Consensus- and Conflict-oriented journalism

Overview

Consensus-oriented and conflict-oriented journalism are central to developing a master narrative in journalism. The master narrative in news refers to what should be considered the primary issue influencing a society, what the accepted stance by the social majority on an issue is, or what the acceptable reaction to a major event or crisis should be in a society. Consensus-oriented journalism and conflict-oriented journalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but often consensus-oriented journalism aims to reduce severe oppositions in societal thinking while conflict-oriented journalism thrives on oppositional rhetoric in public debate. Consensus-oriented journalism asserts a specific stance on an issue in order to reduce the chances of oppositional voices that can introduce conflict and undermine the status quo agreed upon by the public. Conflict-oriented journalism relies on multiple viewpoints, especially those that polarize an issue or contradict one another, because generating a narrative around conflict further infiltrates the issue with sustaining drama that can increase the longevity of the story life, maximizing the profitability of a story. These two forms require news workers to confront the ethics of objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality. To deal in these two types requires a notion of societal thinking in the vein of scholarship on the public sphere and public discourse.

The work and critiques of the public sphere and public discourse derive largely from foundational research by Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929). Habermas wrote about the need for public discussion and deliberation that could create a public sphere where the ideas of society would take shape, foster debate, and develop consensus. The concept of the public sphere connects with journalism studies and research in that the news and press serve as documentation of the public discussion. In this way, journalists bear the responsibility to express the master narrative of an issue, presenting opposing sides and ultimately the agreed upon consensus—what many would call the hegemonic, normative, or status quo viewpoint when majority thought has prevailed in society.

The responsibility of the press to deliver public opinion can be further argued through three roles: monitorial, facilitative, or collaborative (Larsen, 2018). The monitorial role enables journalists and newsmakers to take the pulse of public opinion and survey any growing oppositional voices in order to make sure to keep discussion and debate in check with what is considered the consensus. The monitorial role stands guard over the master narrative. The facilitative role allows the media-space to serve as the public sphere of conversation; in this role, journalists, or news organizations, serve as the gatekeepers to present positions up for public debate and opinion formation. In other words, the facilitative role determines what issues can even be presented toward the master narrative. The third role, collaborative, assumes that journalists, governments, and citizens will form a cooperative relationship to present the consensus through the news. This role may most directly connect journalism as a democratic force emphasizing deliberative debate and monitoring of the various actors at play in issue formation and resolution.

Maintaining the consensus, however, tests many core tenants of the journalism profession. With objectivity and neutrality often serving as the pinnacles of ethical journalistic practice, reporters and newsmakers must weigh questions of legitimate voices and deviant views when creating a news narrative around specific issues. In some contexts, the legitimate voice, often that of the majority, may actually perpetuate the hegemonic status quo that does not take into account other stances in society that deserve attention and consideration. When journalists stick to the narratives projected by state agents or officials, they adhere to a master narrative out of the control of the public; this can be quite common in non-democratic societies where media and press still operate but with significant control by the government. Nonetheless, in democratic systems, media still can tend toward official narratives rather than seeking multi-faceted views of an issue for several reasons—in some cases, because of accessibility to information and voices, with official statements easily obtainable.

Journalism thrives on conflict as an element of newsworthiness (Brüggemann & Engesser, 2017). Conflict drives a news story and creates an easy formula for a narrative to carry in the news. Through conflict-oriented journalism, reporters focus on opposing, polarizing opinions on an issue or event. Deviance is thus a major driver of news stories because deviant behavior conflicts with societal norms. Therefore, who or what is considered newsworthy does not always match with what is the consensus. Newsworthy actors may drive a story because of their extreme views on a given issue or actions during a particular event. These actors do not represent the general social norms accepted by a public, but for news they draw an audience and thus sell the news. To include deviant actors in the news might at times invite illegitimate voices to the issue discourse; on the other hand, deviant behavior in an event, such as a protest, might be used to attract attention to a legitimate grievance ignored in the status quo of a government.

Another element of these two forms of journalism questions whether newsmakers ought to focus a critical lens on different issues in the news. Consensus-oriented journalism could be seen as watered-down, a media system merely recycling the message of the state rather than engaging in a watchdog function on government. Conflict-oriented journalism then could be considered as more engaged by presenting various opinions in order to challenge the master narratives; however, to take on what might be seen as a challenging or critical view of the state or other voices invites criticism of bias and subjectivity. However, what many journalists reflect on in the profession is the fluidity of how to construct stories based on the events and current political climate in a place (Ahva, 2012). A major tragedy or event may require consensus-based journalism, whereas at the same time coverage of a legislative vote may need conflict-oriented journalism to adequately report on an issue.

Finally, a challenge to consensus-oriented and conflict-oriented journalism exists in the idea of public journalism. Although one agreed upon definition of public journalism cannot be expressed, public journalism involves more engaged citizens contributing to news making—in this way, characterizing the collaborative role of journalism. This may be in the form of online comments and reactions to news stories or in the form of citizen journalism in which untrained or non-professional journalists contribute stories and content generated in major media outlets or shared through social media networks. Another form of public journalism invites the public to determine the editorial agenda, to submit the stories for journalists to pursue and investigate. This in a way allows the public to determine the consensus of the master narrative rather than the state, but public journalism cannot guarantee the true consensus of a community. With public journalism, journalists have less control over where the master narrative may go once stories are published. Another complicating factor is identifying the public in these spaces, especially online, as research finds that certain demographics engage in online discourse. Therefore, the representation of the public may not be accurate. For example, on certain online news platforms, comments on articles may frequently come from people opposed to the viewpoint presented in the article. Often times, this small demographic of commenters harbor extremely polarizing views on a topic. This act of public journalism then inaccurately constructs a conflict-oriented form of news when in actuality the content may present a truly consensus-oriented topic.

Further Insights

Questions of consensus-based and conflict-based journalism are magnified during times of crises or through extremely polarizing issues. Two significant examples are news in the aftermath of acts of terrorism and debates around climate change. Studies have considered these instances around the world, and while journalism norms and ethics differ in diverse regions and countries, research found similar struggles in the news over how to either engage the consensus or highlight the conflict. Depending on the master narrative put forth around the event or issue, journalists have been found to reflect on the complications of when to promote the consensus and when to engage with conflict (Larsen, 2018).

In times of crisis, newsmakers are seen as responsible for establishing solidarity in the society that has experienced disaster or attack (Thorbjørnsrud & Figenschou, 2018). Following acts of terrorism, news adopts a consensus-oriented stance reflective of official government statements to instill a sense of safety and control in a society. The inclusion of alternative voices that may criticize the role of the government in fomenting violent oppositional reactions would be unacceptable in journalism directly following an attack. Journalism during these times must monitor society in order to maintain security and avoid chaos and panic. Journalism during crisis exhibits very patriotic notions in the master narrative in order to unite a society, and in this way, the news media uphold a consensus around the event to define how the public should understand the event. The event or attack itself proffers sufficient conflict to drive a news narrative, so journalism takes a hiatus from emphasizing a division between what would be considered the legitimate state stance versus the illegitimate and deviant reactions of terrorists. After some arbitrarily appropriate length of time, newsmakers may gradually invite dissenting views into their coverage of an issue related to a terrorist attack in order to maximize the element of conflict to fuel the narrative and keep the story running. However, if done "too early," journalists may face scrutiny for giving space and legitimacy to "extremist" viewpoints.

Another example of how consensus-oriented or conflict-oriented journalism can have major implications on the public understanding of a topic is through climate change coverage (Brüggemann & Engesser, 2017). This particular issue raises questions over legitimate voices and balance in the news. Consider two viewpoints on the idea of climate change: 1) that global warming is happening as a result of both natural and human causes, mostly human, and 2) that climate change is part of a natural cycle and is not caused by human activity. While the issue of climate change may include flashy examples of extreme situations in which global warming affects societies, all in all, the debate largely revolves around a "slow-moving" issue. To keep climate change fresh in the news, journalists often evoke quotes from climate change deniers because their viewpoints are considered deviant to the master narrative put forward by the scientific community and accepted by the majority. However, the inclusion of these voices is criticized for perpetuating false information. Based on the premise of balance, newsmakers defend their decision to include even viewpoints lacking scientific or factual backing. Thus, critics argue that conflict-oriented journalism contributes to a false perception of "balance" that awards credence to opinions that should not be taken seriously.

Discourse

An alternative way in which conflict-oriented journalism might help to balance different stances in a positive way is through protest coverage. Through the protest paradigm, journalists flag the deviant behavior of strikes or other forms of protest that show opposition to a mainstream or state-sanctioned stance on an issue. Although criticized at times for focusing more on the deviant behavior of participants rather than on the actual issue presented by a social movement, this sort of coverage uses conflict to bring to light other opinions overshadowed by official statements that find easy access inside media content. Balance in this way critiques the consensus and invites other voices to be included to challenge the master narrative. However, journalists must be mindful in these scenarios to avoid the exploitation of conflict to make the story. Often in this type of news story, journalists not only focus on the deviant nature of a protest act but also seek out compelling participants to depict as part of a story. Journalists may report quotes from these individuals that may not align with the expressed position of the movement, or the reporters may use their image to attract attention to their story. If protests are strategically reported, journalists can maximize on the angle of conflict and still promote balanced investigative information. This requires attention to the way in which journalists engage in the field with dissenting voices, and journalists will have to take a critical view of the situation to engage with narratives that do not merely recycle the consensus.

Bibliography

Ahva, L. (2012). Public journalism and professional reflexivity. Journalism, 14(6), 790–806. doi: 10.1177/1464884912455895

Amado, A., & Waisbord, S. (2015). Divided we stand: Blurred boundaries in Argentine journalism. In S.C. Lewis & M. Carlson (Eds.), Boundaries of Journalism: Professionalism, Practices and Participation (pp. 51–66). London: Routledge.

Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2017). Beyond false balance: How interpretive journalism shapes media coverage of climate change. Global environmental change, 42, 58–67.

Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New media & society, 9(5). 827–47. doi: 10.1177/1461444807081228

Kantara, A. (2017). Hearing non-neutral: Listening practices and the construction of societal consensus in hybrid election campaign interviews. Journalism, 18(1), 119–37. doi: 10.1177/1464884916657529

Larsen, A. G. (2018). Newsworthy actors, illegitimate voices: Journalistic strategies in dealing with voices deemed anti-democratic and violent. Journalism, 1–18. doi: 10/1177/1464884918760865

Manninen, V. (2020). Journalists are bad at communicating scientific consensus. Journalism research news, journalismresearchnews.org/journalists-are-bad-at-communicating-scientific-consensus/

Ojala, M. (2021). Is the age of impartial journalism over? The neutrality principle and audience (dis)trust in mainstream news. Journalism studies, 22(15): 2042-60. doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1942150

Pira, F. (2023, May 11). Disinformation a problem for democracy: Profiling and risks of consensus manipulation. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, doi.org/10.3389%2Ffsoc.2023.1150753

Raeijmaekers, D., & Maeseele, P. (2017). In objectivity we trust? Pluralism, consensus, and ideology in journalism studies. Journalism, 18(6): 647–63. doi: 10.1177/1464884915614244

Schudson M. (2011). What's unusual about covering politics as usual? In B. Zelizer and S. Allan (Eds.), Journalism after September 11. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 44–54.

Sydnor, E., Tesmer, E., and Peterson, B. (2022). Confronting politics: The role of conflict orientation in shaping political debate. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18(1), doi.org/10.16997/jdd.953

Thorbjørnsrud, K., & Figenschou, T. U. (2018). Consensus and dissent after terror: Editorial policies in times of crisis. Journalism, 19(3): 333–48. doi: 10.1177/1464884916657519

Zelizer, B. (2004). When facts, truth, and reality are god-terms: On journalism's uneasy place in cultural studies. Communication and critical/cultural studies, 1(1): 100–119.