Journalism Practices in Western and Muslim Majority Countries: Culture Matters

Abstract

In this article, we suggest that the ideological cultural forces explain the differences in journalism practices in Western and Muslim majority countries (MMC). It is argued that the norms, values, and the deep political culture of the West and MMC have been materialized leading to different types of journalism practices. The statistical analysis of 11,246 interviews from twenty four Western and MMC conducted as part of the second wave of Worlds of Journalism Study demonstrates that journalists’ perception of influences, editorial autonomy, and journalistic roles reflect clear varied patterns, which resemble the overall cultural lines that shape their journalistic ideology. This article, we argue, has extended the hierarchical model of influences to embrace the wider regional cultural lines that avoid the trap of national media systems—centrism. Furthermore, it refutes the dominance of a global Western monoculture and, in turn, a singular global journalism practice.

Keywords

editorial autonomy perceived political influences journalistic roles cultural forces Worlds of Journalism Study

Introduction

Journalism practice has been extensively examined from political, economic, organizational, and individual contexts (Hanitzsch et al. 2010; McNair 2009b); unfortunately, the culture or the ideological cultural forces have rarely been considered (Hanusch 2014) as determinants of journalism practice. The main purpose of the present study is to fill this gap. It raises the question of whether a global journalism practice prevails in countries that have dissimilar cultural characteristics due to the influence of globalization. We aim to understand whether journalism is becoming more globally standardized or if it is shaped by regional cultural diversity. Global village journalism supports a homogenous journalism practice whether as a cause or effect. The intersection of all facets and manifestations of globalization, including economy, the move toward democracy, finance, trade, marketization, deregulation, privatization, and internet connectedness—among others—drive the move toward homogenous global journalism practices (Hjarvard 2001; Ward 2005).

On the other hand, many seminal works have doubted the existence of the so-called global journalism practice, emphasizing the fact that a unitary of practices is a fallacy rather than a reality (Hafez 2007). Some scholars differentiate between global journalism means and practices; the first does not transcend the local or the regional culture. Reese (2010), for example, emphasizes this by suggesting that media globalization has failed to unify journalism practices and that homogenization loses out to domestication. In this context, we believe that despite the cultural change, due to forces of globalization, journalists in Muslim majority countries (MMC) have not entirely replaced their traditional values and practices with modern Western norms, and that the persistence of traditional views is still dominant despite the cultural and socioeconomic forces of globalization. The main question, then, is: Does journalism practice transcend national borders and to what extent? If we dispute the ability of the Western liberal culture to shape the global journalism practice, is it possible to identify common regional practices among groups of countries that share similar culture? Can we expect a unified journalism practice among Western countries versus another unified journalism practice in MMC? Our aim is to avoid the trap of national media systems—centrism, upon which the existing literature is built. Furthermore, we seek to minimize the imbalance in journalism practice studies that have mainly been focused on the Western context and theories ignoring the fact that only 13 percent of the people in the world live in countries with free media (Freedom House 2017)

Culture and Journalism Practice: History and Debate

Due to the dominance of Western culture and the hegemony of Western journalism studies, the dominant view about journalism practice has been mainly Western (Petkova and Bromley 2000). Professionally, the initial response of journalists to globalization was to produce and circulate a content of high uniformity to publicize it everywhere in the world. Yet, the desire to meet the local demands and cultural sensitivity of local and regional audiences forced journalists to adjust their content to the preferences of local audiences (Voltmer 2001). In response to this, scholars began to consider a double-sided approach to study the role of global media in transforming global society on the one hand and examine the ways through which global culture influences journalism practices on the other (Hjarvard 2001).

The main question in this strand of research is whether journalism practices have truly become global. As a positive response to this move toward globalization, the research agenda began to challenge the nation-centeredness. At the same time, societal conditions in which journalists around the world operate—and which include the challenges and pressures they encounter as well as the traditions and standards they follow—are likely to differ significantly. Due to the diversity of work conditions and the multitude of governing cultures that guide and control the work environment of journalists, journalism scholars today are required to rethink both the theoretical paradigms and actual practices stemming from the Western experience and which resonate with the diversity and multiplicity of experiences around the world (Miike 2002). The assumption is that mapping journalism culture around the globe will continue to be vague unless we empirically test the theoretical dominant notions regarding similarities, differences, global versus national or regional, and so forth. The coincidence of convergence and divergence of sociopolitical culture is likely to result in convergent and divergent journalism practices.

Cross-cultural comparisons of journalism have a long history, where the earliest example has been provided by Robert William Desmond (1937) book The Press and World Affairs. The focus of this seminal work was on the influence of cultural and political contexts on the production of news in different regions of the world. After two decades, the US scholars Fred S Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm published the most influential work in their book Four Theories of the Press. They thought to identify the factors behind differences in media systems and practices in different cultures (Siebert et al. 1956). This same objective was once again extended by Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) book Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics that focuses on Western Europe and North America (Hallin and Mancini 2004). Recently, Hanusch (2013) has found that the culture of Māori society is determining what journalists do. The ideological influence has also been examined by Umejei (2018) who found that Chinese media growth in Africa has not displaced the dominant Western liberal model of journalism. What happened is the coexistence of hybrid Chinese and Western practices of journalism. For the purpose of this study, we will treat the two designated groups, Western countries and MMC as two different cultural units, which are characterized through distinct language, religion, cultural values, educational and political systems, mass media systems, markets, and history (Schwartz 2004). The five cultural value dimensions of Hofstede (2001), which include masculinity, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and long-term orientation, may support the distinctiveness of the Western to that of MMC cultures. Yet, we have to keep in mind that according to any theory of cultural differences or values, there is no coherent cultural unit.

According to Shoemaker and Reese, [j]ournalism has been studied throughout history as a professional ideology on which most news workers base their professional perceptions and praxis, but which is interpreted, used and applied differently among journalists across media and we add across cultures (Shoemaker and Reese 1996: 11). It was no surprise, then, that (Deuze 2005) confirms that professional ideology is the main force that shapes the common patterns among journalism practices and that it is the mechanism journalists adopt to legitimize their position in society. This journalism ideology is a subset of the dominant culture in a society. In the present study, journalists serve in both democratic and nondemocratic regimes with two different cultural ideologies: the first operate in a free, liberal and multicultural society, and the second function at a high level of state intervention, suppression and censorship. Cultural ideology is seen here as a collection of values defining journalism, and shared most widely by members of the profession. This ideology is generally defined as the ways through which journalists legitimize their work and validate its meaning (Deuze 2004). It is, in fact, the most macro level that was originally termed “ideological,” in the broad sense of ideas in the service of interests and which is how all the other levels work together to produce a predictable ideological result (Reese 2019). Though the macro level of influences or the ideological forces are embedded in the hierarchical model of Shoemaker and Reese (Reese and Shoemaker 2016), it is important to mention that our work extends the model to cover a geographical and cultural space beyond any particular nation.

As Steele (2013: 344) suggests for many journalists in the MMC of Indonesia and Malaysia, the everyday practices of journalism are rooted in a set of values having as much to do with Islam as they do with formal ethical codes. Meanwhile, no one can ignore the fact that the distinct perspectives of reporters and editors in these diverse MMC are likely to be shaped by range of political, economic, and social influences. These countries have various forms of government, ranging from republics (like Turkey and Indonesia) to monarchies (like Oman and Qatar). Sudan and Egypt have experienced periods of authoritarian rule and political instability in their recent history. Countries like Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait are known for their high levels of economic development and wealth due to their oil reserves. Others, like Sierra Leone and Bangladesh face economic challenges. The way in which Islam is practiced in MMC may exhibit some degree of variations. For example, in Turkey, there is a stronger secular tradition, while in Qatar, Indonesia, and Oman, the religious establishment plays a more dominant role in public life. Countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Albania, and Kosovo are known for their diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds (Bazzi et al. 2017; Nagaraj et al. 2015). In contrast, Egypt and Sudan enjoy more homogenous ethnic and linguistic background. Convergence and divergence forces are working simultaneously in the designated MMC. Though Islam is the religion of the majority in these countries shaping the identity of the people, it has to some extent different interpretations. The economic, military, and technological dependence to the world power aggravate the conflict and lessen the convergence among these countries (Hafeznia and Zarghani 2012).

Nevertheless, MMC share a common element: Islamic values and orientations that influence journalistic practices. This influence is evident in how journalists address truth in censored societies, pursue justice and rights, and balance professional standards with their religious and cultural beliefs (Pintak 2013). While MMC experience diverse socioeconomic and political circumstances, they all share a common connection to Islam and an Islamic perspective. We contend that journalists in these twelve countries may identify with diverse communities, ranging from their native national culture to the broader Islamic culture, culminating in a globally blended cultural identity. In the meantime, when we use the term “Islamic culture,” we are referring to the tendency to perceive Islam not only as a “religion” in the limited context of theological convictions and personal prayers, but also as a comprehensive lifestyle offering guidance for political, economic, and social behavior including journalism practices. Exactly as Ismail (2004) suggests, Islam is the primary factor that shapes Muslim identity. Other aspects of identity—formation such as social class, gender, or national affiliation, are considered subordinate to religious beliefs.

This identity makes MMC a distinct cultural unit different from the Western unit, which is characterized by separation of spiritual and temporal authority, church and state, in addition to the rise and persistence of diverse autonomous groups not based on blood relationship or marriage (Huntington 1996b); as is the case with the MMC. Therefore, we support Asad’s assertion recognizing the conceptual distinction between Western and non-Western perspectives as crucial for comprehending global changes (Asad 1993). Contrary to Lerner’s belief over half a century ago, MMC has not become secular (Lerner 1964). As Mowlana observed while in the West, religion has been separated from secular life, and ethical conduct has been left to individual conscience, in MMC, there was never a complete separation between the religious and secular spheres. Even when late modernizers attempted to create this distinction, it was never fully actualized (Mowlana 2003). This does not negate Asad’s perspective on the inherent issues within the concept of secularism. He argues that secularism does not stem from a singular source nor maintain a stable historical identity (Asad 2003). Even though Asad’s work fundamentally relies on the binary distinction between “the West” and “the non-West” (Bangstad 2009).

In brief, given the acknowledged significance of the religion in examining social phenomena by sociologists, economists, and other social scientists, it is not surprising to acknowledge the influence of Islamic culture on journalism practice in MMC (Rehman and Askari 2010). The shared affiliation with the Muslim Ummah is the key factor driving the grouping of these countries. Ummah represents the essence of the Islamic community, emphasizing inclusivity without prerequisites or restrictions for membership (Hassan 2006). As such, Islam as well as other religions extend beyond national borders and asserts authority in a way that challenges the boundaries of nation-states (Grzymala-Busse 2012). We agree on what Gill (2001) has concluded that current global events underscore the prominent role of religion in politics, and this trend is expected to persist. In this context, journalism and media studies are no exception. This understanding is in line with the findings of the World Values Survey indicating that in forty-three countries, over 75 percent of respondents still express belief in a supernatural deity, 63 percent identify as religious, and 70 percent affiliate themselves with a religious denomination (Inglehart et al. 1998). Despite the prevalent conceptual understanding of religion as a potent societal force, secularization theorists suggest that it would lose its relevance. This perspective has led many comparative scholars to overlook its potentially significant influence (Gill 2001). In this context, it would be important to state that the secularized perspective of approaching religion is not applicable to Islam. One of the preeminent secular scholars in this field is (Fitzgerald 2015) suggested two contrasting lenses: one portrays it as a faith rooted in peace, non-violence, and inner spirituality, divorced from notions of power; the other views it as inherently brutal and a threat to secular, liberal nation-states. These two viewpoints do not align with Islam’s true nature that encompasses more than just spirituality; it is a comprehensive way of life involving politics, economy, culture, international relations, and matters of war, peace, coexistence and has nothing to do with violence or terrorism (Abdullah and Nadvi 2011; Gregorian 2003; Kamali 1994).

The existing literature tends to present two contrasting perspectives on the nature of Islam, debating whether it represents a mosaic or a monolithic religion (Asad 1993; Fitzgerald 2015; Gregorian 2003; Huntington 1996a; Said et al. 2008) each comes with its own historical and cultural arguments, which are beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is reasonable to endorse Gregorian view of the fact that there is no single “Muslim world” or ideology, just like there is no single “Christian,” “Buddhist,” or “Jewish” world or ideology (Gregorian 2003). The justification of the cross cultural comparative study is not whether the Islamic worldview is perceived through a unified or fragmented religious framework (Fitzgerald 2007), absolutism or pluralism, mosaic or monolithic (Afsaruddin 2008). What truly matters is its capacity to offer substantial ideological orientation that warrants a comparative examination with a different secular paradigm underpinning journalism practice in the Western context. However, this does not invalidate our philosophical understanding that Islam has effectively unified Muslim peoples and journalists that influence their behavior in politics, economics, society, and journalism. Like any empirical deductive study, we derive hypotheses from this theoretical understanding expecting that the data and results will support our vision. Alternatively, we are prepared to accept a different explanation.

Influences, Editorial Autonomy, and Professional Roles

Journalism practices in MMC are shaped by a complex interplay of political, socioeconomic factors, and the philosophy of the Islamic worldview, which aims to transform the global social order (Esposito 2002). In line with this view, (Pintak 2013) study underscores the crucial role of Islamic values in shaping the perspective of journalists in the Muslim world. Similarly, the political economy of journalism is a decisive factor that journalists cannot avoid while conducting their job. The majority of journalism institutions in MMC, as a cultural unit, with very few exceptions, are owned, funded, and operated directly or indirectly under a suppressive state. Regardless of what is stated in the constitutions and laws, the governments determine the mission, vision, performance, roles, and autonomy of journalism as an institution and journalists as professionals. “To serve its democratizing function, conventional wisdom assumes that the media must be objective and independent, and not be merely a megaphone for powerful interests” (Comeforo 2010: 219), in contrary, journalism in MMC has surely been far from serving this function. All studies and indicators at our hands affirm this conclusion (Hamada 2019; Sakr 2003). If this is true, journalists’ practices in MMC must be at odds with their peers in the Western democratic group, since they are constrained by the powerful structural cultural forces, which are built in the journalism system to serve the survival of dictatorial regimes of most MMC.

In MMC, advertising has very little share in funding journalism. The media system as a whole is not a profit-oriented institution, but a propaganda machine controlled by the powerful interests of the alliance between the rulers and the private sector elites who fully or partially are part of the regime. Diversity of opinions is only allowed to the extent that sits in line with political and economic elites. Owners of private journalism are part of the ruling families or the political systems (Richter and Gräf 2015). Most MMC rulers have thus survived by increasing reliance on repressive methods that explain the legitimacy deficit of their regimes. They employ journalism to defend their existence and restore the peoples’ loyalty, and finally to distract the attention of the ruled people from their failures, the origin of the legitimacy deficit. This does not mean that the Propaganda Model of (Herman and Chomsk 1988; Klaehn 2011) explains the status quo of journalism simply because there is neither independent private journalism, nor profit-oriented media system in MMC, yet the majority of media are patriotic in nature, serving to eradicate dissent and manufacture consent.

Though significant body of research has examined journalism practices (Hanitzsch et al. 2010; Hughes et al. 2017; Mellado 2014; Mellado et al. 2017; Şahin 2021), little effort has been dedicated to the combined aspects of practices that together include influences, professional autonomy and roles in relation to cultural clusters. It is argued that the ideological aspects of a cultural unit determine the magnitude, type, and sources of influences that increase or decrease the perception of autonomy and decision making of journalists, and which ultimately shape their roles in a given society. We will narrow our focus to understanding how the two cultures influence journalism practices, as a comprehensive review of the existing literature is not feasible.

Most empirical studies of the influences of journalists’ work are based on the model of hierarchy of influences suggested by (Reese and Shoemaker 2016). Obviously, the model, which has a social system level, has nothing to do with the ideological culture of a group of countries that this article distinctly focuses on in the present study. The most comprehensive work that empirically and comparatively documented the similarities and differences in journalism practice is World of Journalism Study (WJS). Based on this ambitious project, it was found that journalists in non-Western nations have a stronger perception of influences than their peers in Western nations (Hanitzsch et al. 2019). Similarly, (Hughes et al. 2017) found that journalists in insecure democracies have a higher level of an influences’ perception than journalists in well-established democracies.

It is believed that the perceived influences are closely related to journalistic autonomy which has deteriorated everywhere due to commercialization, corporate control (Sjøvaag 2013), and the increasing intervention of the state in news production and decision, especially in the global south countries. The wider cultural political ideology that constitutes the uniqueness of both Western and Islamic countries restricts or enables editorial autonomy. This, however, does not negate what has been stated in the literature that journalistic autonomy is constrained at the political, economic, and organizational levels of news production, negotiated at the editorial level, and exercised by the individual journalists at the level of practice (Hughes et al. 2016). From a cross-cultural comparative point of view, (Hamada 2021) established that while a Western European liberal democratic model is strongly associated with autonomy and safety of journalists, they carry out their daily tasks in autocratic and totalitarian political systems under repressive mechanisms that render them tools at the hands of governments, media owners, and advertisers.

Journalists’ perception of influences and autonomy is meant to generate a particular understanding and performance of journalistic roles. One of the common features that describes role perception is the absence of a consensus among scholars about the typologies of roles that the public expects journalists to perform and journalists believe that they have to do (Hanitzsch 2011; Hanitzsch et al. 2011; Mellado 2014; Muchtar et al. 2017). The challenge behind this disagreement is the methodology used in measuring such a concept. (Hanitzsch and Vos 2018) discussed the different typologies of roles as understood in the existing literature, yet one confusing factor is how it is studied. They distinguish between what journalists should do (a normative perspective), what they want to do (a cognitive perspective), what they really do (a professional practice) and what they say they do (the narrated performance). When examined as a distinct group, (Muchtar et al. 2017) found that the principle of “maslahah” or the public interest was behind the dominance of the interventionist role of journalists in twelve MMC; however, it lies at odds with the watchdog journalism that seeks to fight corruption and hold public authorities accountable.

Regardless of this obvious disagreement, roles are embedded in the Western culture where they are understood in their relation to enhancing democracy, human rights and citizenship. Notably, very little efforts have been found outside the Western orbit (Hanitzsch and Vos 2018). The political culture of liberalism produces professional roles for Western journalists defending the watchdog function of journalism, giving precedency for serving the public sphere rather than private sphere (Norris and Odugbemi 2010). Due to the emphasis on Western liberal culture, the impact of the sociopolitical structures on journalistic roles in nondemocratic countries, including MMC, is still fully vague and scholars wonder whether the Western hegemonic culture governs how journalists in autocratic regimes perceive their roles (Josephi 2015; Nerone 2013). Both Thomas Hanitzsch and his colleagues who led the project of WJS (Hanitzsch et al. 2019) and (Zelizer 2013) reviewed the historical linkages between democracy and journalism and suggested that Western scholarship has tended to view the journalism/democracy nexus as a natural way of understanding what journalism is for. In this context, Zelizer (2013) calls for a retirement of the democracy concept as it deters the proper understanding of journalism practice in nondemocratic cultures. She argues that journalism is practiced in a variety of contexts that respect order and authority rather than freedom and transparency. In the present study, we try to follow up on the genuine ideas raised by the leading scholars in the field by considering the views of journalists working in such repressive media environments that are characterized by a high level of state intervention. Against this background, we propose a number of hypotheses as follows:

H₁. Journalists of Western countries group have a lower level of perceived political influences than their colleagues in MMC.

H₂. Journalists of Western countries group enjoy greater level of editorial autonomy than their colleagues in MMC.

H₃. (a) Journalists of Western countries group perception of monitorial and accommodative roles is higher than their colleagues in MMC and, (b) Journalists ‘perception in MMC of collaborative and interventionist perspectives is higher than their colleagues in Western countries group.

H₄. There is a reversed relationship between the perception of editorial autonomy and political influences; higher levels of editorial autonomy are negatively correlated with lower level of perceived political influences in the two cultural groups collectively.

H₅: There is a reversed relationship between perception of editorial autonomy and collaborative professional role; higher levels of editorial autonomy are negatively correlated with lower levels of collaborative roles in the two cultural groups collectively.

The hypotheses are based on the challenging nature of examining cultural influences, which remain constant within a single cultural unit, even for individual journalists (Zhu et al. 1997). The only way to understand its influence as McLeod and Blumler argue is to compare it with others (McLeod and Blumler 1987).

Methods and Measures

The present article reports results based on the assumption that ideological culture transcends the national boundaries on which previous comparative studies have been based on. The investigated countries include twenty four countries of the Worlds of Journalism Study (WJS). They are divided equally between two groups:

(1) MMC, which include Egypt, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Albania and Kosovo; and (2) Western Countries Group (WCG), which include USA, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Sweden. The total number of surveyed journalists is 11,246 of which 7,460 (66%) are serving in Western countries and 3,786 (34%) are working in MMC. To measure journalists’ perception of influences, they were asked the following question: please tell us how much influence each of the following has on your work: five means it is extremely influential, four means very influential, three means somewhat influential, two means little influential, and one means not influential. The political influences index combined pressures from “politicians,” “government officials,” “pressure groups,” and “business representatives.”

To measure editorial autonomy, journalists were asked on a five-point Likert scale the following two questions: (1) Thinking of your work overall, how much freedom do you personally have in selecting news stories you work on? (2) How much freedom do you personally have in deciding which aspects of a story should be emphasized? (five means complete freedom, four means a great deal of freedom, three means some freedom, two means little freedom, and one means no freedom at all.) As for professional roles, journalists were asked the following question: Please tell us how important each of these things is in your work; five means you find them extremely important, four means very important, three means somewhat important, two means little importance, and one means unimportant. Each role is composed from combination of a number of statements as follows:

Monitorial role index includes four indicators as follows: (1) Provide political information, (2) Monitor and scrutinize politics, (3) Monitor and scrutinize business, and (4) Motivate people to participate in politics.

Collaborative role index includes two indicators as follows: (1) Support government policy, (2) Convey a positive image of political leaders.

Interventionist role index includes four indicators as follows: (1) Advocate for social change, (2) Influence public opinion, (3) Set the political agenda, and (4) Support national development.

Accommodative role index is based on three indicators: (1) Provide entertainment and relaxation, (2) Provide news that attracts largest audience, and (3) Provide advice, orientation, and direction for daily life.

With these measures in mind, a description and discussion of the data stemming from this study will be outlined in the following section.

Descriptive Data

Data were collected by a variety of tools including face-to-face, telephone, online self-administered interviews or a combination of these depending on the circumstances of every country during the period from 2012 to 2016. The number of respondents was 11,246 in total, with 7,460 (66%) from Western countries and 3,786 (34%) from MMC Table 1. It is therefore important to note that the percentage of respondents from the MMC was lower than that of Western countries; however, all samples were drawn to best represent the working journalists in each country separately.

Table 1.

Number of Respondents in Western and MMC groups.

Countries	N	%
Western	7,460	66
Muslim	3,786	34
Total	11,246	100

Note. MMC = Muslim majority countries.

As shown in Table 2, the percentage of female journalists is lower than that of men journalists across the two cultural unites with 42 percent and 35 percent in Western countries and MMC respectively. It is obvious that the division is more pronounced among the MMC. The median age of participants was close among both groups with a slightly younger cohort in the MMC with the media age of around thirty-three (forty-three for Western countries), which also has a direct impact on the median experience with it being fifteen years for Western countries in comparison to MMC of only eight years median experience. Interestingly, this did not correspond with the levels of education where 47 percent of participants from Western countries have a college degree or equivalent, whereas in the MCC the levels of education were higher with 66 percent having a college degree or equivalent.

Table 2.

Key Demographics of Journalists in Western and MMC Groups.

Characteristics	Western countries*	Muslin countries**	All journalists
Gender
Females	42%	35%	39%
Males	58%	65%	61%
Age
Mean	43.73	35.17	41.13
Median	43.00	33.00	40.00
Experience
Mean	17.06	9.86	14.88
Median	15.00	8.00	13.00
Education
Not completed high school	2%	1%	1%
Completed high school	7%	10%	8%
College/Bachelor’s degree or equivalent	47%	66%	54%
Master’s degree or equivalent	36%	18%	30%
Doctorate	1%	1%	1%
some university studies, but no degree	6%	5%	6%
Rank
Senior/executive manager	16%	20%	17%
“Junior” manager	33%	24%	30%
Rank-and-file	51%	56%	53%
Employment
Full-time employment	75%	78%	76%
Part-time employment	9%	12%	10%
Freelancer	15%	9%	13%
Other	2%	2%	2%
Platform
Daily newspaper	33%	41%	36%
Weekly newspaper	7%	4%	6%
Magazine	15%	5%	12%
Television	15%	25%	18%
Radio	11%	12%	11%
News agency	3%	5%	3%
Online outlet (stand-alone)	7%	7%	7%
Online outlet (of offline outlet)	9%	0%	6%

Note. MMC = Muslim majority countries.

Number of Muslim journalists = 3,786.

Number of Western journalists = 7,460.

The results also showed that journalists from Western countries had somewhat similar rankings at the “junior” manager and rank and file level across both groups; however, the percentage of journalists operating at a senior/executive level 4 percent higher in the MMC despite the percentage of full-time employment being equivalent at all levels. Having said that, part-time employment rates were higher for MMC 12 percent (9% for Western countries), yet freelance journalists in Western countries were higher at 15 percent (9% for MCC).

A closer look into the above discussed categories of comparison for each of the countries of the two groups is outlined in Table 3, with Norway out of the WCG having the highest level of female journalists at 50.4 percent. Similar to this percentage in the MMC was Malaysia at 52.6 percent for female journalists, followed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at 50.2 percent. Although the difference in percentage across both groups is not that stark, Malaysia remains the highest percentage of female employment across all countries studied in both groups, which is an interesting result given the cultural restrictions imposed by Muslim culture on women. In contrary, Bangladesh had the lowest percentage of female journalists sitting at 10.9 percent across both groups. Yet, surprisingly, USA had the next lowest percentage of female journalists at 27.1 percent, behind that of Indonesia. A result that is consistent with (Weaver et al. 2007) conclusion that women as journalists are underrepresented in U.S.A. Table 3 also reveals the levels of education across all countries in both groups with Albania being the highest percentage of 98 percent followed directly by Egypt 97.3 percentage and Spain 96.7 percentage. Surprisingly, journalists with university degree in Sweden are the lowest 60.5 percent in the two groups.

Table 3.

Country Overview of Sample Properties (Sociodemographic Variables).

Countries	Female journalists	Years working in journalism			Age			University degree
Countries	Female journalists	Mean	(SD)	Median	Mean	(SD)	Median	University degree
Western countries
Belgium	36.5%	12.64	9.89	10.00	38.16	10.83	36.00	96.3%
Canada	43.5%	18.88	11.17	18.00	44.51	11.88	44.50	93.4%
Denmark	43.1%	18.41	11.89	16.00	45.90	11.78	45.50	93.2%
France	45.4%	11.84	9.81	9.00	36.64	10.81	34.00	95.6%
Germany	40.1%	19.52	10.33	20.00	45.58	10.50	46.00	75.5%
Norway	50.4%	16.69	11.11	15.00	43.33	11.63	43.00	89.3%
Portugal	45.9%	14.65	8.60	14.00	39.00	8.81	39.00	86.2%
Spain	41.0%	15.91	8.91	15.00	39.23	9.17	38.00	96.7%
Sweden	45.9%	NA	NA	NA	51.32	10.05	52.00	60.5%
Switzerland	38.5%	14.62	9.75	14.00	41.63	10.95	41.00	69.6%
UK	45.2%	18.53	11.48	18.00	43.17	12.30	43.00	86.3%
USA	27.1%	22.74	12.03	24.00	46.91	11.92	49.00	93.7%
Muslim countries
Albania	51.7%	9.36	6.62	8.00	32.54	8.76	31.00	98.0%
Bangladesh	10.9%	11.56	8.72	9.00	36.67	10.05	35.00	86.8%
Egypt	36.5%	12.00	8.93	10.00	36.73	11.08	35.00	97.3%
Indonesia	21.5%	8.48	5.45	7.00	34.43	7.04	33.00	87.0%
Kosovo	45.5%	7.51	5.98	6.00	30.83	8.99	29.00	86.2%
Malaysia	52.6%	9.57	9.32	6.00	35.46	10.84	32.50	82.8%
Oman	39.7%	12.60	7.68	11.00	37.88	8.65	37.00	78.7%
Qatar	27.7%	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	72.7%
Sierra Leone	29.1%	5.79	3.53	5.00	31.59	7.59	30.00	40.4%
Sudan	34.9%	11.41	8.61	9.00	37.34	11.49	35.00	95.2%
Turkey	44.9%	9.31	7.75	6.50	32.35	8.01	30.00	91.1%
UAE	50.2%	NA	NA	NA	37.73	10.29	36.00	91.8%
Total	39.3%	14.88	10.65	13.00	41.13	11.78	40.00	84.8%

Table 4 shows the means for the variables of the study for both Western countries and MMC. Interestingly, autonomy between the two cultural units is not that vast where the means for autonomy for Western countries is 3.96 and for the MMC it is 3.50. We observe that the difference between both cultural units when it comes to monitorial is in fact similar sitting at 3.48. However, the differences tend to show through other variables such as collaborative, accommodative, interventionist, and influences where the means is higher for MMC.

Table 4.

Means of Variables of the two Cultural Units.

Variables	Western countries	Muslim countries	Total
Autonomy	3.96 (0.73)	3.50 (0.96)	3.80 (0.85)
Influences	1.82 (0.78)	2.62 (1.12)	2.10 (0.98)
Collaborative	1.37 (0.62)	3.02 (1.15)	1.93 (1.14)
Monitorial	3.48 (1.01)	3.48 (0.95)	3.48 (0.99)
Interventionist	2.68 (0.88)	3.73 (0.81)	3.03 (0.99)
Accommodative	2.93 (0.89)	3.67 (0.84)	3.18 (0.94)

A closer look into the means of variables across all countries (see Table 5) indicates that among the Western countries, USA has the highest autonomy (4.29); Spain is the highest in influences (2.23) among Western countries. Malaysia comes at the top of all countries in terms of influences 3.29 percent, while Germany is the highest in accommodative (3.77). Among the MMC, however, Turkey has the highest autonomy (3.95); UAE the highest in collaborative (4.20), and Sudan the highest in monitorial (4.32), interventionist (4.43), and accommodative (4.25). Comparing both cultural units, we can see that there is a small difference in autonomy between USA and Turkey; yet in the other variables, the difference is wider between the various countries in each unit.

Table 5.

Means of Variables under Study across Countries’ Classification.

Country	Autonomy	Influences	Collaborative	Monitorial	Interventionist	Accommodative
Western countries
Belgium	3.84	1.68	1.50	3.15	2.57	2.88
Canada	4.08	1.65	1.26	3.59	2.66	2.64
Denmark	3.85	1.98	1.17	3.89	2.76	2.47
France	3.74	1.47	1.23	3.50	2.44	2.63
Germany	4.06	1.58	1.26	3.03	2.44	3.77
Norway	3.72	1.82	1.44	2.93	2.85	2.84
Portugal	4.11	1.60	1.51	3.71	3.14	2.73
Spain	4.03	2.23	2.00	4.00	3.53	3.07
Sweden	4.02	1.67	1.20	3.93	2.56	2.60
Switzerland	3.97	1.88	1.39	3.34	2.50	3.22
UK	3.97	2.05	1.41	2.99	2.57	3.08
USA	4.29	1.93	1.51	3.97	2.38	3.07
Muslim countries
Albania	3.74	1.88	2.14	2.81	3.51	3.63
Bangladesh	3.82	2.15	2.87	3.58	3.79	3.60
Egypt	3.38	2.64	2.61	4.02	4.00	3.61
Indonesia	3.49	2.30	3.21	3.60	3.53	3.68
Kosovo	3.95	2.16	2.47	3.39	3.78	3.63
Malaysia	3.44	3.29	3.36	3.48	3.53	3.70
Oman	3.35	3.03	3.33	3.37	3.75	3.76
Qatar	2.75	2.65	3.33	2.62	3.43	3.26
Sierra Leone	3.75	2.73	3.01	3.84	4.12	3.89
Sudan	3.71	3.16	2.86	4.32	4.43	4.25
Turkey	3.95	3.03	1.98	3.66	3.86	3.12
UAE	3.44	3.10	4.20	3.13	3.46	3.82
Total	3.80	2.10	1.93	3.48	3.03	3.18

Findings and Discussion

Data analysis lends support to hypothesis (1) that journalists from the Western countries group experience a lower level of perceived political influences than their peers in MMC where (t = −38.862, p-value = .00) using 5 percent significance level. There is no surprise to learn that the combined political influences that embrace pressures from politicians, government officials, pressure groups, and business representatives are less pronounced in the liberal and democratic countries than in the authoritarian MMC. More specifically Table 6 indicates that journalists in both Spain (2.23) and UK (2.05) experience the highest level of political influence’s perception within the Western culture cluster and the least level of influences (1.47) and (1.60) are in France and Portugal, respectively. In contrast, the highest perceived influences (3.29) and (3.16) exist in Malaysia and Sudan, respectively. Anyway, we should be careful when dealing with the political pressures as the subjective influences may not necessarily correspond to the objective or the practical power that impedes journalists from the ideal practices of the profession (Hanitzsch et al. 2019).

Table 6.

Political Influences across Western and Muslim Countries.

Western countries			Muslim countries
Country	Mean	SD	Country	Mean	SD
Belgium	1.68	0.80	Albania	1.88	0.83
Canada	1.65	0.81	Bangladesh	2.15	1.13
Denmark	1.98	0.83	Egypt	2.64	1.09
France	1.47	0.57	Indonesia	2.30	0.97
Germany	1.58	0.63	Kosovo	2.16	1.10
Norway	1.82	0.68	Malaysia	3.29	0.84
Portugal	1.60	0.80	Oman	3.03	0.74
Spain	2.23	0.93	Qatar	2.65	0.94
Sweden	1.67	0.60	Sierra Leone	2.73	1.02
Switzerland	1.88	0.68	Sudan	3.16	1.42
UK	2.05	0.82	Turkey	3.03	1.20
USA	1.93	0.83	UAE	3.10	1.23
Total	1.82	0.78	Total	2.62	1.12

In line with the second hypothesis, statistical analysis supports our expectation that journalists in the Western countries group enjoy greater perceived level of editorial autonomy than their colleagues in MMC’ group (t = 25.546, p-value = .00). Table 7 elaborates this result and shows that the highest level of editorial autonomy is perceived in USA (4.29), Portugal (4.11), and Canada (4.8), while the least perception of this journalistic value exists in Qatar (2.75), Oman (2.35) and UAE. (3.44). This result, in fact, reflects the reality of journalism in both MMC and Western groups where journalism has originated from different historical and political roots. The legitimacy and in turn the liberal political roles of journalists in the latter is associated with the struggle to establish a democratic rule and to prevent the abuses which characterized the monarchy and feudal era (McNair 2009a), a mission that requires journalists to be editorially autonomous. In contrast, journalism in non-Western world including MMC has been established in the course of supporting the governments whether to fight against the colonies or to defend the post-colonial rulers (Rugh 2007). In such historical conditions that remain more or less unchanged journalists as Josephi (2012) states do not have the power to exert their own freedom, there is no distance for them to criticize their regimes. In brief, journalists in MMC are the victims of Arab and Muslim rulers. Nine of the bottom thirty countries on the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Index (World Press Freedom Index 2021) are Arab states (Pintak 2022).

Table 7.

Editorial Autonomy across Western and Muslim Countries.

Western countries			Muslim countries
Country	Mean	SD	Country	Mean	SD
Belgium	3.84	0.67	Albania	3.74	0.82
Canada	4.08	0.59	Bangladesh	3.82	0.96
Denmark	3.85	0.81	Egypt	3.38	1.06
France	3.74	0.73	Indonesia	3.49	0.71
Germany	4.06	0.79	Kosovo	3.95	0.78
Norway	3.72	0.69	Malaysia	3.44	0.86
Portugal	4.11	0.66	Oman	3.35	0.81
Spain	4.03	0.78	Qatar	2.75	1.06
Sweden	4.02	0.72	Sierra Leone	3.75	0.99
Switzerland	3.97	0.59	Sudan	3.71	1.05
UK	3.97	0.79	Turkey	3.95	1.06
USA	4.29	0.58	UAE	3.44	0.85
Total	3.96	0.73	Total	3.50	0.96

The results lend mixed support to (H₃); data do not support hypothesis (3a) saying that perception of Western journalists of their monitorial and accommodative roles is higher than their colleagues in MMC (t = 0.340, p-value = .734 > .05). Surprisingly, based on hypothesis (1) and (2) above, it would have been expected that the monitorial role of journalists in Western countries—especially the role of monitoring and scrutinizing politics—would be more significant given that they have higher perceived levels of autonomy and lower political influences than journalists in MMC. We believe that journalists may be inclined to take on this role due to the perceived social desirability of scrutinizing government officials. Additionally, it can serve to validate their pursuit of being independent professionals, even in the context of their reliance on authority. However, for the accommodative role, the hypothesis is confirmed where (t = −43.002, p-value = .000 < .05). Journalists in MMC have a higher perception of their accommodative role versus their counterparts in Western countries.

At the same time, (H₃b) stating that journalists’ perception in MMC of the collaborative and interventionist roles is higher than their colleagues in Western countries group is confirmed. Applying the T-test, indicates that (t = −80.751, p-value = .000 < .05), and (t = −62.439, p-value = .000 < .05) for collaborative and interventionist role respectively. As discussed earlier, the freedom of journalists in MMC is granted only when they support the government, publicize its policies and defend social desirable and calculated marginal changes. This miserable result resonates with the most recent conclusion of Richter and Kazman (2021) who, after reviewing seventeen analytical chapters about Arab media systems, confirm the fact that journalism is still operate from the authoritarian state perspective regardless of what is written in the legal systems, privatization and liberalization of media systems, and the introduction of the advanced technological infrastructures (Table 8).

Table 8.

Professional Roles.

Muslim and Western Countries		N	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error mean
Monitorial	Western	7,304	3.482	1.012	0.012
Monitorial	Muslim	3,734	3.476	0.951	0.016
Accommodative	Western	7,346	2.927	0.892	0.010
Accommodative	Muslim	3,735	3.669	0.841	0.014
Collaborative	Western	7,164	1.371	0.621	0.007
Collaborative	Muslim	3,660	3.017	1.151	0.019
Interventionist	Western	7,289	2.679	0.885	0.010
Interventionist	Muslim	3,738	3.726	0.807	0.013

It is pertinent to pose H4 to examine the correlation between two contrasting theoretical norms: perceived political influence and editorial autonomy. The statistical analysis presented in Table 9 offers supporting evidence for this central concept, suggesting an inverse relationship between these two journalistic pillars. Higher level of editorial autonomy exhibits a negative correlation with lower level of perceived political influence within both distinct groups. The analysis reveals that this holds true for MMC (r = −0.096, p-value = .00 < .05), Western countries (r = −0.111, p-value = .00 < .05), and the combined groups (r = −0.192, p-value = .00 < .05). As anticipated, individuals who do not experience pressure from internal or external sources within the realm of news media perceive themselves as autonomous actors. They are able to independently select news stories and publish them from their preferred perspective, without self-censorship or government intervention.

Table 9.

Correlations between Autonomy and Influences.

Countries	Pearson correlation	p-Value
Western	−0.111	.000
Muslim	−0.096	.000
Total	−0.192	.000

In a similar vein, statistical analysis as presented in Table 10 offers support for the consistency of the previous findings and aligns with H₅. Interestingly, a reversed relationship between the perception of editorial autonomy and the collaborative professional role is observed within the two cultural groups. Higher level of editorial autonomy exhibits a negative correlation with a lower level of engagement in collaborative roles. This relationship holds true for MMC (r = −0.067, p-value = .00 < .05), for the Western group (r = −0.015, p-value = .213 > .05), and for both groups combined (r = −0.204, p-value = .00 < .05). This demonstrates that journalists who perceive themselves as independent professionals do not view their role as collaborative, wherein they advocate for government policies and decisions. Conversely, those who have a collaborative professional role may perceive their editorial autonomy to be lower.

Table 10.

Correlations between Autonomy and Collaborative.

Countries	Pearson correlation	p-Value
Western	−0.015	.213
Muslim	−0.067	.000
Total	−0.204	.000

Path Analysis Model

In order to validate the previously stated conclusion that ideological and cultural differences are responsible for the variations in journalistic practice, we conducted a more nuanced statistical analysis. This analysis utilized Path Analysis, which is a component of structural equation modeling.This approach helped us investigates direct and indirect variable relationships to assess causal models. The model classifies variables into three key categories: exogenous (Influences), mediator (Autonomy), and endogenous variables (“Collaborative,” “Accommodative,” “Interventionist,” “Monitorial”), each reflecting specific journalistic role in the model’s dynamics. This structured approach provides insights into the variables’ interactions and their impact on the model (Figure 1).

The summarized findings from the analysis (see Supplemental Information file for full results) illustrate the impact of “Influences” on various variables across Western and Muslim country groups, revealing distinct observed patterns as follows. (1). Influences and autonomy in the two groups indicate that an increase in influences leads to a decrease in autonomy, with a stronger effect observed in Muslim countries (β = −0.095) compared to Western countries (β = −0.089). (2). Influences and collaborative in the two groups reveals that influences positively affect collaborative behavior, with a more pronounced impact in Muslim countries (β = 0.258) than in Western countries (β = 0.170). (3). Influences and monitorial proves a negative relationship between influences and monitorial, with the decline in monitorial being more significant in Muslim countries (β = −0.017) than in Western countries (β = −0.009). (4). Influences and interventionist show a positive effect on interventionist role, with the effect being stronger in Western countries (β = 0.099) compared to Muslim countries (β = 0.039). (5). Influences and accommodative provides a positive impact of influences on accommodative, with a slightly stronger effect in Western countries (β = 0.061) than in Muslim countries (β = 0.046). (6). Autonomy and other variables indicate that the total effect of autonomy on monitoring, interventionist, and accommodative is positive in both groups. Nevertheless, autonomy has an insignificant impact on “collaborative” in both groups. These findings highlight clear differences between Western and Muslim countries. The varying external influences have led to different forms of autonomy, shaping distinct roles (collaborative, monitorial, interventionist, and accommodative) across diverse cultural contexts.

Conclusion and Discussion

The overall argument of this paper is convincingly grounded in cross-cultural comparative data, making a compelling argument for differentiating between the ideal type of Western media models and practices and the realities of journalism in MMC. This for sure, has provided a greater nuance and move beyond the very self-satisfied generalizations of classic texts as Hallin and Mancini and others. The overall findings confirm the argument that there is no unified universal journalism ideology. The news reports across the globe share experiences, values, and aspirations, but this is not enough to establish a unified professional field. The findings outlined previously collectively reinforce the assertion that journalists are not only attached to the indigenous cultural context in which they operate, but also that the Western liberal and democratic premises are far from imposing itself on MMC journalism culture.

Hence, the notable contribution of this study lies in its endeavor to foster a democratic representation of journalism practices and to mitigate the predominant influence of the Western journalism-democracy nexus. Furthermore, it serves as an impetus for further investigations aimed at comprehending the ramifications of the parallelism between journalism and political systems. Arab and Muslim journalism scholars are invited to identify and examine the profound harms stemming from political pressures imposed on journalists to the extent that impeding their autonomy in fulfilling their professional responsibilities. Additionally, they are urged to explore the underlying causes that contribute to the prevalence of collaborative roles at the expense of watchdog function of journalism, which is vital for holding rulers accountable, combating corruption, and facilitating the rotation of authority. The central challenge lies in devising strategies to alter the “Catholic Marriage” between governments and journalism, which escapes categorization within the established models proposed by Hallin and Mancini (2004). Such efforts are essential for fostering democratization, development, and progress in MMC.

That said, it is worth acknowledging the limitations of this study. By focusing on the broader cultural clusters, we may have unintentionally overlooked the intricacies and unique aspects of each individual culture. Additionally, our study did not investigate deeply the specific influences of individual, organizational, and national socioeconomic and political conditions, which undoubtedly contribute to shaping the practices of journalists. Expanding research to encompass these dimensions would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the relative convergence or divergence. The obtained results serve as a catalyst for further scholarly exploration that deviates from the dominant Western philosophical framework, which proves incongruous with the environment of MMC. Furthermore, it resonates with the meaningful argument made by Zelizer (2013) that the tight interplay between journalism and democracy has constrained the scope of scholarship in journalism, impeding a comprehensive understanding of journalistic practices beyond Western boundaries. To a significant extent, it becomes apparent that the Western model of journalism practices no longer exerts a strong presence beyond the Western sphere, and as Nerone (2013) asserts, even within the West, the model is undergoing a decline. Throughout history, what has emerged is a form of undesirable importation and transplantation of Western journalistic values and principles into an unsuitable environment. The prerequisites for autonomous journalism encompass independent news media organizations, professionalism, a balanced distribution of power among executive, legislative, and judicial authorities, an active civil society, diverse opinions, an informed public sphere, and, most crucially, the ability to hold rulers accountable and eliminate the culture of impunity. These conditions do not exist within the authoritarian realm of MMC.

This study explicitly confirms the assertion that journalism practices in MMC and Western countries differ. Nevertheless, a significant challenge remains in understanding how and to what extent Islamic ideological culture shapes these differences. It is imperative to consider the interplay between religion and reality, and ideal models, and societal conditions. The central question is whether this divergence primarily stems from the essence of Islamic culture or from the influence of diverse socioeconomic and political conditions under which journalists work. Regardless of this debate, the present findings resonate with (Ahern and Golan 2007; Bråten 2013; Freiberger 2018; Jensen 2009) who emphasized that the influence of globalization, neoliberal economics, and democratization has amplified, rather than lessened the importance of religious values in shaping identity politics. These phenomena have also been instrumental in mitigating the severe socioeconomic consequences of restructuring programs and have reinforced the influence of Islamic forces and cultural elements in shaping public sphere and political systems and we add journalism practices (Esposito and El Din Shahin 2013). In conclusion, given these results, overlooking the Islamic worldview would result in overlooking a key element in understanding journalism practices. This holds true not just within this cultural cluster, but also on a global scale.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-hij-10.1177_19401612241260730 – Supplemental material for Journalism Practices in Western and Muslim Majority Countries: Culture Matters

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hij-10.1177_19401612241260730 for Journalism Practices in Western and Muslim Majority Countries: Culture Matters by Basyouni Ibrahim Hamada, Abdel-Salam G Abdel-Salam and Saba Bebawi in The International Journal of Press/Politics

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Basyouni Ibrahim Hamada

Saba Bebawi

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Dr Basyouni Ibrahim Hamada is Professor at the Department of Mass Communication, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University. Dr. Hamada is on the board of several journals in journalism and media studies. In 2024, he received four certificates from Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Dr. Abdel-Salam G. Abdel-Salam is an Associate Professor in Statistics at Qatar University. He is a Chartered Statistician from the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) in the UK and certified as a Professional Statistician by the American Statistical Association (ASA) in the USA.

Dr. Saba Bebawi is Professor of Journalism and Head of Discipline for Journalism and Writing in the School of Communication at University of Technology Sydney. She has published on the role of media policy and new technologies in democracy-building and peace-making initiatives, with a focus on journalism in conflict and post-conflict regions.

References

Abdullah

Nadvi

M. J.

2011. “Understanding the Principles of Islamic World-View.” Dialogue (Pakistan) 6(3):268–289.

Afsaruddin

2008. “Absolutism Vs. Pluralism in Islam Today.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs 6(4):23–7. doi:10.1080/15570274.2008.9523364.

Ahern

Golan

2007. “Press Freedom and Religion: Measuring the Association Between Press Freedom and Religious Composition.” Journal of Media and Religion 6(1):63–76. doi:10.1080/15348420701338526.

Asad

1993. “A Comment About Aijaz Ahmad’s In Theory.” Public Culture 6(1):31–9.

Asad

2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bangstad

2009. “Contesting Secularism/s: Secularism and Islam in the Work of Talal Asad.” Anthropological Theory 9(2):188–208.

Bazzi

Gaduh

Rothenberg

A. D.

Wong

2017. Unity in Diversity?: Ethnicity, Migration, and Nation Building in Indonesia. Vol. 2. Jakarta, Indonesia: Centre for Economic Policy Research.

Bråten

O. M. H.

2013. “Comparative Studies in Religious Education: The Issue of Methodology.” Religion & Education 40(1):107–21.

Comeforo

2010. “Review Essay: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.” Global Media and Communication 6(2):218–30.

10.

Desmond

1937. The Press and World Affairs. New York; London: MW Books.

11.

Deuze

2004. “Journalism Studies Beyond Media: On Ideology and Identity.” Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies 25(2):275–93. doi:10.1080/02560054.2004.9653298.

12.

Deuze

2005. “What is Journalism? Professional Identity and Ideology of Journalists Reconsidered.” Journalism 6(4):442–64.

13.

Esposito

2002. Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Esposito

El Din Shahin

2013. “Introduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics, eds. John

Shahin Emad El

Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

15.

Fitzgerald

2015. “Critical Religion and Critical Research on Religion: Religion and Politics as Modern Fictions.” Critical Research on Religion 3(3): 303–19. doi:10.1177/2050303215613123.

16.

Fitzgerald

2007. Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: A Critical History of Religion and Related Categories. New York: Oxford University Press.

17.

Freedom House. 2017. “Freedom of the Press 2017.” Last modified May 20. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2017.

18.

Freiberger

2018. “Elements of a Comparative Methodology in the Study of Religion.” Religions 9(2):38.

19.

Gill

2001. “Religion and Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 4(1):117–38.

20.

Gregorian

2003. Islam: A Mosaic, not a Monolith. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.

21.

Grzymala-Busse

2012. “Why Comparative Politics Should Take Religion (more) Seriously.” Annual Review of Political Science 15:421–42.

22.

Hafez

2007. The Myth of Media Globalization. Malden, MA: Polity.

23.

Hafeznia

M. R.

Zarghani

S. H.

2012. “Geopolitical Challenges of Convergence in Islamic World.” Human Geography Research Quarterly 80:20–22.

24.

Hallin

Mancini

2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Hamada

B. I.

2019. “Press Freedom and Political Instability in the Arab World: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 12(1):21–41.

26.

Hamada

2021. “Determinants of Journalists’ Autonomy and Safety: Evidence from the Worlds of Journalism Study.” Journalism Practice 16(8): 1715–35. doi:10.1080/17512786.2021.1871861.

27.

Hanitzsch

2011. “Populist Disseminators, Detached Watchdogs, Critical Change Agents and Opportunist Facilitators: Professional Milieus, the Journalistic Field and Autonomy in 18 Countries.” International Communication Gazette 73(6):477–94.

28.

Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Mellado

Anikina

Berganza

Cangoz

Coman

Hamada

Elena Hernández

Karadjov

2011. “Mapping Journalism Cultures Across Nations: A Comparative Study of 18 Countries.” Journalism Studies 12(3):273–93.

29.

Hanitzsch

Ramaprasad

Arroyave

Berganza

Hermans

Hovden

Lab

lauerer

Tejkalova

Vos

2019. “Perceived Influences: Journalist’s Awareness of Pressures on Their Work.” In Worlds of Journalism: Journalistic Cultures Around the Globe, eds. Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Ramaprasad

de Beer

A. S

, 103–32. New York: Columbia University Press.

30.

Hanitzsch

Vos

T. P.

2018. “Journalism Beyond Democracy: A New Look Into Journalistic Roles in Political and Everyday Life.” Journalism 19(2): 146–64. doi:10.1177/1464884916673386.

31.

Hanitzsch

Anikina

Berganza

Cangoz

Coman

Hamada

Hanusch

Karadjov

C. D.

Mellado

Moreira

S. V.

Mwesige

P. G.

Plaisance

P. L.

Reich

Seethaler

Skewes

E. A.

Noor

D. V.

Yuen

K. W.

2010. “Modeling Perceived Influences on Journalism: Evidence from a Cross-National Survey of Journalists.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 87(1):5–22.

32.

Hanusch

2013. “Cultural Forces in Journalism.” Journalism Studies 16(2):191–206. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2013.859864.

33.

Hanusch

2014. “Indigenous Cultural Values and Journalism in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Brief History of Māori Journalism.” Asian Journal of Communication 24(4):390–403. doi:10.1080/01292986.2014.885538.

34.

Hassan

2006. “Globalisation’s Challenge to the Islamic Ummah.” Asian Journal of Social Science 34(2):311–23.

35.

Herman

Chomsk

1988. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York, Pantheon Books.

36.

Hjarvard

2001. News in a Globalized Society. Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.

37.

Hofstede

2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. London: Sage.

38.

Hughes

Garcés

Márquez-Ramírez

Arroyave

2016. “Rethinking Professional Autonomy: Autonomy to Develop and to Publish News in Mexico and Colombia.” Journalism 18(8):956–76. doi:10.1177/1464884916659409.

39.

Hughes

Mellado

Arroyave

Luis Benitez

de Beer

Garcés

Lang

Márquez-Ramírez

2017. “Expanding Influences Research to Insecure Democracies.” Journalism Studies 18(5):645–65. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2016.1266278.

40.

Huntington

1996a. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

41.

Huntington

1996b. “The West Unique, not Universal.” Foreign Affairs 75(6):28–46.

42.

Inglehart

Basañez

Moreno

1998. Human Values and Beliefs: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; Press Freedom Index.

43.

Ismail

2004. “Being Muslim: Islam, Islamism and Identity Politics.” Government and Opposition 39(4):614–31.

44.

Jensen

2009. “Explanation and Interpretation in the Comparative Study of Religion.” Religion 39(4):331–39.

45.

Josephi

2012. “How much Democracy does Journalism need?” Journalism 14(4):474–489. doi:10.1177/1464884912464172.

46.

Josephi

2015. “Journalists for a Young Democracy.” Journalism Studies 18(4):1–16. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2015.1065199.

47.

Kamali

1994. “The Islamic World View.” In Towards a Positive Islamic Worldview: Malaysian and American Perception, eds. Yaacob

A. M.

Abdul Rahman

A. F.

Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia.

48.

Klaehn

2011. “A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’.” In Communication Theory and Research, eds. McQuail

Golding

de Bens

London: Sage Publications Ltd.

49.

Lerner

1964. The Passing of Traditional Society. New York: Free Press.

50.

McLeod

J. M

Blumler

J. G.

1987. “Macrosocial Level of Communication Science.” In Handbook of Communication Science, eds. Berger

C. R.

Chaffe

S. H.

Newbury Park: Sage.

51.

McNair

2009a. “Journalism and Democracy.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, eds. Jorgensen

K. W.

Hanitzsch

New York and London: Routledge.

52.

McNair

2009b. “Journalism and Democracy.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, eds. Jorgensen

K. W.

Hanitzsch

, 237–49. London: Routledge.

53.

Mellado

2014. “Professional Roles in News Content.” Journalism Studies 16(4):596–614. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2014.922276.

54.

Mellado

Hellmueller

Márquez-Ramírez

Humanes

M. L.

Sparks

Stepinska

Pasti

Schielicke

A.-M.

Tandoc

Wang

2017. “The Hybridization of Journalistic Cultures: A Comparative Study of Journalistic Role Performance.” Journal of Communication 67(6):944–67. doi:10.1111/jcom.12339.

55.

Miike

2002. “Theorizing Culture and Communication in the Asian Context: An Assumptive Foundation.” Intercultural Communication Studies 11(1):1–22.

56.

Mowlana

2003. “Foundation of communication in Islamic Societies.” In Mediating Religion: Conversations in Media, Religion, and Culture, eds Mitchell

J. P.

Marriage

, 305–15. London: T&T Clark.

57.

Muchtar

Hamada

Hanitzsch

Galal

Masduki

Ullah

M. S.

2017. “Journalism and the Islamic Worldview: Journalistic Roles in Muslim-Majority Countries.” Journalism Studies 18(5):555–75.

58.

Nagaraj

Nai-Peng

Chiu-Wan

Kiong-Hock

Pala

2015. “Counting Ethnicity in Malaysia: The Complexity of Measuring Diversity.” Social Statistics and Ethnic Diversity: Cross-National Perspectives in Classifications and Identity Politics 143–73.

59.

Nerone

2013. “The Historical Roots of the Normative Model of Journalism.” Journalism 14(4):446–58. doi:10.1177/1464884912464177.

60.

Norris

Odugbemi

2010. “Evaluating Media Performance.” In Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform, eds. Norris

Washington, DC: World Bank.

61.

Petkova

V. S.

Bromley

2000. Global Journalism: An Introduction. UK: Macmillan.

62.

Pintak

2013. “Islam, Identity and Professional Values: A Study of Journalists in Three Muslim-Majority Regions.” Journalism 15(4):482–503. doi:10.1177/1464884913490269.

63.

Pintak

2022. “Journalism: Mirror on a ‘Decaying’ Arab World.” Digital Journalism 10(7):1262–65.

64.

Reese

. 2019. “Hierarchy of Influences.” The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies 1–5.

65.

Reese

S. D.

2010. “Journalism and Globalization.” Sociology Compass 4(6):344–53.

66.

Reese

S. D.

Shoemaker

P. J.

2016. “Media Sociology and the Hierarchy of Influences Model: A Levels-of-Analysis Perspective on the Networked Public Sphere.” Mass Communication and Society 19(4):389–410. doi:10.1080/15205436.2016.1174268.

67.

Rehman

S. S.

Askari

2010. “How Islamic are Islamic Countries?” Global Economy Journal 10(2):1850198.

68.

Richter

Gräf

2015. “The Political Economy of Media: An Introduction.” In New Media Configurations and Socio-Cultural Dynamics in Asia and the Arab World, eds. S. Nadja-Christina, R. Carola. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh & Co.

69.

Richter

Kazman

2021. “Conclusion.” In Arab Media Systems, eds. Carola

Claudia

Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.

70.

Rugh

2007. “Do National Political Systems Still Influence Arab Media?” Aarab Media and Society 5(26):1–21.

71.

Şahin

2021. “Journalism in Conflict-Affected Societies: Professional Roles and Influences in Cyprus.” Media, War & Conflict 15(1):1750635220987746.

72.

Said

E. W.

2008. “Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How we See the Rest of the World.” New York: Vintage Books, Random House Inc.

73.

Sakr

2003. “Freedom of Expression, Accountability and Development in the Arab Region.” Journal of Human Development 4(1):29–46. doi:10.1080/1464988032000051478.

74.

Schwartz

S. H.

2004. “Mapping and Interpreting Cultural Differences Around the World.” In Comparing Cultures, Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative Perspective, eds. Vinken

Soeters

Ester

Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

75.

Shoemaker

Reese

1996. “Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content.” New York: Longman.

76.

Siebert

F. S.

Schramm

Peterson

1956. “Four Theories of the Press.” Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

77.

Sjøvaag

2013. “Journalistic Autonomy Between Structure, Agency and Institution.” Nordicom Review 34 (Special Issue):155–66.

78.

Steele

2013. “‘Trial by the Press’: An Examination of Journalism, Ethics, and Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 18(3):342–59.

79.

Umejei

2018. “Hybridizing Journalism: Clash of Two ‘Journalisms’ in Africa.” Chinese Journal of Communication 11(3):344–58.

80.

Voltmer

2001. “How Far Can Media Systems Travel? Applying Hallin and Mancini’s Comparative Framework outside the Western World.” In Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World, eds Hallin

Mancini

New York: Cambridge University Press.

81.

Ward

2005. “Philosophical Foundations for Global Journalism Ethics.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 20(1):3–21. doi:10.1207/s15327728jmme2001_2.

82.

Weaver

D. H.

Beam

R. A.

Brownlee

B. J.

Voakes

Wilhoit

G. C.

2007. “The American Journalist in the 21st century: U.S News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium.” Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

83.

Zelizer

2013. “On the shelf life of democracy in journalism scholarship.” Journalism 14(4):459–73.

84.

Zhu

J.-H.

Weaver

V.-H.

Chen

1997. “Individual, Organizational, and Societal Influences on Media Role Perceptions: A Comparative Study of Journalists in China, Taiwan, and the United States.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74(1):84–96. doi:10.1177/107769909707400107.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB