The Lifestyle of Lifestyle Journalism: How Reporters Discursively Manage Their Aspirations in Their Daily Work

ABSTRACT

This study seeks to explore the motivations and labor of lifestyle, or “soft news,” journalists. Rooted in the lens of discursive institutionalism and through 30 interviews with lifestyle journalists in the United States, this study reflects on the aspirational labor—the opportunity to “do what you love”—that motivates entry into journalism but also can encourage disengagement. This study finds that while lifestyle journalists are motivated to enter the profession because of their own personal connection to the topic, their desire to be embedded in the topic and their love for the people in the genre, they also have to negotiate institutional expectations. Furthermore, lifestyle journalists seemed to reflect a sort of cognitive dissonance in their practices—while drawn to the idea they would never actually work, since they were embedded in their passion—in reality what many journalists described reflected that they had difficulty leaving work, given that even their passion had become work.

KEYWORDS:

• Aspirational labor
• emotional engagement
• lifestyle journalism
• discursive institutionalism
• digital materialities
• newsroom innovation

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ella Hackett and Alexis Handler for organize data for this project. We would also like to thank the Appalachian State University Specialized Reporting class of Fall 2021 for helping collect data: Tyler Brabandt, Casey Brown, Hayley Canal, Marlen Cardenas, Hunter Grubbs, Jenna Hatcher, Holly Hodges, Candace Little, Jake Markland, Erin O'Neill, Charles Pace, Abi Pepin, Megan Petty, Ansley Puckett, Char Street, Cameron Stuart and Makaelah Walters.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 At time of interview, five of the participants were not currently conducting lifestyle journalism (Participants 1, 14, 19, 21, 26). They were retained in the sample given that they primarily identified as lifestyle journalists and addressed questions based on their experience in lifestyle journalism.

2 As noted in the method section, all participants self-identified as lifestyle journalists although not all were practicing lifestyle journalism at time of interview. When not currently practicing, as in the case of Participants 1, 14, 19, 21, 26, journalists here reflected on the reporting they conducted that reflected their lifestyle journalist identity.