PDF(1796 KB)
Verification at Work: The Institutional Maintaining and Cognitive Interpretation of Verification in Instant News
WANG Yue
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2025, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (7) : 90-117.
PDF(1796 KB)
PDF(1796 KB)
Verification at Work: The Institutional Maintaining and Cognitive Interpretation of Verification in Instant News
As a worthy “old-yet-new” question in digital journalism studies, there is still a lack of empirical studies on journalistic truth from the perspective of journalistic practice. Drawing on the “institutional work” theory, this study focuses on “verification”—a typical practice of journalistic truth, and explores how and why Chinese instant news practitioners in professional media maintain the institution of verification in their work. Findings indicate that practitioners have found it increasingly strict and difficult to verify information in recent years. As a response, they have strengthened the review process and the oral culture of verification within the newsroom, and intensified or transformed verification in individual practice, including verifying channels, news sources and ways of presentation. The institutional maintaining of verification is a result of the interaction between practitioners, organizations, and the institutional norms, as well as a kind of practical adjustment to the current institutional environment so as to ensure factual accuracy, obtain core information and avoid uncertain risks. Aside from the internal motivation to maintain cultural authority, the imagination of perfect journalistic truth and irrational anti-press pressure from external expectations are affecting verification more directly.
Verification / institutional work / journalistic truth / news source / instant news
| [1] |
白红义, 陈炜漫, 谭慧琳(2025). “实名是惯例,化名是例外”?——基于实践理论的中国深度报道信源署名研究. 《新闻大学》,(3),16-32+119-120.
|
| [2] |
白红义, 王嘉怡(2022). 数字时代新闻真实的消解与观念重构. 《新闻与写作》,(7),14-25.
|
| [3] |
陈炜漫, 李红涛(2023). 在公众警觉的目光下“做新闻”——新闻从业者对极端批评的阐释分化与动态调适. 《新闻记者》,(9),19-33.
|
| [4] |
陈阳(2019). 每日推送10次意味着什么?——关于微信公众号生产过程中的新闻节奏的田野观察与思考. 《新闻记者》,(9),23-31.
|
| [5] |
国家新闻出版署(2022年4月11日). 《国家新闻出版署关于开展2022年度报纸及其所办新媒体质量专项检查工作的通知》. https://www.nppa.gov.cn/xxfb/tzgs/202204/t20220411_666330.html
|
| [6] |
国家新闻出版署(2023年3月27日). 《国家新闻出版署关于开展2023年度报纸及其所办新媒体质量专项检查工作的通知》. https://www.nppa.gov.cn/xxfb/tzgs/202304/t20230418_712817.html
|
| [7] |
江静之(2022a). 从新闻组织看日常新闻查证:以台湾四大报为例. 《传播研究与实践》,(1),113-150+152.
|
| [8] |
江静之(2022b). 查证或不查,这是个问题:报社记者查证日常新闻的多重考量. 《新闻学研究》,(152),1-47.
|
| [9] |
理查德·斯科特(2014/2020). 《制度与组织:思想观念、利益偏好与身份认同)》(第4版)(姚伟,姚明宇,廖承中,熊敏丽译). 中国人民大学出版社.
|
| [10] |
李雷, 李倩(2023). 制度工作:研究回顾与展望. 《外国经济与管理》,(5),3-21.
|
| [11] |
刘慧苓(2014). 汇流下的变貌:网路素材使用对电视新闻常规的影响. 《新闻学研究》,(121),41-88.
|
| [12] |
蒙晓阳, 戚婧(2024). 新闻报道中合理核实义务因素的认定及其启示. 《新闻界》,(4),76-86.
|
| [13] |
年度传媒伦理研究课题组(2022). 2021年传媒伦理研究报告——暨2021年虚假新闻研究报告. 《新闻记者》,(1),3-18.
|
| [14] |
王辰瑶(2021). “新闻真实”为什么重要?——重思数字新闻学研究中“古老的新问题”. 《新闻界》,(8),4-11+20.
|
| [15] |
王辰瑶(2022). 真而有信:新闻真实的关系实践与数字时代的公众信任. 《新闻与写作》,(7),26-36.
|
| [16] |
王辰瑶(2023). 数字时代新闻真实实践理论初探. 《中国出版》,(16),8-14.
|
| [17] |
王海燕(2019). 加速的新闻:数字化环境下新闻工作的时间性变化及影响. 《新闻与传播研究》,(10),36-54+127.
|
| [18] |
王敏(2023). “去地方化”:一项新闻生产的合法性策略建构及反思——基于对移动新闻客户端“S新闻”的田野研究. 《现代传播》,(12),10-19.
|
| [19] |
王侠(2019). 液态社会中新闻生产的变革与延续——基于对新闻客户端M的分层访谈. 《国际新闻界》,(5),60-79.
|
| [20] |
新华社(2021年10月20日). 《最新版〈互联网新闻信息稿源单位名单〉公布》. https://h.xinhuaxmt.com/vh512/share/10331111?d=134654c
|
| [21] |
新闻创新实验室研究团队(2024). 2023年全球新闻创新报告. 《新闻记者》,(1),18-41.
|
| [22] |
许颖(2017). 媒体融合时代的新闻核实与核查——以2016年部分假新闻为例. 《新闻与写作》,(2),84-86.
|
| [23] |
张伟伟(2018). “实践知识”与“表象知识”——作为“知识”的新闻与媒介社会学的研究演进. 《新闻记者》,(9),56-66.
|
| [24] |
张志安(2019). 《编辑部场域中的新闻生产——基于〈南方都市报〉的研究》. 复旦大学出版社.
|
| [25] |
中国网信网(2021年10月20日). 《最新版〈互联网新闻信息稿源单位名单〉》. https://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-10/18/c_1636153133379560.htm
|
| [26] |
周睿鸣(2022). 《转型:数字传播技术变革中的新闻创新——澎湃新闻案例研究》. 复旦大学出版社.
|
| [27] |
周睿鸣, 徐煜, 李先知(2018). 液态的连接:理解职业共同体——对百余位中国新闻从业者的深度访谈. 《新闻与传播研究》,(7),27-48+126-127.
|
| [28] |
周雪光(2003). 《组织社会学十讲》. 社会科学文献出版社.
|
| [29] |
周子杰(2022). 足不出户做新闻:远程报道的常规与新闻业的地方性困境——基于对S报的田野调查. 《新闻记者》,(7),45-57+70.
|
| [30] |
朱威, 王辰瑶(2023). 传统新闻编辑室如何面对“算法”?——对N市三家报社算法新闻实践的实地研究. 《新闻记者》,(8),30-39+72.
|
| [31] |
Journalists constantly navigate pressures and competing expectations from diverse stakeholders, all of whom have an interest in shaping journalistic work. Scholarship examining the wide range of influences on journalists has often placed the journalist at the center of the inquiry. We further the argument that there is an urgent need to place more emphasis on understanding the expectations that various stakeholders hold of journalists. To do so, we introduce a conceptual framework to (1) explore expectations across a range of modalities, forms and contexts, and map out their diversity across different stakeholders, and (2) to evaluate which stakeholders’ expectations may hold the power to prompt change and conformity in journalism. By triangulating different perspectives, we gain insight into whose expectations journalism may be prioritizing and fulfilling, or conversely, failing to meet.
|
| [32] |
The media's capacity to maintain its role as an institution for public knowledge is growingly dependent on its capacity to verify information effectively, especially in times of growing mis/dis and mal information. To explore the epistemic role of verifications, covering their frequencies, predictors and underlying motivations, procedures, and contribution to reporters' knowledge, this study combines qualitative and quantitative reconstruction interviews, comparing verified and non-verified items. Findings show that verifications are driven primarily by reporters' risk and opportunity calculations. The frequency of verifications remains surprisingly stable, yet this steadiness might be misleading, as we found and typified different kinds of verifications: from the shallow efforts to reduce risk and enhance the precision of technical details, to the ambitious but scarce attempts to convey conflict and conduct investigations. In epistemic terms, reporters are anti-reductionists, setting a low epistemic bar, which allows them to rely on sources by default, as long as there are no "defeaters" (=counterbeliefs or counterevidence) inviting verification.
|
| [33] |
This study uses the case study of journalists to explore the socio-cognitive nature of interpersonal trust in growingly deceptive ecosystems. Journalists are ideal test subjects to explore these issues as professional trust allocators, who receive immediate feedback on right and wrong trust decisions. The study differentiates, for the first time, between source and message credibility evaluations, based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Findings show that journalists can distinguish source and message credibility. However, in practice they rely on source evaluations as an “autopilot” default mode, shifting gears to observations of source and message credibility in epistemically complex cases. The proportion between both is close to Pareto distribution. This extreme division challenges both inductive and mixed inference theories of epistemic trust and suggests revisiting the “typification” doctrine of newswork. Data partially support the hegemony and “epistemic injustice” theory, showing that traditional credibility criteria might trigger the exclusion of nontraditional voices.
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
Journalists apparently maneuver between their inability to validate every single bit of information and the ramifications of publishing unverified reports. This study is the first attempt to uncover and characterize the reasoning which underlies the journalistic journey from skepticism to knowledge. We draw on the philosophical field of the ‘epistemology of testimony’ and analyze a robust data set. Data consist of detailed cross-verification measures – a reification of journalistic skepticism – underlying a large sample of individual news items in Israeli print, radio, online, and television news ( N = 847), following a reconstruction of work processes. Far from being passive recipients of second-hand information, we theorize that reporters make systematic use of ‘evidence of (sources’) evidence’ – a common but previously unarticulated evidence type.
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
Transparency has been emphasized as a new norm within journalism and has received a great deal of attention. The credo of transparency is openness, and the interactive potential of digital media has been identified as one key element in achieving openness. In this essay it is argued that by exposing previously hidden journalistic processes, the high speed of online news plays a part in this orientation towards transparency in journalism.
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
The study of institutional work has emerged as a dynamic research domain within organization studies. In this essay, we situate the papers published in the Special Issue. We first review the evolution of institutional work as a scholarly conversation within organization studies. We then introduce the papers in the Special Issue, focusing in particular on where they fit into the current scholarly conversation and how they move us in important new directions. Finally, we discuss a set of neglected issues that deserve further attention.
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
In this paper, we discuss an alternative focus for institutional studies of organization - the study of institutional work. Research on institutional work examines the practices of individual and collective actors aimed at creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions. Our focus in this paper is on the distinctiveness of institutional work as a field of study and the potential it provides for the examination of new questions. We argue that research on institutional work can contribute to bringing the individual back into institutional theory, help to re-examine the relationship between agency and institutions, and provide a bridge between critical and institutional views of organization.
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
The existing literature broadly suggests that newsrooms are adapting to the media convergence world at the cost of traditional quality journalism. However, based on my ethnographic study of the Beijing News, I propose a convergence and de-convergence model of journalistic practice. The model explains how one Chinese newspaper preserves the legacy of critical journalism, on the one hand, while negotiating the challenges of adapting to the converging trends on the other. I argue that a well-established organizational culture and a working routine are crucial in the newspaper’s transformation, which makes it impossible to redesign the newsroom and redefine journalism with technology alone. Moreover, the article calls for a more nuanced understanding of the transformation of legacy media in the digital age, especially considering a non-Western context. I argue that the Chinese newspaper’s response to technological and economic impacts brought by the Internet is in fact mediated by political concerns.
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
The article summarizes three consecutive studies (2001, 2006, 2011) in which national Israeli press reporters detailed how they obtained random samples of their recently published items ( N = 1003): first, in order to explore the public interest in whether the standards of news production are deteriorating, improving or staying put; second, to indicate whether journalists adjust to the transforming news ecosystem; and third, to resolve the theoretical dilemma regarding the openness of news practices to change. While showing a general trend of conservatism, data indicate some statistically significant changes across time, not always in the expected directions. Reporters rely more often on ordinary citizens (who remain a marginal source), and public relations practitioners intervene more broadly in their items. They not only question their sources’ credibility more often, but also rely on slightly more sources per item and more cross-checking, mainly thanks to older contacts rather than to new voices.
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
| [72] |
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
|
| [75] |
|
| [76] |
We draw on an in-depth longitudinal analysis of conflict over harvesting practices and decision authority in the British Columbia coastal forest industry to understand the role of institutional work in the transformation of organizational fields. We examine the work of actors to create, maintain, and disrupt the practices that are considered legitimate within a field (practice work) and the boundaries between sets of individuals and groups (boundary work), and the interplay of these two forms of institutional work in effecting change. We find that actors' boundary work and practice work operate in recursive configurations that underpin cycles of institutional innovation, conflict, stability, and restabilization. We also find that transitions between these cycles are triggered by combinations of three conditions: (1) the state of the boundaries, (2) the state of practices, and (3) the existence of actors with the capacity to undertake the boundary and practice work of a different institutional process. These findings contribute to untangling the paradox of embedded agency—how those subject to the institutions in a field can effect changes in them. We also contribute to an understanding of the processes and mechanisms that drive changes in the institutional lifecycle.
|
1. 感谢复旦大学新闻学院白红义教授对本研究的倾力指导与帮助。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
