The Newsroom A Space Of Decision Making Mara Francisca Greene Gonzlez

The Newsroom A Space Of Decision Making Mara
Francisca Greene Gonzlez download
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-newsroom-a-space-of-decision-
making-mara-francisca-greene-gonzlez-5857642
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Self As Symbolic Space Constructing Identity And Community At
Qumran Studies On The Texts Of The Desert Of Judah Carol A Newsom
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-self-as-symbolic-space-constructing-
identity-and-community-at-qumran-studies-on-the-texts-of-the-desert-
of-judah-carol-a-newsom-1974800
The American Newsroom A History 19201960 1st Edition Will Mari
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-american-newsroom-a-
history-19201960-1st-edition-will-mari-37581160
Chasing History A Kid In The Newsroom Carl Bernstein
https://ebookbell.com/product/chasing-history-a-kid-in-the-newsroom-
carl-bernstein-46848546
Chasing History A Kid In The Newsroom Bernstein Carl
https://ebookbell.com/product/chasing-history-a-kid-in-the-newsroom-
bernstein-carl-37468110

Newsrooms And The Disruption Of The Internet A Short History Of
Disruptive Technologies 19902010 Will Mari
https://ebookbell.com/product/newsrooms-and-the-disruption-of-the-
internet-a-short-history-of-disruptive-technologies-19902010-will-
mari-56235006
The Book Of Job A Contest Of Moral Imaginations Carol A Newsom
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-book-of-job-a-contest-of-moral-
imaginations-carol-a-newsom-1777552
The Book Of Job A Contest Of Moral Imaginations Carol Ann Newsom
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-book-of-job-a-contest-of-moral-
imaginations-carol-ann-newsom-2406284
The Balance Equation How To Thrive In A Timeconstrained World Glenn
Newsom
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-balance-equation-how-to-thrive-in-a-
timeconstrained-world-glenn-newsom-43967680
The Spirit Within Me Self And Agency In Ancient Israel And Second
Temple Judaism Carol A Newsom
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-spirit-within-me-self-and-agency-in-
ancient-israel-and-second-temple-judaism-carol-a-newsom-50075528

The Newsroom:
A Space of Decision Making
The Newsroom:
A Space of Decision Making
María Francisca Greene González
Peter Lang
www.peterlang.com
ISBN 978-1-78707-244-2
Journalists are in the daily business of making the unseen
visible, of connecting us to the world beyond our direct
experience. In doing this, objectivity becomes a pivotal issue,
and a highly debated topic both in academia and everyday life.
The first systematic approach to the issue of objectivity was
initiated by the discipline of “mass media sociology”: this
approach, which was at its peak between 1970 and 1980 in the
United States, proposed a completely scientific, “mathematical”
solution to the question of objectivity.
This book is an overview of academic work on journalistic
objectivity by American mass media sociologists such as
Herbert Gans, Gaye Tuchman, Mark Fishman, Todd Gitlin,
Edward Epstein, Harvey Molotoch, Marilyn Lester and Michael
Schudson, observing and comparing their positions on
journalistic routines and how they can influence the news.
The ideal of objectivity is discussed from the perspective of both
the traditional and sociological schools, and weighed against
the constant tension between a journalist’s search for truth and
their perception of it, as well as the constraints posed by the
organization for which they work.
María Francisca Greene González holds a PhD in Communi-
cations and is Professor of Journalistic Ethics at the Faculty of
Communication of the Universidad de los Andes in Santiago,
Chile. She is also a journalist and has worked in various Chilean
printed media and public research institutes.
María Francisca
Greene González

The Newsroom:
A Space of Decision Making
The Newsroom:
A Space of Decision Making
María Francisca Greene González
Peter Lang
www.peterlang.com
Journalists are in the daily business of making the unseen
visible, of connecting us to the world beyond our direct
experience. In doing this, objectivity becomes a pivotal issue,
and a highly debated topic both in academia and everyday life.
The first systematic approach to the issue of objectivity was
initiated by the discipline of “mass media sociology”: this
approach, which was at its peak between 1970 and 1980 in the
United States, proposed a completely scientific, “mathematical”
solution to the question of objectivity.
This book is an overview of academic work on journalistic
objectivity by American mass media sociologists such as
Herbert Gans, Gaye Tuchman, Mark Fishman, Todd Gitlin,
Edward Epstein, Harvey Molotoch, Marilyn Lester and Michael
Schudson, observing and comparing their positions on
journalistic routines and how they can influence the news.
The ideal of objectivity is discussed from the perspective of both
the traditional and sociological schools, and weighed against
the constant tension between a journalist’s search for truth and
their perception of it, as well as the constraints posed by the
organization for which they work.
María Francisca Greene González holds a PhD in Communi-
cations and is Professor of Journalistic Ethics at the Faculty of
Communication of the Universidad de los Andes in Santiago,
Chile. She is also a journalist and has worked in various Chilean
printed media and public research institutes.
María Francisca
Greene González

The Newsroom:
A Space of Decision Making

The Newsroom:
A Space of Decision Making
María Francisca Greene González
PETER LANG
Oxford • Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Wien

© Peter Lang AG 2017
Published by Peter Lang Ltd, International Academic Publishers,
52 St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LU, United Kingdom
[email protected], www.peterlang.com
María Francisca Greene González has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this Work.
All rights reserved.
All parts of this publication are protected by copyright.
Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without
the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution.
This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming,
and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.
This publication has been peer reviewed.
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National-
bibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at
http://dnb.d-nb.de.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016959083
Cover image: www.pixabay.com.
ISBN 978-1-78707-244-2 (print) • ISBN 978-1-78707-245-9 (ePDF)
ISBN 978-1-78707-261-9 (ePub) • ISBN 978-1-78707-262-6 (mobi)

Contents
Maxwell McCombs
Prefacevii
Introduction1
Chapter 1
Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 7
Chapter 2
Routines as a Work Method 89
Chapter 3
Objectivity in the Journalism Profession: The Perspective
of Mass Media Sociologists 157
Conclusion219
Bibliography225
Index231

Maxwell McCombs
Preface
In this time of ubiquitous and ever-expanding channels of communi-
cation, there is considerable talk and speculation about vast changes.
However, the habits and needs served by communication – and the
underlying behavior of content producers – do not necessarily undergo
extensive metamorphosis with the appearance of new communication
channels. Taking the broad view of the evolution of society, French jour-
nalist and novelist Alphonse Karr sagely observed two centuries ago,
“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” [The more things change, the
more they remain the same].
In this book Chilean scholar Francisca Greene presents a solid case
that this is substantially the situation for the communication media that
bring us the news. Specifically, she offers a detailed analysis of the sociology
of news, the major tenets that undergird the gathering and presentation
of the news, whatever the specific channel of distribution. Her focus is on
the work of eight American sociologists whose work in the late twentieth
century collectively explains the nature and structure of the journalism that
we receive via numerous communication media. As an aside relevant to
much current talk about change, although the work of these eight scholars
occurred during the emergence of television as a major mass medium, their
analyses focus on news and the work of journalists without any need to
distinguish the channel of distribution. In short, they elaborated the major
tenets of journalism per se.
The eight scholars – all Americans – whose work is reviewed here
are Gaye Tuchman, Edward Epstein, Harvey Molotoch, Marilyn Lester,
Michael Schudson, Herbert Gans, Todd Gitlin and Mark Fishman. All
were active during more or less the same period, their major publications
appearing from 1972 to 1980.

viii Maxwell McCombs
At the core of the perspective emerging from their observations and
analyses of how news is gathered and presented is the assertion that jour-
nalists “construct” reality. Their interaction with reality is not simply an
intellectual task grounded in careful observation, but is a specific way of
working. It is these journalistic routines that enable journalists to give form
and content to the world around them, in other words, to construct reality.
The news makes it possible for us to know what is happening not because
the external world is endowed with certain forms that make it compre-
hensible, but because journalists use specific, preconceived methods to
organize that world into something coherent. These routines originated
in the professional situation of news workers, which includes an excess of
material that could potentially be news, staff and budget constraints, and
the need to compete with other media outlets.
It is these journalistic routines that guide the construction of the mes-
sages that we call news, routines that have guided journalism for decades
and show little change with the recent proliferation of communication
channels. One major aspect of these journalistic routines that is analyzed
here in detail by Greene is a major reliance on external sources for infor-
mation about the happenings and circumstances of the day. It is impos-
sible to be an eye witness to most occurrences, so journalists’ knowledge
of reality is based on the observation of sources. Usually individuals, these
sources have an enormous influence on the content of the news. To reduce
the undue influence of a particular source, journalists typically seek out
multiple sources in order to take into account the limitations of any single
source. These limitations range from partial knowledge of an occurrence
to a source’s degree of interest in the occurrence.
These news routines are the keystone of journalism as a profession
because it is through the use of these routines that journalists can build
objective news stories. Although the sociologists whose work is reviewed
here criticize the limitations of this view of objectivity, they conclude that
in journalism, as in all other professions, objectivity is a type of consensus,
a procedure and a formality that lends the professional a certain security
in acting and protects their credibility. There are subtle differences in each
author’s understanding of the concept of objectivity, and Greene’s detailed
review of each sociologist’s work illuminates the nuances of gathering and

Preface ix
reporting news quickly about an ever-changing environment, a situation
that has greatly intensified in recent years. Her analyses of this fundamen-
tal work on the sociology of news in the late twentieth century help bring
order and understanding to the vast panoply of channels in the contem-
porary media landscape.

Introduction
Objectivity in journalism is a broad topic highly debated from different
points of view. Opinions on objectivity range from the academic – chap-
ters on journalistic objectivity can be found in all ethics research papers
and textbooks – to personal professional experience. Most recently, it has
also become a topic of regular conversation in everyday life. People fre-
quently complain that journalists have not been objective in their coverage
of specific news. This issue is as old as the profession. When objectivity
is mentioned, it refers to the principle of journalism; in other words, it is
regarded as a characteristic or requirement of the journalist.
Using this traditional concept of journalistic objectivity, the percep-
tion of objectivity as a product of journalistic work is surprising. This book
begins with the discovery of a novel approach to the treatment of objectivity,
provided by so-called “mass media sociology”, which, at its peak between
1970 and 1980 in the United States, is a pragmatic proposal for a totally
scientific, almost “mathematical” approach to the “problem” of objectivity.
On the other hand, “real” journalistic work shows professionals
resolving the issue of objectivity in a practical way: awarding equal time
to opposing positions; interviewing authorized sources; obtaining official
declarations, etc. It is a fact that journalists around the world, not only those
from the United States, have somehow established methods that allow
them to achieve this ideal objectivity demanded by the academic world
and even more strongly by their sources, the public and the business world.
Research dealing with objectivity in mass media sociology is especially
relevant because it addresses a concept that is coherently argued in American
thinking. Mass media sociology begins its argument “in reverse”, similar to
journalistic ethics: it is concerned with objectivity from the point of view
of the outcome, and not the attitude of the journalist.
To begin with, mass media sociologists maintained that objectivity
is not related to news content, but rather its form. Later they stated that
they don’t believe it is “correct” for it to occur this way, adding that real

2 Introduction
objectivity in news cannot be achieved using this approach. Throughout
the course of their research, they were critical of journalistic work and pes-
simistic about the result of the work of the media.
This book covers what has been written about journalistic objectiv-
ity by the most influential media sociologists. With the exception of two,
their work does not deal specifically with objectivity, but rather, in broader
terms, with journalistic routines and their influence on the news. A thor-
ough analysis of journalistic objectivity and how it is understood by mass
media sociology will be conducted, although this issue is not the primary
focus of their work. Interpreting, relating and examining the background
of the positions that inspired the authors is required.
This book observes and compares both the traditional and sociologi-
cal schools of thought to identify their similarities and differences, with
emphasis placed primarily on the proposals of media sociologists, since they
are the authors under review. They are all from the United States: Herbert
Gans, Gaye Tuchman, Mark Fishman, Todd Gitlin, Edward Epstein, Harvey
Molotoch, Marilyn Lester and Michael Schudson.
These eight sociologists lived and worked during the same period of
time. They knew and influenced each other. Their concept of life and jour-
nalism was quite similar, as was the focus and the concerns of their studies.
Although they followed the pragmatic philosophical point of view, there
are, nevertheless, nuances which distinguish their approaches.
Despite the fact that media sociologists do not propose a definition of
objectivity, they do reach one, although far from its traditional definition.
Some of the authors come close to a definition, but they do not clarify dis-
similar terms classically “related” to objectivity. In addition, they equate
objectivity to truth, justice, credibility, accuracy and detachment.
This book is mainly about two issues: objectivity and journalistic
routines. I would like to expound on this idea. The concept of journalistic
routines was first named by media sociologists, and by way of ethnometh-
odological studies, they analyzed the relationship between the way jour-
nalists work and produce a product: the news. The question to be asked
now is whether, after forty years of study, it is valid to speak of journalistic
routines, ethnomethodology as a research method and the “story” that
news reporters construct while knowing the reality.

Introduction 3
Is it possible to talk about constructing news through routines in a
changing stage where new actors are involved? We realize, as did media
sociologists in the 1970s, that it is not useful to think of journalists pro-
ducing news as a means to search for the truth and, therefore, becoming
a watchdog for society.
There is sufficient literature on news-making thanks to the work of
the first media sociologists. In this sense, Berkowitz has made a very good
selection of texts (Berkowitz, 1997). News continues to be formed from
the interaction between journalists, media and society. Schudson says in
a later text (Schudson, 1989) that news is a product of work carried out in
a social environment, and that the mass media is made up of bureaucratic
organizations and news is the result of a routine and bureaucratic process.
The media sociology perspective is still valid because news production
is not as simple as stating that journalists seek events and then transmit them
to the public. Now there are even more factors involved in news production:
citizen participation, blogs and a number of elements that, thanks to increas-
ingly easy technology for citizens, make an empowered and active public.
Neither can we separate influences from journalists’ beliefs, media, business
pressures and audience. The work of journalists is shaped by the economic
necessities of a media organization in its particular socioeconomic system.
There is constant tension between the journalist’s search for truth and the
constraints of the organization. Robert Park’s idea that news is a form of
knowledge is still valid.
What drove media sociologists to begin their studies was the “gate-
keeper” research published in 1950 by David Manning White. The topic of
the gatekeeper that gave rise to these studies is still present today, in addi-
tion to further variables. David Manning White’s question continues to be
relevant: which of all the events that occur in reality become news? Who
defines this? The term “gatekeeper” is still in use and provides a metaphor
for the relation between news organizations and news products. The prob-
lem is that the news is already manufactured by the journalist, and it is the
role of the gatekeeper to decide which news will be published.
In order to understand why the media sociologist’s argument is still
valid, it is crucial to see journalists not as journalists, but as people who have
to do their work well. News organizations need to be considered simply

4 Introduction
as production facilities, just like any other, with expectations for the qual-
ity and quantity of its workers’ activities. News is the outcome of strategic
work routines that journalists apply to meet organizational expectations.
News helps make sense of reality.
Journalists are our “make-sensers”. We need them to help us under-
stand the world of public affairs beyond our direct experience. Talk show
hosts, bloggers, political activists, politicians and commentators cannot
be trusted to take care of the facts. Citizens need journalists more than
ever because there is so much information available, of varying quality
and relevance. Journalists are in the daily business of making the unseen
visible, of connecting us to the world beyond our direct experience. Public
life is increasingly complex and we need an ongoing source of timely and
relevant information on daily issues.
Surveys over the past decade show a steady rise in the number of
Americans who prefer to get their information from partisan bloggers or
talk show hosts.
New journalists struggle with uncertainties, deal with new market
pressures and create new journalists’ conventions to provide much-needed
insight into the changes the Internet has wrought on the work and practice
of journalism. However, the Internet is not the first “disruptive technol-
ogy” to hit newsrooms. Other innovations have radically transformed the
news media, but the Internet as the new channel for producing, packaging
and distributing news has dramatically challenged every aspect of media
organizations.
This new scenario for media and journalists has been analyzed in
recent years. The topics studied have been wide-ranging: new business
models; content analyses of the ways in which online news is leveraging
the opportunities for new ways to craft information; essays about ethical
issues in the online environment; surveys of professional attitudes and the
new news consumer’s behavior and preferences. The daily work of journal-
ists, their work routines and their values are not examined as extensively
(Paterson and Domingo, 2008).
It is impossible to comprehend the nature of news – or manufactured
reality – without getting to the heart of the manufacturing process and the
shared culture of the manufacturers.

Introduction 5
Literature reviews of online journalism research (Kopper, Kolthoff
and Czepek, 2000; Boczkowski, 2002; Domingo, 2005) suggest that stud-
ies have concentrated more on content, professional profiles and attitudes
and audiences than on the production routines and context of the work-
ing process. Without these early ethnographic investigations into news
production, our understandings of journalism would be limited to what
little we are able to gleam from the observation of news content, or from
what journalists say they do.
Newsrooms are the actual space for decision-making in the develop-
ment of online journalism, where genres, routines, values and products
are tested and created.
Chapter 1 of this book is divided into two parts and points out the
most important topics that will be dealt with. The first topic deals with the
sociology of mass media and its main authors, including an “intellectual
biography” of each one as well as an examination of their mutual influences.
The main topics of each media sociologist are outlined, as well as the start-
ing point of their research, how it was carried out and the emphasis they
wanted to give to their texts. Because these authors are strongly influenced
by pragmatism, it was necessary to review the most relevant concepts of
this point of view in order to understand what they have to say about the
media, the news, the journalist and objectivity.
The second part of Chapter 1 deals with how the scholarly authors
arrived at the concept of objectivity through what they call “journalistic
routines”. They maintain that news is constructed by journalists through
work routines that guarantee the objectivity of the final product. They
explain that objectivity is synonymous with news because of its form, and
the news, in turn, is synonymous with the construction of reality. This is
how the topics of routine, news and its relationship with objectivity are
introduced, which will be dealt with in depth in Chapter 2. The end of the
chapter examines the subject of the journalist as part of the news process,
presented by the same authors.
Chapter 2 explains the routines of organizations in general, followed
by those of journalistic work. These routines affect not only the work, but
also, in an important way, media content. Sociologists consider that mass
media is not like any organization: it “manufactures” a “product” comprised

6 Introduction
of facts, opinions or ideas that affect the way we perceive the world and
how we make our decisions.
Sociologists consider objectivity as the form of news. In order to back
up this affirmation, they make a detailed analysis of the way journalists
manufacture or assemble a story. Of particular interest, in this sense, is
the “fact-by-triangulation” method, which is explained in the second part
of the chapter.
Finally, an analysis is made of the critique that objectivity receives
when it is understood to be the mere form of the stories. The same media
sociologists outline these critiques and conclude that “objectivity” ensured
by routines facilitates bias, hides the real news content and protects jour-
nalists from any possible attacks from the public.
Chapter 3 focuses on the authors’ assertion that objectivity is as much
a requirement of the journalist as it is a need to grant credibility to his sto-
ries and defend himself from criticism. This issue will be discussed through
a historical retelling of objectivity in the United States. The authors will
add that it is difficult for journalists to achieve objectivity.
The second part of the chapter presents the difficulties that reporters
encounter when putting their stories together objectively. The third part
deals with objectivity as an ethical ideal. Here the thinking of Desantes
(1976) offers a definition of objectivity and satisfactorily answers the ques-
tion of why objectivity is required in journalism. The most significant con-
tribution to the ideas put forth in the book is the assertion that objectivity
is an attitude of the journalist and, thus, an ethical ideal.
This position is not foreign to media sociologists because, in order to
affirm that journalists conceive objectivity as a form of the news, they have
outlined a series of arguments that are related to objectivity as an ideal.
They will compare objectivity to other similar concepts. The detachment
concept is particularly interesting. Through it, the authors propose that the
journalist will resolve issues such as those regarding values and ideologies,
professional autonomy and defense against different attacks.

Chapter 1
Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that
Inspires its Work
This chapter deals with so-called “mass media sociology”, its main expo-
nents and a brief biographical summary of each one of them. It presents
their main body of work, the starting points of their research and the way
in which they carried it out, the emphasis they wanted to give it and how
they influenced each other.
There are seven classic authors in mass media sociology whose postu-
lations are highly interesting. It therefore seemed important to include a
brief analysis of the pragmatic philosophical wave which enormously influ-
ences and imbues their entire body of work. By referring to this underly-
ing ideology, their stances toward the media, the news, the journalist and
objectivity, which are the central issues of this book, will be understood.
In the footnotes, the assertions made by these authors are outlined.
The second part of the chapter attempts to show, firstly, how the
authors introduce the concept of objectivity through what they call “jour-
nalistic routines”. In short, they will say that the news is constructed by
journalists through certain work routines that guarantee their objectivity.
We will see how they argue that the news is synonymous with the construc-
tion of reality. This first aspect of the second part of the chapter introduces
the issue of routines, the news and its relation to objectivity, which will be
tackled in depth in Chapter 2.
Then, the role awarded by media sociologists to the journalist in this
construction of reality will be described. The reference made in the first
part of the chapter to scholarly authors and the ideologies that inspire their
work is vital in order to understand their positions regarding the idea of the
journalist as a constructor of reality. In this aspect, nuances are very varied.

8 Chapter 1
The last part of the chapter puts forth an issue that will be approached
in Chapter 3 and which studies the journalist as part of the news process.
Media Sociologists
The perspective of mass media sociology can be understood in the classic
research of David Manning White and Warren Breed,1 which contains
observation studies that examine the news as a bureaucratic manufacturing
process within organizations. In a short period of time – between 1970 and
1980 – media sociologists produced very valuable research. This group of
sociologists, interested in mass media and the news-making process, were
critical of what they observed.2
1 In The “Gatekeeper”: A Case Study in the Selection of News, David Manning White
examined the personal reasons of a newspaper editor to reject potential news. Warren
Breed, in Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis, considered the pro-
cess as broader by how news organizations socialize reporters so that they follow the
policy of the media. Reese and Ballinger will say that both studies, while they are
deeply rooted on an individual level, indirectly refer to the issue of “personal free-
dom within a larger structure”. Stephen Reese and Jane Ballinger, “The Roots of a
Sociology of News: Remembering Mr. Gates and Social Control in the Newsroom”,
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly (winter 2001), pp. 641–658.
2 Hanno Hardt, referring to these sociologists, argues that “The scholarly discourse
strongly suggests that a critique of society must begin with a critique of public com-
munication and the institutional construction of realities that involve media practices,
including the work of journalists, and public expectations of the role of the media. It
demonstrates not only the connectedness of communication and society – enhanced
by an evolving critique of the press – but, in turn, points the way to later and more
intensified analyses, particularly by American social scientists such as Charles H.
Cooley, Robert Park, George Herbert Mead, and John Dewey, whose work expands
on the pivotal place of communication in modern thought and sociological inquiry, in
general”. Hanno Hardt, Social Theories of the Press (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, 2001), p. 170.

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 9
The so-called “classics” of a discipline are comprised of some key works
that help shape and define the research of each one of the areas of social
study. In the relatively new field of communications, Everett Rogers3 has
identified social scientist Harold Lasswell, social psychologist Kurt Lewin,
psychologist Carl Hovland and sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld as “founding
fathers” or “classics”. The first studies in social communication were related
to the effects of mass media on audiences.
Media sociologists can also be called “second classics” or “second
founding fathers”. The list of their main works has been defined by Reese
and Ballinger in the abovementioned quoted article and will be used as
a main source for this research. They are: Deciding What’s News; Making
News: A Study in the Construction of Reality; Objectivity as Strategic Ritual:
An Examination of Newsmen’s Notions of Objectivity; News from Nowhere;
Manufacturing the News; The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the
Making and Unmaking of the New Left; News as Purposive Behavior: On
the Strategic Use of Routine Events, Accidents and Scandals; and Discovering
the News: A Social History of American Newspapers. The authors have many
other contributions which will be quoted later on. These texts were chosen
because they describe the process of manufacturing news as a result of a
bureaucratic process.
It can be said that their status as external observers allowed sociologists
to present a fresh look at journalistic work, taking the research by White
and Breed as a starting point to develop the concept of manufacturing
news. Mass media sociology deals with issues that directly affect the daily
decisions of people who work in the news-making process, and how these
decisions are practical responses to their need to manufacture the news.
These eight media sociologists will be referred to as “second founding
fathers”, “the authors” or “media sociologists”.
3 Everett Rogers (1931–2004), academic in the field of communications, writer and
university professor, is the pioneer of the theory “diffusion of innovations”, which
took shape in 1962 and introduced the term “early adopter”, used in the sense of
young innovators or young manufacturers of ideas, social and popular leaders. Everett
Rogers, Communication Technology: the New Media in Society (New York: Free Press,
1986).

10 Chapter 1
Beginning in the 1960s, interest began to grow in other topics related
to communication: on the one hand, forces that shaped the message of mass
media were questioned and, on the other hand, who and what marked the
agenda of mass media were challenged. Since then, a number of investiga-
tions have been carried out which focus on the instruments that operate
on different levels in mass media and which could be described as a “hier-
archy of influences”. These include, at the most basic level, personal visions
and roles of workers, and, on successively higher levels, the influences of
journalistic routines, the organization of mass media, external pressure
and, finally, ideology. These influences are described in detail in the work
of Pamela Shoemaker and Stephen Reese.4
While in general terms European research has focused on ideological
and institutional studies, the American approach, from the start, has con-
centrated on more basic levels: individuals, routines and the organization.
This research has helped to explain how news is constructed by individuals
within a social and professional scenario.
Interest in examining the work and thinking of media sociologists lay
in, from the beginning, an interest to take an in-depth look at the news-
making process. Even more so than the influence of the mass media on
public opinion, its role and its content as markers of public agenda, the
mechanics of “manufacturing” the news, the selection and production of
content, and ultimately, the journalistic work itself, were of interest.
After reading the authors’ research, a general conclusion can be reached
that, as sociologists, they are concerned about one recurring theme: the
structure of mass media – on both the organizational level of a news com-
pany and the journalistic working level in the editing room – prevents social
movements, which are in disagreement with the order established by the
4 The authors describe each one of these levels and their influence on media content:
the personal values and beliefs of journalists, journalistic routines or practices, the
news agency or company, forces external to agencies and, lastly, ideology. Stephen
Reese and Pamela Shoemaker, Mediating the Message: Theories on Influences on Mass
Media Content (New York: Longman Publishing Group, 1991).

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 11
authorities in power, from obtaining any relevance in public opinion and,
hence in society. One could say that this is their main concern.5
This concern, shared by the scholarly authors, constitutes the basis for
the main issues addressed in this book. Starting from this concern – the
dissident movements – sociologists discover, describe and specify the jour-
nalistic work routines that condition the reporting, and later the writing, of
the news in a way that they call “objective” and which, in their judgment,
legitimizes the news. These routines prevent the mass media from showing,
in a way that they believe is suitable, news about alternative or dissident
movements. The issue of dissident movements, which is not incumbent on
this book, will not be considered. Instead, the idea of journalistic routines
will be dealt with in Chapter 2, and that of objectivity will be examined
in Chapters 2 and 3. The authors carried out participant observation and
conducted in-depth interviews for many years, analyzing media content
and studying cases. One even took a position as a journalist at a newspaper
so as to observe how reporters work “on the inside”.
With very different approaches and profiles, differing depths and
nuances and various intentions, the authors focus on issues of routine and
objectivity. These are by no means their central concern, but it is surprising
to see the interest which it provokes, a kind of mystery that draws them to
these issues. It is correct to say that none of the authors takes an in-depth
look at either a definition nor composes a treatise on objectivity. It will
become obvious that this is unnecessary when considering the character-
istics of their work.
This book attempts to explain how the authors approach the concept
of objectivity. In this sense, the most accurate research belongs to that of
5 The idea that the news maintains the status quo of a society was reinforced by other
press scholars later. This is the case, for example, of Theodore Glasser: “Indeed, objec-
tivity in journalism is biased in favor of the status quo; it is inherently conservative
to the extent that it encourages reporters to rely on what sociologist Alvin Gouldner
so appropriately describes as the ‘managers of the status quo’ – the prominent and
the elite”. Theodore Glasser, “Objectivity and News Bias”, in Elliot D. Cohen (ed.),
Philosophical Issues in Journalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 176.

12 Chapter 1
Schudson, with a story about objectivity in journalism, and Tuchman, with
an essay about objectivity as journalistic routine.
In order to fully understand all that will be said about routines and
objectivity, it seems pertinent to make a summary review of the profile of
each of the authors: their concerns, influences, passions, styles, schools and
the relationships among them.
The brief summary made of the works in genere could seem superficial
upon discovering that all that the authors express follows an ideological
current related to the philosophy of knowledge. Indeed, it is the key posi-
tion that explains the authors’ concern for mass media, for the news as
bearers of knowledge to a society it “knows” through the mass media and
for dissident movements as representatives of a social reality unknown by
the mass media and, thus, by the public.
The period in which they lived was marked by the pragmatic stance6
of Darwin and Dewey and by the psychology of William James, authors
who will be referred to later on, and the influence of their thinking in some

6 Pragmatism is not really a philosophical theory but rather a “way of thinking” (this
is how one of its driving forces, the North American philosopher and psychologist
William James, calls it), which holds different theories that can be applied to differ-
ent disciplines. But, when looking at it as one, it may be considered tentatively as a
theory of knowledge or, better yet, as a theory of the human being as seen from his
cognitive function. It is typical of pragmatists to think that philosophy, in an increas-
ingly abstract and engrossing process, has ended up losing, in many cases, contact
with real processes whose main task is to test critiques, with the subsequent decline
in the use and relevance of their contribution. This is why they believe it necessary
to recover a perspective that is closer to what we really do, say and think before we
take distance again and continue to reflect. In other words, they say that the critical
capacity of philosophy should aim in this time and age – and the temporary overtone
is important, since pragmatists are reluctant to consider any thing in absolute terms
– to free the disfigured panorama of certain burdens and adherences that prevent
us from completely understanding what we do or how we act in accordance with
what we supposedly think. If philosophical critique has any transforming efficacy,
which is what pragmatists fervently believe, the service it may render today is not as
much as the anticipation of ideas to the times but rather putting them in their place,
recovering, so to say, control of the situation.

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 13
is outstanding. All the positions mentioned must be considered within
the framework of these ideas of pragmatism, and from the perspective of
granting importance to what we do, say and think in our daily lives prior
to an approach to reality through theoretical concepts.
At One End: Molotoch and Lester, Fishman and Tuchman
By following the publication dates of the works, a chronological exposition
could have been chosen from the beginning. This would have resulted in
the following order: Tuchman (Objectivity as Strategic Ritual …), Epstein,
Molotoch and Lester, Tuchman (Making News …), Schudson, Gans, Gitlin
and finally Fishman.
But there is another order that seems more logical and which is related
to how the authors were influenced by the prevailing position of the time:
the critique of the gnoseological paradigm of modernity. The modern
concept, in which the passive role of the human mind on knowledge is
paramount, is widely refuted by different schools of thought that enhance
the idea of the insertion of man in the world and that break away from the
dualism world–person. The multiplicity of reactions against modernity
highlights the concept that man creates the cognitive faculty through inter-
action with the world. The theoretical concept of knowledge is diluted.
Hence, the emergence of the concept of the construction of reality that
notably marks the work of media sociologists will be examined in depth
in the second part of this chapter.
The main position which stems from pragmatism of the schol-
arly authors is ethnomethodology.7 This presupposes social reality as
7 Harold Garfinkel coined the concept “ethnomethodology” to refer to the form of
psychosociological work he was carrying out in 1954. The term has been extended to
include an entire current of social psychology that developed in the 1960s in some
Californian universities, taking different directions in research and extending gradu-
ally to international environments related to the social sciences. Ethnomethodology

14 Chapter 1
constructed. The adhesion of the authors to this way of thinking is inter-
esting because it makes some scholarly authors more skeptical than others
about the role of mass media in constructing reality.
attempts to describe the social world just as it is continuously being constructed,
emerging as an objective, organized and intelligent reality. From this perspective,
ethnomethodology recommends not to treat social facts as things, but rather to
consider their objectivity as a social fulfillment. Additionally, it takes into account
that this self-organization of the social world does not place itself in the State, poli-
tics or any abstract structure but rather in the practical, everyday life activities of
members of society. These activities are made together in the interactions and the
people make them by abiding the assumptions and the types of knowledge typical
of a “natural attitude”. Two perspectives are found in this description: one inherited
from Talcott Parsons and the other one follows Alfred Schutz. This latter one is of
interest and refers to the practical rationality of everyday activities and the type of
social knowledge that is implicitly put into practice. Schutz, as will be seen later
on, resorted to the phenomenology of Husserl and the analyses of consciousness of
Bergson. It can be of use to quote part of the preface of Garfinkel’s founding book on
ethnomethodology: “Compared to certain versions of Durkheim, which teach that
objective reality of social facts is the fundamental principle of sociology, we take this
teaching and propose that, as an investigative policy, objective reality of social facts,
understood to be the continuous fulfillment of everyday activities, made by members
who know, use and consider to be obvious the ordinary and inventive practices for
this fulfillment are, for members practicing sociology, a fundamental phenomenon”
(my own translation). Harold Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology (New Jersey:
Prentice May, 1967), p. 3. For Durkheim, the social fact was external to the individual
it determines. Garfinkel, contrary to Durkheim, thinks that, while the sociologist
treats social facts as things, he maintains the naïve attitude of the social actor, that is
to say, the description of human activity is prevented since it is a producer of senses,
that constructs an order and that favors the existence of society as an organized entity.
In order to perform this task, Garfinkel believes that the sociologist must examine
the dimension of the social action, observe the social fact not as a stable object but
as a contingent process, as a continuous production of the members who allow it to
exist through their actions and interactions. To do so, the actors put into practice a
set of practices, rules of conduct and recommendations: in summary, a methodology
which is studied by ethnomethodology. In conclusion, ethnomethodology is under-
stood by Garfinkel as the empirical research of the methods used by people to make
sense of and produce, at the same time, everyday activities, that is to say, the study

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 15
Along these lines, a first group of authors is comprised of Harvey
Molotoch, Marilyn Lester, Mark Fishman and Gaye Tuchman.8 They have
been grouped according to their similar thinking with respect to the manu-
facturing of news and for the direct influence they had on each other.
Molotoch and Lester: Pioneers of the “Construction
of Reality”
Molotoch and Lester belong to the University of California at Santa
Barbara. In the article analyzed, News as Purposive Behavior: On the Strategic
Use of Routine Events, Accidents and Scandals, they thanked Mark Fishman
and Gaye Tuchman. They only incidentally refer to objectivity in the news.
For this reason, their text will hardly be mentioned again, but for now, it
is referred to for two reasons: the very important influence it has on the
of practices that constitute social intelligence. For Garfinkel, members of a society
exhibit orderly, regular, standardized and concurrent conducts in social environments
that are intelligent, available, and describable in a familiar way for them. More than
showing this regularity in terms of external determination by objective structures, it is
necessary to try to reason in terms of a relation of reciprocal determination between
the organization of a stable social environment and the organization of orderly con-
ducts. This compels to emphasize certain properties of this double interdependent
organization: its endogenous dynamic, its taking root in the experience structures
of the actors, its trait of process, its interaction framework, its temporary structure
and its practical perspective. For Garfinkel the activities through which the members
of a community produce and control their everyday activities are identical to the
practices they use to make these contexts explicable.
8 Among the followers of Garfinkel and who are quoted by Molotoch and Lester, and
Fishman and Tuchman, are Don Zimmerman and Aaron Cicourel, who coined the
term “cognitive sociology”. Both belong to the University of California at Santa
Barbara. Another ethnomethodologist who will influence the media sociologists is
Melvin Pollner.

16 Chapter 1
other authors and the contribution it has made to the concept of news as
a construction of reality.
The central idea of the essay by Molotoch and Lester is that each type
of event, which they distinguish as either routine, accidental, scandalous
and fortuitous, tends to reveal different types of information about how
society is organized. Each type supposes different challenges for those who
hold or lack power. This essay seeks to understand the relation between
different types of needs for news. It explains how the informational need of
people placed in different ways regarding the news company results in the
social and political knowledge of the public. From a sociological point of
view, its approach is the relation between power and society and power and
the mass media. Making use of ethnomethodology,9 Molotoch and Lester
highlight the idea, which they share with the authors, that mass media is
used as guarantor of the stability of power to keep an ideology hegemonic.
Molotoch and Lester are radical in their constructivist position. They
conceive the news as a construction of reality10

because they believe there
9 When Molotoch and Lester affirm that the mass media does not reflect a world
external to them, but rather reflects the practice of those who have power to define
the experience of others, they remember an investigation made by Harold Garfinkel
of some clinical records. They will say that instead of seeing the records as some-
thing that ideally represented what had happened, Garfinkel could draw from them
“the organizational practices of the people who routinely prepared those records”.
Garfinkel concluded that there are good organizational reasons to make bad clini-
cal reports and “these good reasons are the subject of investigation because they
describe the social organization of a clinic”. It must be pointed out that Garfinkel’s
interest is in the organization of the clinic and not in its records. “Rather than being
an institution’s records as standing ideally for something which happened, one can
instead see in those records the organizational practices of people who make records
routinely. Garfinkel concludes that there are ‘good organizational reasons for bad
clinical records’. And those ‘good reasons’ are the topic of research because they spell
out the clinic’s social organization”. Harvey Molotoch and Marilyn Lester, “News as
Purposive Behavior: On the Strategic Use of Routine Events, Accidents and Scandals”,
American Sociological Review 39 (1974), p. 111.
10 Constructivism, in general terms, is to “construct (constitute) a concept based on
other concepts, it is to indicate their ‘constructional definition’ (‘constitutional’) based
on these other concepts (Aufbau, 35). By ‘constructional definition’ (‘constitutional’)

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 17
is no objective world to report on. In order to understand their proposal
more clearly and what the rest of the authors do about the construction of
reality and the manufacturing of news, it seems necessary to briefly examine
the theory of constructivism and its origin: structuralism.
The term constructivism is used to characterize positions in which
the notion of construction, and the correlating notion of “constitution”,
plays an important role. The interest in looking at the principles of con-
structivism stems from the need to find an explanation to Molotoch and
Lester’s premise that the journalist cannot reproduce a reality he observes
since he approaches the fact with a preconceived idea. Fishman provides
an explanation for this later.
The notion of constructivism cannot be understood without exam-
ining in depth its origin or, at least, its close relative: structuralism. It is
interesting to point out that one of the founding principles of structural-
ism is that language is a system of internal relationships between signs.
Without making an exhaustive analysis of the topic, it can be said that, in
general, structuralist thinking is in keeping with the contemporary trend
known as holism, which is the interpretation of language in a system in
which internal relationships constitute “structures”.
of a concept a, based on concepts b and c, a rule of translation is understood that
provides a general indication of the way how any propositional function in which
a appears can be transformed into a concomitant propositional function where a
no longer appears but b and c”. Rudolf Carnap, La Construcción Lógica del Mundo
(México, DF: Ediciones Universidad Autónoma de México, 1988). Another explana-
tion of structuralism and which also clarifies Molotoch and Lester’s theory is given
in the work of Michel Foucault, who leaves aside the person who thinks and the
reality expressed by thought because it fundamentally takes into account the forms
of thinking in their rational objectivity. Michel Foucault, Las palabras y las cosas
(México, DF: Siglo XXI Editores, 1968). The importance that Molotoch and Lester
give to the news form can find its explanation in this affirmation by Rassam: “another
operating element in the structuralists, and particularly in Foucault, is the psycho-
analytical interpretation of language, considered as an unconscious or unthought-of
background not of content, but rather of forms of saying that condition mental life.
It’s like an unconscious system of word combinations regardless of the person who
thinks or speaks”. Joseph Rassam, Michel Foucault: Las palabras y las cosas (Madrid:
Editorial Magisterio Español, 1978) p. 16.

18 Chapter 1
Barthes gives a more direct explanation of the model proposed by
Molotoch and Lester to construct news. The structural man, the author
says, takes what is real, decomposes it and then recomposes it. Something
new is produced between the two periods in time of structural activity,
and that something is “nothing else but what is generally intelligible; it’s
a ‘sham’ but this sham contains the very intelligibility of what is real”.11
The influence of Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology on Molotoch and
Lester and the references they make to the ideas of Cicourel, Zimmerman
and Pollner show they are strongly attached to the idea of knowledge being
under constant construction in the individual’s interaction with the world
that surrounds him. They see the news not as a reflection of the external
world, but rather as a practical intention of those who have the power to
determine the experience of others.
Molotoch and Lester will say, then, that the news is the result of prac-
tical, intentional and creative activities on behalf of promoters, compilers
(journalists) and consumers of news. For this reason, their text is key to
understanding the role of journalistic routines in the construction of news.
For them, the news is the result of a set of calculated practices, carried
out in accordance with the needs of the events caused by those who have
access to the media.
These authors clarify that they will use the term public in the sense that
Dewey does. It is not unusual that they refer to Dewey, one of the main
exponents of pragmatism, in their essay. This is one more example of the
marked influence exercised by the reactionary positions to the modern idea
of the theory of knowledge. Dewey asserted that the information does not
just go to the public, but that it “creates” it.12 Just like Garfinkel and the
11 Ronald Barthes, Elementos de semiología (Madrid: Alberto Corazón Editor, 1971),
p.112.
12 Dewey describes the current situation of the public as “eclipsed”. For him, the North
American society was not really a united society. The solution he offered was to
create new ways of association that, by doing so, would make society acquire reli-
able knowledge. He says that the Great Society must become a Great Community,
where the word public is spelled with a capital P. Only this way will give society an
accurate working order and a suitable participation in the democracy on behalf of

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 19
previously mentioned authors, Dewey thinks that during the process of
knowledge the creation of reality is generated. His conviction of the idea
of news as the construction of reality is reiterated; Molotoch and Lester
will say the concepts are not a finite set of things that really “happened
out there” of which we make a selection; our ideas are not “analogous to a
selective perception of the world”.13 They propose, just as Garfinkel does,
that what is “really happening out there” is identical to what people witness.
For these authors, each fact makes sense because of the context in
which it is placed. That explains that events are created as they claim. Their
essay outlines how these events are created. They follow the line we have

the people. Dewey’s desire is that the United States turns into a community orga-
nized as an effective democratic Public. In order to reach this Public, this Great
Community, communication is needed. The main role of freedom of expression
manifested as communication stands out. Only this, says the author will be capable
of reconstructing the democratic people. Knowledge will be necessary to form a
public opinion (he reviews this subject at length, especially how to study public
opinion, when it really exists, etc.). Knowledge is related to society, it depends on
it in a certain way because our social interaction makes it turn it into a sieve that
filters what we know. Thinking is valuable insofar that it can be communicated to
society. As regards society and its access to information, Dewey shows (marking a
difference with Lippmann, his opponent on this theory) that information, opinion,
knowledge and argumentation must go together. Probably Molotoch and Lester
cite Dewey’s concept of public by referring to his idea of Public as knowledgeable
and actively participative in society. Dewey’s work shows his permanent interest in
uniting theory with practice and demonstrating that human intelligence is capable
of solving problems he encounters. It could be thought that it is said that “informa-
tion is not only addressed to the publics but is created by them”, in the sense that
communication shapes the community, as a base for its growth and the process of
knowledge. His book deals directly with how society is organized and develops the
concepts of power and State in relation to communication. It shows the importance
that freedom of expression has for the community it must reform.
13 “Our conception is not a finite set of things that ‘really happened out there’ from
which selection is made: our idea is not analogous to selective perception of the
physical world. We propose that what is ‘really happening’ is identical with what
people attend to”. Molotoch and Lester, op. cit., p. 102.

20 Chapter 1
already analyzed, in the second chapter, of Fishman and his analysis of the
creation of events by bureaucracy. Journalistic routines, they explain, serve
to construct the events promoted by some agents. They go into depth on
the concern shared by all authors: how alternative groups of power or of
protest, introduce themselves into the media, taking advantage of jour-
nalistic routines.
Molotoch and Lester are vanguards in their belief that all events are
socially constructed and their “newsworthiness” is not part of their typi-
cal objectives.
The prism with which Molotoch and Lester examine the media com-
pletely discards the existence of a reality that is sought out to be transmitted
to the public. Far from looking dispassionately at events which happen,
for them, any occurrence is a potential resource for constructing an event,
and the event so constructed is continuously dependent on purposes-at-
hand for its durability.
It is interesting to look back, on this and other works that will be
analyzed, where authors cite these “second founding fathers” to see how
they influenced each other and from which positions they obtain their
postulations.14
14 It is pertinent to draw up a list of the articles and books that were cited in Molotoch
and Lester’s essay to examine how media sociologists were influenced by each other
and also to establish the influence of the pragmatic thinkers. We will continue
this procedure with all of the authors. Molotoch and Lester quote: Herbert Gans,
“The famine in American mass communications research: comments on Hirsch,
Tuchman and Gecas”, American Journal of Sociology 77 (January 1972), pp. 697–
705; Gaye Tuchman, Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen’s
Notions of Objectivity; Gaye Tuchman, “News as controlled conflict and contro-
versy”, Department of Sociology, Queens College, New York (mimeographed)
1972; Gaye Tuchman, “Making news by doing work, routinizing the unexpected”,
American Journal of Sociology 79 (July 1973), pp. 110–131; Mark, Fishman, Forth-News
of the World: What Happened and Coming Why, unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara; Marilyn
Lester, Toward a Sociology of Public Events, unpublished Masters papers, University of
California, Santa Barbara, 1971; Marilyn Lester, News as a Practical Accomplishment,
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1975; Harvey Molotoch,
“Oil in Santa Barbara and power in America”, Sociological Inquiry 40 (winter 1970),

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 21
Mark Fishman: An Explanation of the Creation of News
Mark Fishman studied in Santa Barbara, California. He probably met
Harvey Molotoch and Marilyn Lester there. He began to publish in 1978
and has written two books: Manufacturing the News, in 1980, which we
refer to in this dissertation and, together with Gay Lavender, Entertaining
Crime: Television Reality Programs.15
A glimpse of Molotoch and Lester’s influence can already be seen in
the book’s preface. He thanks Harvey Molotoch for being one of the main
inspirations to begin this work for his doctoral dissertation in sociology.
Fishman will say that his suggestion to first try his hand as a journalist
before observing journalists from a distance was very assertive. Molotoch
reviewed the first drafts of the book, which Fishman affirms broadened
pp. 131–144; Harvey Molotoch and Marilyn Lester, “Accidents, scandals and routines”,
presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, New Orleans, 1972;
Harvey Molotoch and Marilyn Lester, “Accidents, Scandals and Routines: Resources
for Insurgent Methodology”, The Insurgent Sociologist 3 (summer 1973), pp. 1–11;
Harvey Molotoch and Marilyn Lester, “The great oil spill as local occurrence and
coming national event” (forthcoming). They also quote the work of the following
authors, whom we have already mentioned: Warren Breed, David Manning White,
John Dewey, Harold Garfinkel, Don Zimmermann and Melvin Pollner and Alfred
Schutz, Collected Papers, vol. I, part III, Martines Nijhoff, The Hague, 1966. We will
refer to the latter in greater detail when we talk about Tuchman’s work.
15 He has written five articles: “Crime Waves as Ideology”, Social Problems 25 (June 1978),
pp. 531–543; “Police News. Constructing an Image of Crime”, Urban Life 9 (January
1981), pp. 371–394; “News and Non-Events: Making the Visible Invisible”, in James
Ettema and D. Charles Whitney (eds), Individuals in Mass Media Organizations:
Creativity and Constraint (Beverly Hills, New York: 1982), pp. 219–240; “Ratings and
Reality: The Persistence of Reality Crime Genre”, in Fishman and Lavender (eds),
Entertaining Crime: Television Reality Programs (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1998),
pp. 59–75; “For TV’s Voyeurs, Reality Gets Less Predictable”, Newsday (23 July 2000),
p. B6. Another publication, from 1979, deals with: “Police and the Construction
of Crime News”, paper presented to the Society for the Study of Social Problems,
Boston, MA, August 1979.

22 Chapter 1
and reinforced the analysis. He also thanks Gaye Tuchman for her valuable
comments and suggestions.
Fishman focuses on the character of “social facts”16 that journalists
manufacture on a daily basis and the methods they use to generate them.
Most of the realities that journalists deal with are not “brute facts”, but
rather what have been called “institutional or social facts”, to use John
Searle’s nomenclature in his work The Construction of Social Reality.17
16 In short, the question is: How can an objective social reality be constructed? Searle
will say that “Many people, including even a few whose opinions I respect, have argued
that all of reality is somehow a human creation, that there are not brute facts, but
only facts dependent on the human mind. Furthermore, several people have argued
against our commonsense idea that there are facts in the world that make our state-
ments true and that statements are true because they correspond to the facts … I
want to defend the idea that there is a reality that is totally independent of us”. John
Searle, The construction of social reality (New York: Free Press, 1995), pp. XI–XII.
In order to demonstrate it, he relates the following ideas that explain how realities
created by man can be considered as objective.
“1. The sheer existence of the physical object in front of me does not depend on any
attitudes we may take toward it.
2. It has many features that are intrinsic in the sense that they do not depend on any
attitudes of observers or users. For example, it has a certain mass and a certain
chemical composition.
3. It has other features that exist only relative to the intentionality of agents. For
example, a screwdriver. To have a general term, I will call such features ‘observer
relative’. Observer-relative features are ontologically subjective.
4. Some of these ontologically subjective features are epistemically objective. For
example, it isn’t just my opinion or evaluation that it is a screwdriver. It is a matter
of objectively ascertainable fact that it is a screwdriver.
5. Although the feature of being a screwdriver is observer relative, the feature of
thinking that something is a screwdriver (treating it a as a screwdriver, using it
as a screwdriver, etc.) is intrinsic to the thinkers (treaters, users, etc.). Being a
screwdriver is observer relative, but the features of the observers that enable them
to create such observer-relative features of the world are intrinsic features of the
observers” (Ibid. pp. 10–11).
17 Searle will say that some elements are needed in order to have a more in-depth
understanding of how a journalist can know a reality and transmit it as accurately
as possible to his public. He will ask himself how it can be said that realities such as

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 23
Fishman’s purpose is not to evaluate the journalists’ methods and
conclusions in comparison to the criteria of the social scientists on suit-
able objectivity and methodology. Conversely, he wants to explain how
what we read in the newspapers is constructed and how this occurrence
reaches the newspaper.
Ethnomethodology criteria are vividly present in Fishman. He says
that the way a society comes to know itself is a subject which receives little
attention in the social sciences. He criticizes, however, the abundance of
explanations of society generated inside itself.
The idea of interaction of Garfinkel, Dewey and other pragmatic
authors that will be quoted, lead Fishman to conclude that the construction
of social reality is inherent to the nature of the interaction. Furthermore,
he will add that not only do the members know the world through the
explanations they give each other, but that these explanations are part of the
same social world that they describe and make intelligible. Subsequently,
for Fishman, the explanations of the world receive their significance and are
intelligible only in relation to their context. The influence of ethnometh-
odology in Fishman’s investigation does not only show up in his frequent
allusions to Garfinkel, but also in his references to the works of his follow-
ers: Cicourel and Zimmerman and Pollner, who have been quoted above.
The starting point of Fishman’s analysis is a process whereby an impor-
tant part of reality is socially constructed: the public reality of news of the
mass media. Fishman detected that there are few systematic studies and
empirical investigations of the significant role that mass media plays in the
construction of large-scale social phenomena. He begins his research with
the following questions: How is news manufactured in the mass media?
and, how is it manufactured so that it creates and recreates the social phe-
nomenon it sets forth?
Fishman introduces the perspective of construction of reality in this
research through the empiric study of the coverage of a crime wave, which
he deals with extensively in the book. Through this case he shows why,
if public events are to be understood, the mass media, through which a
money, property, marriage, government, elections, football matches, parties and laws
are objective in a world that consists entirely of physical particles in fields of force.

24 Chapter 1
community knows of the existence of these events, should be investigated.
It is, he explains, to examine the manufacturing process of news.
In 1976, New York experienced a major crime wave. For seven weeks,
all of the city’s media reported on brutal crimes against the elderly. Fishman
would say that perhaps the most important consequence of this string of
crimes that appeared in the media was that it formulated, publicly and in
the media, a new category of crime: typical victims and typical criminals.
Public protest against these crimes was immediate. The mayor of New
York, among other measures, promised safer streets for senior citizens. One
survey showed that fear of crime had expanded everywhere.
During this crime wave, Fishman was inside a press room of a TV
station observing the work routine of an editor. He was studying how
the editor selected the news and assigned the reporters and cameras for
each story. He focused his investigation on the coverage of the crimes
against senior citizens. He took note that certain aspects of journalistic
work seemed to contribute to the very existence of this crime wave. During
these observations, he discovered something that made him ask himself
whether the entire process of manufacturing news was creating the crime
wave it was reporting. A reporter who had investigated the story on the
crimes against the elderly told him he had discovered police statistics that
showed a decrease in these crimes in comparison to last year’s figures.
Fishman observed that several journalists had doubts about the crime
wave. But no one could resist reporting on them. This “wave” was a force
that influenced their judgment about what the real news was and it simply
could not be ignored. Fishman concluded that “something” in the process
of news manufacturing created the crime wave.
The observations made in the station’s press room indicated to Fishman
that the crime wave was little more than a topic in the crime. Fishman
will say then that the topics in these crimes, just like any other topic in the
news, are concepts that organize. They enable the reporter to see different
related incidents that create events in some subject that encompass them.
News topics allow editors to organize interrelated news items in packages
or groups which would otherwise be a confused series of events.
From the experience, Fishman discovers that topics allow journalists
to give an appearance of order to the public and that editors need topics

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 25
in order to review and select some of the many stories they receive every
day. Fishman asks himself how crime waves come to being. Why do only
a few crimes become “crime waves”? Looking at the sources of the crime
waves in order to understand their origin and continuous existence, he
concludes that it was a public event manufactured by journalistic work.
That is to say, the crime wave was a construction of reality.
By stating that the consequences of news are not simple byproducts
of the journalistic process but rather an integral part of it, Fishman clearly
shows the idea of interaction between the organization and its environment,
typical of Dewey. As news increases, media coverage affects the develop-
ment of events, and the development of events leads to more coverage.
Fishman’s work provides evidence of Dewey and Garfinkel’s ideas of
interaction: the news, that is, the term “public knowledge” as used by the
authors, is manufactured insofar as the journalist is constructing the reality.
The pragmatic position and its assertion that reality cannot be seen
as separate from the mind is adopted by Fishman. He criticizes research-
ers who assume that the news either reflects or else distorts reality, and
that reality consists of facts and events that exist independently from how
reporters think about and treat it during the process of manufacturing it.
Fishman is grateful to and deeply influenced by Dorothy Smith18 and
Garfinkel with regard to the theory of knowledge. This explains Fishman’s
18 Dorothy Smith, a Canadian feminist coined and developed the term “sociology
for people”. Smith’s first approach to philosophy was through the philosophy of
language. She was interested in studying how people used words and how words
could have a meaning. Her attention to the use of language was always important
for her project to “write the social” while persons are living it. She attributes Ludwig
Wittgenstein with returning words from their metaphysical use to their daily use.
It has been her predominant interest to understand and teach a method of social
analysis that is reflexive of the material surrounding the lives of people. Hence her
interest in Foucault, whom we have already referred to, who appears in Smith’s
formulations on how the sequences of local action are hooked on a “dialogue that
leads to discourse”. She says that “truth and knowledge are based on fundamental
moments in which the social is born through language and through the sensorial
ground that human organizations share”. Dorothy Smith, Writing the Social: Critique,
Theory and Investigations (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), p. 128. At the

26 Chapter 1
insistence on arguing that journalists create a reality while knowing the
world they want to transmit to the public. This is why he frequently quotes
Molotoch and Lester.19
University of California, Berkeley, Smith worked with professors who mainly taught
conventional positivist sociology which was predominant in the United States at the
beginning of 1960. Irving Goffman, her dissertation director, who we will refer to
later on and who the authors quoted, was an exception since he tried to make daily
life visible to sociology. Another influence on Smith’s thinking was George Herbert
Mead who backed up her thinking about the use of language. Mead showed her new
ways to bring things from the abstract field and to see them more as a problem of
how people talk about things. Her teachings and literature is influenced by Alfred
Schutz in phenomenology, by George Mead in symbolic interactionism, and by
Harold Garfinkel in ethnomethodology. Smith argues that the traits that make sense
in an ordinary way are interesting in themselves. To bring them out in the open and
not bury them makes visible how people reach particular meanings. Hence Smith’s
criticism of the conventional sociological method and her comprehension about the
way in which texts are an essential part of the meaning they apparently have. The
sociological model that Smith criticizes is reflected by the following quote: “sociol-
ogy creates a construction of society that is in discontinuity with the world that is
known, lived, experimented and in which we act. The practice of sociology that we
learned insisted on that sociology should never go without a concept; that to find
oneself with the natural world was to find oneself with an inevitably confused and
unorganized world; even to start talking about this world it was necessary to have a
concept to organize, select and collect a sociological version of the world on paper”.
Dorothy Smith, K is Mentally Ill: The Anatomy of a Factual Account, Texts, Facts
and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling (London: Routledge, 1990), p. 2.
Smith talks about learning to think as if one were inside what was happening, not
outside. This is the notion of “experience” that she works with. Ethnomethodology
has an important place in Smith’s intellectual development. For her, the sociologist
must be an active participant in the construction of the events he treats as fact. Marie
Campbell, “Dorothy Smith and knowing the world we live in”, Journal of Sociology
and Social Welfare (March 2003), pp. 3–22.
19 Other works quoted by Fishman are those of Edward Epstein, News from Nowhere;
Marilyn Lester, News as Practical Accomplishment; Harvey Molotoch and Marilyn
Lester, News as Purposive Behavior: on the Strategic Use of Routine Events, Accidents
and Scandals; Accidents, Scandals and Routines: Resources for Insurgent Methodology;
Michael Schudson, Discovering the News; Gaye Tuchman, Objectivity as Strategic
Ritual …; Gaye Tuchman, “Television News and the Metaphor of Myth”, Studies in
the Anthropology of Visual Communication 5 (fall 1978), pp. 56–62; Making News by

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 27
Fishman also refers to the recurrent theme of media sociologists regard-
ing journalistic routines as a basis for the conservation of a hegemonic
ideology. In the last chapter he discusses the way a free and uncensored
press, comprised of independent news agencies, provides a uniform vision
of the world. This, in his judgment, can only be characterized as ideologi-
cal. The roots of this ideological hegemony can be located in the routines
that detect news.
The analysis of news reporting presented in the book’s chapters is
based on extensive observation as a participant of the journalistic work of
reporters and the editor of a TV station as well as a Californian newspaper:
the Purissima Record.
In order to support his observations, Fishman worked as a journalist at
the Purissima Voice (the alternative newspaper) for seven months. Lawrence
Wieder, a sociologist friend, provided him with five months of participant
observation in the Record, researched ten years earlier (1964–1965). Fishman
observed five months more from 1973 to 1974.
Gaye Tuchman: Pragmatism in Journalism
The starting point of Gaye Tuchman’s20 analysis is her question about how
journalists decide what is news, why they cover some events and not others,
and how they decide what they and the public want to know. She wanted
to research what sociologists call “the latent structure of news”.
Doing Work: Routinizing the Unexpected; News, the Newsman’s Reality, PhD disserta-
tion, Brandeis University. He further quotes Warren Breed, David Manning White,
Aaron Cicourel, Harold Garfinkel, Irving Goffman, Robert Merton, Robert Park,
Melvin Pollner and Don Zimmerman.
20 Other works by Gaye Tuchman include: News, the Newsman’s Reality, PhD disserta-
tion, Brandeis University, 1969; Objectivity as Strategic Ritual …; News as Controlled
Conflict and Controversy; Making News by Doing Work: Routinizing the Unexpected;
The TV Establishment: Programming for Power and Profit (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

28 Chapter 1
Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality is the result of
her eleven-year investigation to uncover the concept of news as the social
construction of reality. In her introduction, she says Epstein, Fishman,
Gitlin, Lester and Molotoch are all friends who read the drafts of her book,
and extends special thanks to Fishman. It is not unusual for Tuchman to
thank Fishman in particular since she returns to Fishman’s central subject,
which in some way is also that of Molotoch and Lester, although with a
difference. Her reference to the thinkers of pragmatism is more obvious.
Tuchman herself makes the connection between each one of the works of
Schutz, Smith, Garfinkel,21 Goffman and Berger and Luckmann as far as
journalism and the news are concerned.
Prentice Hall, 1974); “Assembling a Network Talk-Show”, in Gaye Tuchman (ed.),
The TV Establishment, pp. 119–135; “The News’ Manufacture of Sociological Data:
A Comment on Danzger”, American Sociological Review 41 (December 1976),
pp. 1065–1067; “Qualitative Methods in the Study of News”, in Klaus B. Jensen and
Nicholas W. Jankowski (eds), A Handbook of Qualitative methodologies for mass
communication research (New York: Routledge, 1991), pp. 79–92; “Telling Stories”,
Journal of Communication 26 (4) (fall 1976), pp. 93–97; “The Production of News”,
in K. B. Jensen (ed.), A Handbook of Media and Communication Research (London:
Routledge, 2002), pp. 78–90.
21 The influence of Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology is particularly important in Tuchman.
She herself will explain that “reflexivity” and “indicativity” are two invariable charac-
teristics outlined by the ethnomethodologists. Twin concepts (indicativity implies
reflexivity and vice versa) can be employed to describe how, in shared conversations,
people make sense out of their interlocutor’s expressions and of what the news says as
an account of the everyday world; how reporters make sense of events; or how people,
from one occurrence in particular, characterize the everyday world in general. Both
reflexivity and indicativity refer to the contextualization of phenomena. Reflexivity
specifies that the accounts are situated in the same reality they characterize, record or
structurize. Indicativity specifies that, by using accounts (terms, affirmations or nar-
rations) the social actors can attribute them meanings different from the context in
which these accounts are produced and processed. Both reflexivity and indicativity,
Tuchman will say, are components that integrate the transformation of occurrences
into news events. They are components of both the public nature of news and of the
very same newswork. For instance, news is simultaneously a record and a product of
social reality because it provides consumers with news as a selective abstract designed
to be coherent despite that some details may be neglected. When the public reads

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 29
Tuchman adds a component in the elaboration of the idea of news-
work as a product of certain routines. The origins of these will be examined
later on, but for the moment, what Tuchman says about the study of the
limitations of newswork and the availability of resources for reporters will
be considered. Her work deals with journalists as professionals, of news-
papers and television networks as complex organizations, and investigates
how journalists determine facts and frame events and debates which are
typical of civic life.
Tuchman’s work is more extensive in content than Molotoch and
Lester’s essay, which focused on the relation between informational needs
and the production of social knowledge. And it covers more subjects than
Fishman’s thorough research about the production of news as a bureau-
cratic product.
The research information was collected through participant observa-
tion and interviews during a ten-year period. Using participant observation
methodology,22 the work presents concrete descriptions, examples and
analysis of newswork. It also remits to a theoretical debate about the role
the news, it adds details, but not necessarily those that have been eliminated when
the story was manufactured. The selective abstract and the representation of the
information and the reflexive attribution of the meaning of the occurrences regarding
the news are natural traits of everyday life. Hence, news stories not only give occur-
rences their existence as public events but also conveys them character, since news
reports help shape the public definition of the occurrences by attributing them, in a
selective way, specific or “particular” details. Gaye Tuchman, Making News: A Study
in the Construction of Reality (New York: Free Press, 1978), pp. 202–204.
22 From 1966 to 1967 she spent at least one day a week observing the informative pro-
cesses of the NEWS, pseudonym of a TV station in Seaboard City. From June 1967
to January 1969, she continued with her observations, sometimes intermittently,
sometimes every day. Her other place of research was the Seaboard City Daily. Her
observations here lasted between October 1967 and April 1968. She focused on the
editorial staff, daily reporters, the city desk and the night shift. During the summer
of 1975, she returned to field work to interview reporters of a New York paper that
were or had been reporting on the feminist movement. The interviews included
staff from the News, the Post and the Times. She also spoke with leaders from the
feminist movement in New York. The press room of the New York City Hall was

30 Chapter 1
of knowledge in the construction of social meanings and the organization
of experience.
Tuchman’s book, with a novel analysis of the other mass media sociolo-
gists, looks at news as a frame, examines how this frame is constituted and
how the news agencies and journalists are assembled. Her work emphasizes
the ways professionalism and the decisions stemming from professionalism
are the result of a need of the organization. Smith’s sociological ideas on
daily living, Dewey’s on interaction, and Garfinkel’s on ethnomethodology
enormously influenced Tuchman. As a result, in her work she explores the
process whereby news is “socially constructed” or, in her own words, how
occurrences in the everyday world are rendered into stories occupying time
and space in the world called news.
The perspective with which Tuchman looks at news is purely eth-
nomethodological, since, from her point of view, the news does not only
render existence to occurrences as public events but also confer character.
Thus, they help shape the public definition of occurrences, attributing to
them, in a selective way, specific details. This theoretical focus makes this
book not only an empirical study of mass media sociologies, organizations,
and occupations and professions, but also an applied study of the sociol-
ogy of knowledge.
Tuchman returns to a key idea with which this chapter began and
clearly shows why incursions into the field of gnoseology have been made to
explain the authors’ concept of news, the media and journalism in general
and, ultimately, of objectivity. In order to release the news which people
want, need and must know, news agencies circulate knowledge at the same
time they shape it. Their affirmation is supported by the idea, shared by
the other authors, that the news is a source of knowledge for the public.
Tuchman points out that some earlier studies have also shown that
explanations of events in the news can serve as the context in which consum-
ers of news discuss the meaning of events, even when the participants of the
events have a diametrically opposed understanding of the same occurrence.
the last place she made her observations. There she observed the editorial staff of
nine people once a week.

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 31
By placing emphasis on news as knowledge, Tuchman suggests that
news reports are the only means of mass communication which give shape
to the comprehension of the everyday world, and especially to interpreta-
tions of new phenomena. We return to the idea of the importance of the
everyday world and of experience in the process of knowledge. Strongly
influenced by Smith, Tuchman rejects the idea of concepts as the starting
point of knowledge.
News gives events their public nature as they transform mere occur-
rences into events that can be discussed publicly. To explain this idea,
Tuchman refers to Robert Park, who referred to news as the modern replace-
ment of the town preacher. The news constitutes a social institution for
Tuchman since it confers a public nature to occurrences. Firstly, she argues
how news is an institutional method which makes information available
to consumers. Secondly, she states that news is an ally of legitimate institu-
tions, a recurrent idea of the authors. She cites, for example, how a secretary
of state can place an idea in the media, while the “average” man or woman
does not have such access. Nor does an ordinary citizen, she states, have
the same power as legitimate politicians and bureaucrats to convert his
reaction to the news into politics and public programs. Thirdly, she refers
to her theory of the “news net”, by saying that the news is located, searched
and distributed by professionals who work in organizations.
This latter argument explains the existence of routines by saying that
the news is inevitably a product of journalists who rely on institutional
processes and who adhere to certain institutional practices. Fishman’s idea
about the relation between journalistic routines and bureaucracies is seized
by Tuchman. She states these practices necessarily include the association
with institutions whose news is reported in a routine fashion. Hence, she
claims that the news is a product of a social institution and is furthermore
rooted in the relations with other institutions.
The concept of news as described by Tuchman allows certain ideas to
be affirmed and emphasized. The public knowledge that provides news to
the people is a product of a series of professional routines which enable the
journalist to interact with the world that surrounds him and hence pro-
duce this public knowledge. Tuchman assumes that the news is a product
of cultural resources and active negotiations. She introduces the concept

32 Chapter 1
of “business negotiation” into making news. The idea of news as a frame
is directly related to the concept of news as an interaction between the
individual and the world, since the journalist selects which details he will
include, and hence exclude, in the story.
The idea that the act of producing news is an act of constructing reality
itself more than constructing an image of reality is a subject matter that runs
throughout the book. It shows how newswork transforms occurrences into
news events and how it resorts to aspects of daily life to tell the stories it
presents to the public. This task, she says, serves as a basis for social action.
However, Tuchman explains that the news-making process is not carried
out in a vacuum and, therefore, professionalism serves organizational inter-
ests by reaffirming institutional processes in which newswork is involved.
Tuchman shows this in the following way: reporters dispersed in space
and time. Reporters are placed in specific locations (beats) to find occur-
rences that may be transformed into news. Bureaucratic chains of authority
are examined so as to follow the trail of occurrences and the negotiated
selection of daily news. It is this collective bargaining which, according to
Tuchman, assigns the quality of “newsworthiness” to daily occurrences.
Tuchman argues that news sources and facts mutually construct or
constitute each other, given that the news net identifies some sources and
institutions as suitable locations for facts while spurning others. News
practices create “almost legitimate” leaders to be used as sources when
the legitimate leaders are not available to generate facts. This “facticity
network”, as Tuchman calls it, is an idea analogous to the one used by the
other authors, which states that routines allow a hegemonic ideology to
prevail in society and maintain the status quo. Tuchman concludes in her
book that journalists’ routine practices present the news as an ideology, a
medium of not knowing, a medium to agitate, and in this way, to legitimize
the network of political and business activity.
Tuchman’s work studies the coverage of the feminist movement. She
shows the simultaneous institutionalization of this movement alongside
the reporting of it. She pays special attention to the “professional blinders”
and organizational restrictions that at first dismissed the movement and
then transformed its radical theme into a force for reform. It emphasizes
how the feminist movement was created as a news topic.

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 33
Another one of Tuchman’s contributions is the subject of interpre-
tive sociology which explains how daily practices can be a medium for not
knowing.23 After contrasting the two approaches of newswork, the tradi-
tional and the interpretive, she explains the concepts that are implicit in
her statements. These concepts include Alfred Schutz’ “natural activity”;
the ideas of “reflexivity” and “indicativity” of Garfinkel’s ethnomethodol-
ogy; Goffman’s treatment of frame and Berger and Luckmann’s use of “the
social construction of reality”, which is also the title of the book by these
two authors. Tuchman’s concept of news as a reality constructed by a news
process explains precisely how she has assimilated and captured these think-
ers’ ideas of newswork. She uses the interpretive angle to study the news
in order to show how newswork transforms daily occurrences into news.24
23 As Tuchman explains, traditional sociologists argue that society creates knowledge.
Recent interpretive sociologists, whose concepts underlie the previous chapters and
which Tuchman ascribes to, maintain that the social world provides norms which
the actors invoke as sources or restrictions while they actively work to carry out their
projects, shaping the social world and its institutions as shared and constructed phe-
nomena. This involves two simultaneous processes: on one hand, society helps to
shape knowledge, while on the other hand, men construct and constitute the social
phenomenon collectively through their intentional apprehension of the phenomena
in the shared social world while they work actively. Tuchman explains the term project
is used here as a technical term. Schutz sees the actions as a project (or projection)
of present concerns and past experiences towards the future and stresses the fact
that social actors act to fulfill them. He also suggests that the base of the actions in
the past and present mean that the action is carried out in the future perfect tense;
one bases the action on what was expected to have happened. Each one of these two
perspectives about social actors involves a different theoretical approach from the
news.
24 In order to understand Tuchman’s position, we need to pause briefly at these authors’
proposals. Schutz’s thinking includes the ideas of William James, father of interpretive
sociology. In his 1962 work On Multiple Realities, Schutz outlines the basic properties
of phenomenology of the shared social world. First of all, Schutz accepts James’ idea
that people experience many sub-universes, including the world of senses or physi-
cal things, the worlds of science, dreams and madness. Schutz then distinguishes
the daily world of senses and that of other people from other multiple realities. He
asks: How do we experience these multiple realities? How, for instance, does our
experience of the world of dreams differ from how we understand our daily world?

34 Chapter 1
These descriptions of newswork use, sometimes implicitly, other times
explicitly, the concepts “reflexivity” and “indicativity”, proposed by the eth-
nomethodologists, as is the concept of “frame” offered by Goffman (1974)
Schutz is particularly interested in the daily world because, like James, he identifies
it with reality par excellence. Of special importance are the two ideas that Schutz
takes from Husserl, who emphasized the relation between who knows and what
is known, in other words, the role of conscience as an intentional phenomenon.
Likewise, Husserl suggested that the philosopher can grasp the essence of the phe-
nomena by adopting a specific attitude, which he called phenomenological reduc-
tion. By adopting this attitude, the philosopher doubts the existence of an objective
phenomenon to examine its essence while it opposes its material incarnation in the
social world. Schutz reverts Husserl’s idea on phenomenological reduction or the
“in between brackets”. He explains the daily world stands out for its own lack of in
between brackets. Instead of adopting a doubtful attitude towards the phenomena of
the social world, the actors of the social world accept the phenomena as something
given. For example, although a newspaper reader could challenge the veracity of a
news item, he does not challenge the very existence of the news as a social phenom-
enon. Schutz refers to the cognitive style that accepts objective existence of social
phenomena as a “natural attitude” which was influenced by Husserl’s thinking, for
whom it is necessary to overcome, methodologically speaking, through “phenomeno-
logical reduction”, this stage of knowledge in order to reach philosophical knowledge
as such. Schutz never wanted these given things to be “natural” in themselves. In On
Multiple Realities, he is not concerned with phenomena in the world but rather the
attitude with which social actors approach the world. By using the term “natural
attitude”, Schutz wants, regardless of specific cultural, structural and personal con-
tents of a person’s life, all individuals to be able to experience similar cognitive styles
when dealing with social reality. Individuals accept their world as “natural” (whatever
their content) as the way things are. The daily world, for Schutz, is made to be taken
for granted. He stresses that, in the natural attitude, social actors work actively in
the sense that they decide to be awake and vigilant before the world through which
they grasp and create meanings. For instance, reporters work in order to grasp and
attribute meaning when identifying some items and not others as news. By doing
this work, according to Schutz, social actors create meaning and, at the same time,
a shared conscience of the social order, which is dependent on the shared meanings.
Shutz’s idea about natural attitude has served as a starting point for many interpre-
tive sociologists who emphasize how people work to create social meanings. Shutz’s
work has inspired Garfinkel and Luckmann, among others. Gaye Tuchman, Making
News …, pp. 199–201. In turn, Schutz was inspired by Bergson and William James
when elaborating his theory. Henri Bergson (1859–1941) is the most original and

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 35
and “social construction of reality” developed by Berger and Luckmann
(1967). All of these concepts emphasize that men and women actively
construct their social meanings. In the end, they all stem from the work

important representative of the new philosophy on life. We are interested in the
application of his intuitive method to problems of the theory of knowledge. These
problems, says Bergson, have received, up until now, three classic solutions: dualism,
kantism and idealism. However, these three solutions are all based on the erroneous
affirmation that perception and memory are merely speculative and independent of
action, when in fact they are all practical and subordinate to action. Bergson will say
that our actions have their origin in our personality; the decision creates something
new, the fact rises from the ego. William James is one of the principle representatives
of pragmatism, who has already been referred to. He coined the phrase “all what is
real is practical”. A practical science is what allows us to explain with ease a set of
phenomena. There is a common root in his philosophy and psychology: the concern
to conserve contact with reality, though it must be said he understands reality as
that which is the sensible and not the intellectual. His psychological work outlines
several trends, which later will constitute the intellectual base for the work of other
philosophers such as John Dewey, who also has already been referred to. Tuchman
has said that another sociologist inspired his work: Irving Goffman (1922–1982).
Goffman’s interest lay in society and how people behave in this society. His focus on
the study of the social interaction is frequently called “dramaturgical”, since he saw
social life like a theater play. The reason we are actors is because we are always on stage.
Goffman’s methodology was based on ethnographic studies and participant observa-
tion more than on collecting statistical information. Goffman clearly based himself
on Schutz’s ethnomethodological interpretation to elaborate two central concepts
of his work on the analysis of frame. Goffman defines a frame as “the principles of
organization that govern happenings – at least social ones – and our involvement in
them”. Frames organize strips of the everyday world. Goffman defines the strip as “a
slice or arbitrary cut made in the current of the activity in course”. Just like Schutz,
Goffman takes for granted that to experience reality puts order into reality. Just like
the ethnomethodologists, he takes distance from the possibility that order is an
intrinsic trait of the everyday world. By doing so, the frames turn unrecognizable
occurrences or an insipid conversation into a discernable event. Framed, the strip
becomes recognizable as a conversation referring to an event. It can be seen as the
negotiation of the relevance this news has as an event regarded as a news occurrence,
conferring character to this event. Hence, the news frame, explains Tuchman, orga-
nizes everyday reality and plays an important part in everyday reality since the public

36 Chapter 1
of Alfred Schutz (1962), a philosopher of the social sciences whose ideas
also influenced Dorothy Smith. Schutz’s work derives from the studies of
Edmund Husserl, Henri Bergson, Max Weber and William James.
Drawing inspiration from them, Tuchman says there is a traditional
viewpoint maintained by Roshco (1975) who states that the definition
of news in any society depends on its social structure. This idea will be
reintroduced later on in this chapter to explain how Tuchman conceives
construction of reality as a “socially shared phenomenon”.
nature of news is an essential trait of the news. Gaye Tuchman, Making News …,
pp. 206–208. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann have also studied Schutz’s work.
Berger and Luckmann merge Alfred Schutz’s ideas with traditional sociological
concerns about the content of reality found in the natural attitude. Just like Schutz
and James, they recognize the everyday world as reality par excellence. Their writings
explore the impact of historically deployed social institutions on the generation
and definition of social events. The study on social events include the categories
according to which the groups distribute their collective experience of reality and
the processes through which these categories emerge. Hence, Berger and Luckmann
talk about the world into which we are born as a given world, transmitted to us by
our predecessors and as a world we shape by organizing our daily interactions and
our invocations of relevance. Berger and Luckmann also underline how institu-
tions objectivize social meanings. They suggest that social meanings constituted
by social interactions be transformed into institutional and organizational rules
and into procedures that can be invoked as resources to justify actions. By invok-
ing them, meanings can be changed, in a very similar way as meanings of words
are changed when applied to emerging situations. They can also be coded apart
from the contexts in which they were originally developed. When removed from
the context in which it was proposed, a procedure can become to be “the way to
do things”, in other words, it can be transmitted to the world of our successors
as a given historical objective. Tuchman will apply Berger and Luckmann’s con-
cepts by saying that, while hard news continues to be associated with activities
of legitimized institutions and spatial and temporal organization of newswork
remains inserted in the activities of these institutions, the news reproduces itself
as something historically given. Not only does it define and redefine, constitute
and reconstitute social meanings, but it also defines and redefines, constitutes and
reconstitutes ways of doing things: the existing processes of existing institutions.

Mass Media Sociology and the Philosophy that Inspires its Work 37
In differing degrees, all pragmatists that have been mentioned empha-
size how sociological reasoning occurs in everyday life and, in turn, con-
tributes to it. Sociology codifies attitudes and opinions, births and deaths,
explains Tuchman, through the manipulation of information. According
to critiques of Smith, Garfinkel and Cicourel, their theories are based on
pre-theoretical formulations of social actors that make sense out of daily life.
At the same time, Tuchman will say as she follows these thinkers, sociology
serves as a social resource to understand structural phenomena and hence
as a resource for social action. As news, according to these sociologists, it
is indicative and reflexive; it is both a description and an actor of society.25
Molotoch and Lester, Fishman and Tuchman belong to a more closed
circle of mass media sociologists than the rest. Their ideas are more similar
and they are at the vanguard with the idea of constructing reality through
the news. This idea is easily explained by the academic contacts they kept
among each other and the influence of the pragmatic positions of Schutz,
Dewey, James, Smith, Goffman, Berger and Luckmann and mainly of the
ethnomethodology of Garfinkel and his followers.
25 Apart from these thinkers, Tuchman quotes the following in her book: Edward
Epstein, News from Nowhere; Mark Fishman, Manufacturing the News: The Social
Organization of Media News Production, PhD dissertation, University of California,
Santa Barbara; Herbert Gans, “Broadcaster and Audience Values in the Mass Media:
The Image of Man in American Television News”, Transactions of the Sixth World
Congress of Sociology, Evian, 4–11 September 1966, pp. 3–14; “The Famine in Mass
Media Research: Comments on Hirsch, Tuchman and Gecas”, American Journal of
Sociology 77 (January 1972), pp. 697–705; Todd Gitlin, “Spotlight and Shadows:
Television and the Culture of Politics”, College English 38 (8) (1977), pp. 789–801;
Marilyn Lester, “News as a Practical Accomplishment: A Conceptual and Empirical
Analysis of Newswork”, PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Stony
Brook, 1975; Harvey Molotoch, “The News of Women and the Work of Men”, in
Gaye Tuchman, Arlene Kaplan Daniels and James Benét (eds), Hearth and Home:
Images of Women in the Mass Media (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978),
pp. 176–185; Harvey Molotoch and Marilyn Lester, News as Purposive Behavior,
Accidental News: the Great Oil Spill; Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A
Social History of American Newspapers. She also quotes Don Zimmermann and
Melvin Pollner, Aaron Cicourel and Irving Goffman, Frame Analysis (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974).

38 Chapter 1
News and Ideological Hegemony: Gitlin’s Point of View
The other mass media sociologists are also influenced by these tendencies,
although to a lesser degree and in a less obvious way. The concerns of the
first three are quite similar though with some different nuances. Those of
the following are more dissimilar hence their position regarding the for-
mation of knowledge is not as intense.
Todd Gitlin26 is interested, as are the others, in mass media coverage of
left-wing movements. In the mid-1960s, he realized that the majority of the
activities of these movements were not considered as newsworthy. While
working for an underground paper he discovered that mass media images
were being manipulated when he found out that the CBS headquarters in
New York ordered a news item to be rewritten so as to change its political
slant. This circumstance led him to ask the question: Why, after all, do the
mass media say what they say and show what they show? Why was this
story intervened and not others?
26 Todd Gitlin studied at Harvard, Michigan and California, Berkeley, where he received
his PhD. He was a student activist, presiding over the Students for Democracy Society
(SDS) at a time of strong opposition to the Vietnam War. He was director of the
radical paper San Francisco Express Times (1968–1969). He was a sociology profes-
sor and director of the department of Mass Communication at Berkeley (University
of California), where he worked for sixteen years before continuing his academic
work in New York. He has written articles for the most important North American
newspapers and in specialized publications such as the American Journalism Review,
Columbia Journalism Review, The American Prospect, Theory and Society, Journal of
Communication y Critical Studies in Mass Communication. Other work by Gitlin
includes: Inside Prime Time (New York: Pantheon, 1983); The Sixties: Years of Hope,
Days of Rage (New York: Bantam, 1987); The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why
America is Wracked by Culture Wars (New York: Metropolitan/Holt, 1995); Media
Unlimited: How the Torrent of Images and Sounds Overwhelms our Lives (New York:
Metropolitan/Holt, 2002); Letters to a Young Activist (New York: Basic Books, 2003).
He is also the author of two novels: The Murder of Albert Einstein (New York: Farrar,
Straus & Giroux, 1992) and Sacrifice (New York: Metropolitan/Holt, 1999).

Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content

Cranberry and Apple Jelly, 68
Damson Plum Jelly, 58
Green Gooseberry Jelly, 52
Quince Jelly, 63
Quince and Apple Jelly, 65
Red Currant Jelly, 42
Red Currant and Raspberry Jelly, 46
Red Currant and White Currant Jelly, 44
Spiced Blackberry Jelly, 49
Wild Cherry Jelly, 53
Wild Grape Jelly, 55
Wild Plum Jelly, 56
MARMALADES
Apple Marmalade, 23
Apricot Marmalade, 19
Orange Marmalade, 8
Orange and Grapefruit Marmalade, 13
Orange and Rhubarb Marmalade, 15
Peach Marmalade, 17
Peach Marmalade No. 2, 18
Plum Marmalade, 21
Prune Marmalade, 22
Quince Marmalade, 20
MISCELLANEOUS
Blanching and Cold-Dipping, 158
Canning of Fruits, 172
Caution against Freezing, 163
Containers, 156
Directions for Jelly Making, 183
Grading, 157
Jelly Making without Test, 181

Principles of Jelly Making, 179
Single Period Cold-Pack Equipment, 155
Steps in the Single Period Cold-Pack Method,
159
Syrups, 173
Test for Pectin, 179
Tests for Jars and Rubbers, 156
Time Table for Blanching and Sterilizing, 164-
165
Winter Jelly Making, 183
PRESERVING AND CANNING
Canned Apples, 90, 174
Canned Apples (without sugar), 92
Canned Apricots, 84, 174
Canned Asparagus, 166
Canned Beets, 166
Canned Blackberries, 76, 175
Canned Blueberries, 77, 175
Canned Blueberries (without sugar), 79
Canned Cabbage and Brussels Sprouts, 167
Canned Carrots, 167
Canned Cauliflower, 167
Canned Cherries, 75, 175
Canned Corn, 168
Canned Crab Apples, 87
Canned Currants, 175
Canned Greens, 168
Canned Lima Beans, 169
Canned Loganberries, 175
Canned Okra, 169
Canned Parsnips, 169
Canned Peaches No. 1, 80
Canned Peaches No. 2, 81

Canned Peaches—Government Recipe, 176
Canned Peaches (without sugar), 82
Canned Pears, 85, 176
Canned Peas, 170
Canned Peppers, 170
Canned Pineapples No. 1, 93
Canned Pineapples No. 2, 94
Canned Pineapples—Government Recipe, 177
Canned Plums, 95
Canned Plums—Government Recipe, 176
Canned Pumpkin, Winter Squash, 170
Canned Quinces, 88, 177
Canned Raspberries, 72, 175
Canned Raspberries and Currants, 74
Canned Rhubarb, 97, 177
Canned Rhubarb (without sugar), 98
Canned Salsify, 171
Canned Strawberries, 71, 178
Canned String Beans, 171
Canned Summer Squash, 171
Canned Tomatoes, 172
Damson Plum Preserves, 99
Preserved Blackberries, 104
Preserved Cherries, 105
Preserved Currants, 100
Preserved Currants and Raspberries, 101
Preserved Eggs, 187
Preserved Eggs—Lime Method, 190
Preserved Eggs, Use of, 190
Preserved Eggs—Water-Glass Method, 188
Preserved Strawberries, 102
Special Instructions for Canning Fruits, 174
PICKLES

Chili Sauce, 132
Chopped Pickles, 144
Chow Chow, 145
Cucumber Pickles, 149
Mustard Pickles No. 1, 137
Mustard Pickles No. 2, 140
Pepper Relish, 136
Piccalilli, 134
Pickled Beets, 128
Pickled Onions No. 1, 129
Pickled Onions No. 2, 131
Pickled Red Cabbage, 147
Plum Tomato Pickles, 105
Ripe Cucumber Pickles, 142
Tomato Catsup, 151
Tomatoes, 153
SPICED FRUITS
Spiced Blackberries, 125
Spiced Cherries, 116
Spiced Currants, 114
Spiced Gooseberries, 117
Spiced Grapes, 123
Spiced Peaches, 120
Spiced Pears, 119
Spiced Watermelon Rind, 122
Fruit Butters, 184
Apple Butter with Cider, 185
Apple Butter with Grape Juice, 186
Dried Peach Butter, 186
Peach Butter, 185

Transcriber's Notes:
Obvious punctuation errors repaired.
Page 165, "145" changed to "144" (2,000 feet,
144)
Page 183, "cotten" changed to "cotton" (Put
absorbent cotton)

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A LITTLE
PRESERVING BOOK FOR A LITTLE GIRL ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.
copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and
Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project
Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1

with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information

about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who
notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or

damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for
the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,
the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission
of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will

remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many

small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where
we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

The Newsroom A Space Of Decision Making Mara Francisca Greene Gonzlez

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

The Newsroom A Space Of Decision Making Mara Francisca Greene Gonzlez

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

TLE-9-Prepare-Salad-and-Dressing.pptxkkk

LESSON 1 ABOUT MEDIA AND INFORMATION.pptx