards to publishing news first, servicing the demands of the audience and generating symbolic capital. This aspect is higher in sports journalism, closer to mid-point of total volume, due to the stated policies of organisations in Australia and the United Kingdom, particularly the Guardian, but also due to the technique being more prevalent than expected in India. Web-only content is near the bottom axis of total capital, only slightly above wire content. It is placed there because of the possibility the content is produced by staff journalists, rather than being shovelled from the wires, which are available to anyone who subscribes.

Exclusive news is at the top of the model. This is due to its high journalistic and economic benefits in driving advertising, circulation and status, but also because it increases the personal capital of individuals who produce these items (see Hartley, 2011; Meyen and Riesmeyer, 2012). However, it is important to recognise that these types of stories appeared in low levels in the content analysis. Twitter is a relatively new addition to the field, and sits slightly towards the journalistic pole, below the mid-point of total capital. This platform can be used for publishing, promoting content, and interacting with the audience. It is also utilised for gaining online readers, which provides some economic benefit. It is expected that this medium will gain in capital as it becomes used even more widely.

Influential elements in the field

It is not surprising, given the companies’ aims, and the regulations passed on to the sports journalists they employ, that the pursuit of economic capital controls the sports journalism field. Bourdieu (1986) rates economic capital as the most powerful, and there has been increased commercialisation of the media (English, 2013b; Hamilton, 2004; McManus, 2009; Picard, 2004). But what is striking is the differences between nations and organisations, publishing platforms, and individual positions. In the sports journalism field in the broadsheet/quality context, there are a range of powerful forces impacting on the actors at various intensities. As Bourdieu (1998) argues, in the field there are those who are dominant and dominated, during the battles and struggles over economic and cultural capital – or, in this case, economic and journalistic capital. In the sports journalism field, the elements with the most influence include exclusive news, sports managers, articles appearing in both print and web platforms, and The Daily Telegraph. Those who are dominated in relation to these aspects include subeditors, web-only publishing, and wire content. Technological and financial changes, especially in Australia and the United Kingdom, have ensured the field has evolved, creating pressures for those dealing with the newer conditions. In this analysis, the greater range of forces has been occurring in Australia and the United Kingdom, which have been affected and influenced more by innovations surrounding publishing techniques and Twitter usage. Changes have also occurred in terms of content, commercial factors, and workloads. However, this does not mean India’s media system is experiencing weaker pressures. The power of the newspaper industry ensures there is significant influence on the Indian organisations and their journalists, although it would appear the extra demands placed by web-based technologies will be accommodated more thoroughly in the future.