Boundaries in Motion? Finnish Political Journalists’ External and Internal Boundary Work in a Time of Change

Abstract

This article utilizes Carlson and Lewis’s (2019. “Boundary Work.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, 2nd ed., edited by K. Wahl-Jorgensen, and T. Hanitzsch, 123–135. New York: Routledge) typology of journalistic boundary work to investigate Finnish political journalists’ external boundaries (their relations to non-journalistic actors) and internal boundaries (their relations to other journalists) from the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s. The study is motivated by the changes in journalism and politics that have challenged Finnish political journalists’ working ways and position in newsrooms, and the earlier works by Kantola (2013. “From Gardeners to Revolutionaries: The Rise of the Liquid Ethos in Political Journalism.” Journalism 14 (5): 606–626) and Väliverronen (2018. “More of the Same or a Different Breed Altogether? A National Comparison of Role Perceptions and Ethical Stances among Finnish Political Journalists.” Nordicom Review 39 (1): 51–66) that indicate somewhat contrasting results about political journalists’ boundaries. The two works are used for comparison in the analysis, which is based on semi-structured thematic interviews with 27 political journalists. The findings indicate growing uncertainty among Finnish political journalists. Their external boundaries are still negotiated mainly between elected institutional political actors and journalists, and structural dependencies favor attempts to reach mutual understanding. However, there has been more turbulence in their internal boundaries because of the increasing impact of other journalists on political journalism. Amongst political journalists, young reporters stand out: their relations to non-journalistic actors differ from their older colleagues, and their internal position has been affected most by the growing pressures in newsrooms.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.