Journalists in media companies: Proposals for an anthropology of their work

Abstract

The crisis triggered by the effects of Covid-19 has created a new context for work among journalists. High unemployment rates in Europe, particularly worrying among the youth, are yet another reason to think about working conditions in the media sector, which has been considered crucial to the health of democratic societies. The practice of communication professions has privileged activity, production, and fast publication, which now takes place in multiple media, mobile and social platforms. According to different research, distrust in media content seems to be growing. Is there a relationship between these two problems? Are there ways in line with the anthropology of work that could help to regain trust? The academic literature has studied the crisis of trust in institutions and has also explored the work of journalists. However, there are not many studies that bridge the structural crisis of trust in the media and the working conditions of professionals. This article seeks to contribute to alleviating this gap. It proposes three possible lines of argument to develop the anthropological keys to the work of journalists: a recovery of time, making research the working method; a primacy of audiences; and a need to stress the personal growth of professionals.

Keywords:

• Labor
• trust
• misinformation
• journalism
• media management

“Italy is a democratic society, founded on work.” Art. 1, Constitution of the Republic of Italy “Man cannot live without work and without legal and ordinary property; otherwise he perverts himself and becomes a beast.” F. Dostoyevsky, Memoirs from the House of the Dead (1861)

1. Introduction and problem analysis

The economic crisis triggered by the social effects of Covid-19 has created a new context for work. The high unemployment rates in Europe, especially worrying among young Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, and Swedes (see Table 1) is another reason for academic thought about the working conditions in the media and communication sector (Omidi, Dal Zotto, and Picard 2022; Nikunen 2014), which has been considered essential to healthy democratic societies (Ryfe 2021). Within the service sector, the media industry is a typical example of an intangible, in the context of growing information that characterizes the so-called knowledge or network economy. For the purposes of this research, the communication sector is understood as being made up of professionals who work in the media for news, corporate, or entertainment purposes, and all those who work at companies and institutions for corporate communication, advertising, or marketing. These professionals no longer work only in media and communication agencies, but in an ecosystem that includes institutions and companies of all kinds (political, educational, health, NGOs, and consultancies, among others) that consider communication as an essential but fragile asset that needs planning and professionalization. This sector has undergone significant changes since the advent of digitalization, which the pandemic has in some ways accelerated and intensified (Vara-Miguel et al. 2021).

Table 1. Ten countries with highest youth unemployment in the European Union (October 2022).

Country	Percentage
Spain	32.3
Greece	27.3
Italy	23.9
Sweden	21.6
Luxembourg	19.5
Latvia	19.2
Slovakia	18.8
France	18.2
Portugal	17.6
Estonia	14.8
EU average	15.1

Source: Eurostat, published on 1 December 2022 with data up to October 2022. The figure refers to persons aged 25 and over.

In terms of work, Covid-19 has sparked a debate that began with the conversation about remote work, continued to look at flexible work and workspaces, and has ended with a focus on the meaning of work itself in the context of what a comprehensive McKinsey report has called ‘the great resignation’ (De Smet et al. 2021). For example, in the United States only, between April and September 2021, nineteen million workers left their previous jobs in the wake of the pandemic. Companies do not know how to deal with this crisis; sometimes they do not even know why their employees are leaving, which is perhaps the place to start. It is understandable, therefore, that research on the working conditions of communication professionals, and their impact on their personal satisfaction and mental health, is accelerating in the context of the pandemic (Libert, Cam, and Domingo 2022; Higgins-Dobney 2021; Kristiansen, Schäfer, and Lorencez 2016). It is worth taking into account the pressure placed on these professionals by the pivotal role they were given in the early months of the health crisis (Tyson and Wild 2021).

The classic distinction between vita activa and vita contemplativa can be useful in this context as a theoretical framework: news-related jobs with their hectic schedules and publication rhythms would fall into what we call vita activa, a style of work that can relate to the kind of person Arendt called animal laborans (1993), with potentially dehumanizing effects and threats to the mental health of employees. News is only news today, a dynamic that networks have only intensified with the consequent intensification and acceleration of news cycles, and their potentially detrimental effects on journalists’ health (MacDonald et al. 2016).

In addition to this more stable element, in recent years there have been other factors weighing on media professionals. With digitalization, more and more ‘unscrupulous political and business leaders, as well as influential public figures, weaponize the inherent uncertainty in truth-seeking and engage in moral racketeering to mislead everyday people and denigrate pathways to truth. They are aided and abetted by untrustworthy news outlets and social media platforms that spread disinformation, driven by algorithms that exploit the attention economy and capitalize on social distrust rather than the common good’ (Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences 2021), as highlighted by the Facebook crisis, accentuated by the outing of Frances Haugen and the so-called ‘Facebook files.’¹ The rush and pressures of journalists in war zones (Shah, Ginossar, and Ittefaq 2021) seem to be spreading to other professional contexts.

The sector’s tensions occur in fragmented and dispersed environments characterized by an overabundance of information, where traditional media tend to lose their exclusivity in the dissemination of messages and, therefore, their traditional relevance. Journalists have become ‘digital intermediaries’, among other often powerful market players (González-Tosat and Sádaba-Chalezquer 2021). What Baudrillard (1991, 72) announced when he referred to the ‘obesity of the systems of the present’, harmful to information, communication, and production, is fulfilled. There is ‘an excess of stimuli, information, and impulses. It radically changes the structure and economy of attention. Because of this, attention becomes fragmented and scattered […]. This scattered attention is characterized by an accelerated shifting of focus between different tasks, information sources, and processes.’ Such reality does not create value because ‘pure agitation does not generate anything new. It reproduces and accelerates what already exists’ (Han 2016, 33–35).

Digitalization has caused enormous upheaval in the sector in recent decades, to the extent that change has become a constant feature of media work (Malmelin and Villi 2017). The emergence of new competitors, the globalization of supply and audiences, and the concentration of advertising management in a few hands, are just some of the challenges that news companies in particular have faced. In recent years, the introduction of task automatization has accelerated thanks to the support of technology which, in the end, has become for many a potential threat not only to journalists in particular but to the work of journalism at large (Calvo-Rubio and Ufarte-Ruiz 2021; Murcia Verdú and Ufarte Ruiz 2019; Túñez López, Toural Bran, and Cacheiro Requeijo 2018). A horizon, already drawn, where robots write news has serious ethical considerations that should not be disregarded (Milosavljevic and Vobic 2019; Silverman 2013).

Although it is often done in the name of productivity and efficiency, journalistic work does not seem to be achieving the expected fruits either in traditional media (legacy media) or in digital ‘natives’: some research points to a lack of social trust in media and communicators within a generalized decline of trust in institutions and social actors (Edelman Trust Barometer 2021; Digital News Report 2021; Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences 2021; Fink 2019; Otto and Köhler 2018; Broersma 2013). This loss of trust goes hand in hand, though not necessarily as in a cause-effect relationship, with the economic problems faced by many media companies. particularly in the news sector. In some cases, these companies carry the consequences of the economic crises of 2007–2008, of digitalization, and, with the arrival of the coronavirus, have seen their profit margins fall (Vara-Miguel et al. 2021).

Various research and reports support this perceived decline in public trust in the media (Narbona, Pujol, and Gregory 2020; Pujol, Narbona, and Díaz 2021). The Edelman Trust Barometer underlines that in most countries citizens feel that the media are biased: 59% believe that journalists lie or exaggerate their claims; 59% that companies are more concerned with disseminating their ideology or political stance than with informing the public; 61% say that the media are not fulfilling their task of being objective and impartial (Edelman Trust Barometer 2021). This figure is above 69% in the UK, Brazil (72%), Spain (73%), Argentina (75%), and Italy (75%), for example. The same report places trust at the lowest levels across all media, although traditional media outperform social media. Public trust in the media appears to have deteriorated in the world in general, and in Latin America, Spain, Italy, and the UK in particular.

The findings of the European Commission’s Eurobarometer (2022) reflect this ‘underlying malaise’. The degree of trust in the media by Spanish citizens is considerably lower than that of the rest of the Europeans. In fact, in all media the ‘balance’ is negative: the number of citizens who distrust the media exceeds the number of those who trust it. The medium with the highest trust index is the radio with a percentage of 45%: in newspapers, the figure stands at 37%; in television, it is 32%; on the Internet, it does not exceed 22%. Social networks close the list at 12%. Spaniards are less trusting in all media than other Europeans: 17 points less in television; 12 points less in newspapers; 9 points less in radio; 13 points less in the Internet and eight points less in social networks. Distrust of media content seems on the rise: 81% of the Spanish population and 70% of the European population consider news as often distorted or outright false. Journalism thus seems to be moving away from its mission, which nevertheless remains essential: ‘Journalism, and local news, in particular, can act as the immune system of a democracy, promoting social cohesion and an informed citizenry’ (Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences 2021).

The situation, therefore, seems unfavorable for journalists: at the same time as the social relevance of journalistic brands is decreasing, the working conditions of media professionals do not seem to be the most favorable. Nevertheless, the importance of journalism in contemporary societies is evident, which makes it necessary to look for ways to solve this apparent deadlock.

2. Hypotheses and methodology

If the mere adoption of technological innovations or the continuous adjustment of the business model is not enough to build media companies that attract and retain talent and sustain public trust, could some insights from the anthropology of work help to regain the trust of audiences? This theoretical and conceptual review paper proposes to provide answers to that question, raising another fundamental one: what is the real work of the journalist? The starting hypothesis is that poor working conditions in the media industries destroy the motivation of workers, contributing to the deterioration of the quality of content. Citizens’ trust in the media decreases as a consequence. In this sort of ‘perfect storm’, declining audiences threaten the viability of media companies.

There are various methods for developing theories in management and leadership research (Barney 2018). This research develops its theory according to a ‘gap detection’ methodology, which seeks to identify gaps in the existing literature: ‘There are a variety of reasons why addressing a previously unresolved theoretical issue may be important. For example, sometimes important empirical implications of a theory may not yet have been articulated. At other times, the author may not have fully identified the implications of a theory’s limits or how relaxing some of its underlying assumptions may fundamentally change its implications. Moreover, the implications of one theory for another theory (or theories) may not yet have been discussed in the literature’ (Barney 2018, 346).

In this case, previous studies are analyzed in order to expand the literature, fill in its gaps, or point to issues that may not have been given special attention. With notable exceptions such as Deuze and Prenger (2019), Malmelin and Villi (2017), Maxwell (2015), Ottosen (2015), Reygadas (2015), Deuze (2013), Hesmondhalgh and Baker (2013) and Bartosova (2011), authors studying anthropological dimensions of communication professionals’ work are not abundant. As mentioned, the academic literature has studied in depth the crisis of trust in institutions and increasingly also the working conditions of journalists (Omidi, Dal Zotto, and Picard 2022). But it is difficult to find studies that have established a more direct bridge between the crisis of trust in the media and the working conditions of the professionals who produce content. This paper sets out to propose scenarios that can contribute to alleviating this lack around three main lines of argument that can be developed as anthropological keys to the work of journalists: recovering time, making research the working method; remembering the primacy of audiences; and fostering the personal growth of professionals.

3. Notes for an anthropology of the journalist’s work

Before going into the work of journalists, it is appropriate to move on to a deeper understanding of human work. The great question of work has been particularly present since the 19th century when the Industrial Revolution brought about radical changes in working conditions. The Catholic tradition has much to contribute to this debate through its social doctrine, an extensive body of ideas initiated in the late 19th century when the damage caused by the models of the Industrial Revolution brought the question of work starkly to the table (Charles 1998). A century later, John Paul II provided a frame of reference in his encyclical Laborem Exercens. Both the first industrialization, which created the so-called ‘workers’ question’, and the successive industrial and post-industrial changes eloquently demonstrate that, even in the age of increasingly mechanized work, the proper subject of work is still the human being. The primary basis of the value of labor is human beings themselves. This is immediately followed by a very important consequence of an ethical nature: it is true that human beings are destined and called to work; but above all, work is ‘in the function of a person’ and not a person ‘in the function of work’ (John Paul II 1981, nos. 5 and 6). Pieper describes the broadening of the meaning of work in society, with consequences that are not always positive for the common good: ‘The slogans ‘work of the spirit’ and ‘workers of the spirit’ characterize the last phases of the historical process by which the modern ideal of work has found its present extreme formulation’ (Pieper 1974, 17).

It is important to remember that work has a personal nature. Melé (2020) considers it as an intentional, specifically human activity that comes from the person and involves the whole person. The origin of the person confers dignity in work, irrespective of the work performed. This is an idea present in Francis, who has recently underlined the key social dimension of work. In his encyclical Fratelli Tutti, he states: ‘the biggest issue is employment’. And he adds: ‘The truly ‘popular’ thing – since it promotes the good of the people – is to provide everyone with the opportunity to nurture the seeds that God has planted in each of us: our talents, our initiative, and our innate resources. This is the finest help we can give to the poor, the best path to a life of dignity’ (Francis 2020, n. 162). Work is the way in which people creatively deploy their capacities and initiative (Sayers 2019). Hence, work should never be treated as a mere commodity or an anonymous force of production.

In addition to glossing the beautiful Article 1 of the Italian Constitution (‘Italy is a democratic society, founded on work’), Francis explained the extent to which work is a source of dignity in his speech at Ilva, a steelworks in Genoa: ‘lack of work is far more than not having a source of income for to live on. Work is also this, but it is much, much more. By working we become fuller people, our humanity flourishes, and young people become adults only by working. The Church’s social doctrine has always seen human work as a participation in creation that continues every day, also thanks to the hands, minds, and hearts of the workers. […] Men and women are fed through work: by work, they are ‘anointed with dignity’. For this reason, the entire social pact is built around work. This is the core of the problem. Because when you do not work, or you work badly, you work little or you work too much, it is democracy that enters into crisis, and the entire social pact’ (Francis 2017).

The quoted text directly addresses a key question in the anthropology of work: its enriching or alienating character. It refers to the alienation through labor that Marx spoke of, which does not come from the product of labor: there is alienation when the subject does not improve as a person through labor. In the same way, our performance society (Han 2016) must take into account that it is not the results that are key, but the dignity of the person who works in cooperation with other people and aspires to grow with them. The person is precisely the subject and the efficient cause of work, whatever the technological means used. Technology is always instrumental to work: it is the fruit of work in order to serve work (Melé 2020). In the midst of the digital transformation accelerated by the coronavirus, and in the face of the rise of artificial intelligence with its lights and shadows, it is necessary to remember that the center of work is the person. Technology is instrumental and at the service of work.

The professional and economic context affecting the work of journalists referred to in the introduction brings us back to a key question, the question of the person and the public, which requires research with a long view. Continuing with the theoretical framework set out above, it would be an exponent of the contemplative life, in the sense that the knowledge of people is at the center. For this, it is necessary to learn to look, think, speak and write. Research requires time (Nieto 2010), time that does not appear in the society of tiredness, where interruptions follow one after the other and the ‘in-between times’ have disappeared: ‘Today we live in a world very poor in interruptions in between and in-between times. Acceleration suppresses any in-between-time’ (Han 2016, 51).

The professional practice of David Beriáin (1997–2021), a journalist murdered while working in Burkina Faso, can shed light on this context. Beriáin recalled that a German intellectual gave a lecture at his faculty and was asked a question that he did not know how to answer. Despite being an authority, he acknowledged that he had not done enough research on the issue. That marked his view of journalism, and helps to understand the primacy of understanding that comes with study, research, and personal conversation: ‘I try not to interview anyone in less than an hour, in order to understand them and to find relevant statements. I ask what I need to know and try not to give more private information than is strictly necessary. If I didn’t do that, I wouldn’t be here alive, because I deal with people who don’t take things lightly […] The effort is to try to understand the person in front of you, even if you don’t justify it […]. But that’s the point of our work. We have to put ourselves in other people’s shoes, even those we want nothing to do with. When people put themselves in other people’s shoes, not more good things happen, but fewer bad things happen. The humility of knowing that you are a parachutist in a reality that is not your own is the most important thing. There is no one more ignorant than he who thinks he knows’ (Beriáin 2017). From these words can emerge three argumentative axes that help to configure the anthropology of the journalist’s work: recovering time by making research the working method; the primacy of audiences; the personal growth of professionals.

3.1. Reclaiming time: research and verification as working methods

The practice of journalism has privileged action and publication, prioritizing activity, production, and rapid publication. This now occurs via multiple media, in addition to the ubiquitous mobile and social platforms, which ‘as they function today, undermine the search for truth and the expression of truth, and their platforms reward extremism and superficial validation rather than moderation and dialogue. The rush or the need for immediate results should not make us forget the indispensable place of thought’, as Deresiewicz (2019) explains. Not surprisingly, some research points to the relationship between this reality and the malaise or disenchantment of journalists (Monteiro, Pinto, and Roberto 2016). In this sense, research is an excellent working method that can be applied to decisions in the work of journalists. In the first place, usually what happens has already happened before. It is useful to study what happened, as going back to the past is often a good way to think about the future. Moreover, it must be recognized that first impressions (or emotions) are not always accurate. That is why slow reading, studying, or conversing with other people is so helpful. It is necessary to ponder, consult, seek experiences, and dialogue in order to ask the right questions.

The debate on disinformation and hoaxes in the European Union and the United States brings back to the table an old concept: journalism is a discipline of verification (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2007). The spread of disinformation is now at the heart of the debate on credibility and trust that has already inspired research and merited a European Union expert report (European Commission 2018; Salaverría, Buslón, López-Pan, León, López-Goñi, and Erviti 2020). The phenomenon goes beyond the term ‘fake news’, misleadingly appropriated and used by powerful actors to dismiss coverage they consider unfavorable: ‘Disinformation […] includes all forms of false, inaccurate or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm or for profit’ (European Commission 2018, 5).

The European Commission report highlighted the link between disinformation and digital ecosystems: ‘Disinformation problems are deeply intertwined with the development of digital media. They are driven by actors (state or non-state political actors, for-profit, media, citizens, individually or in groups) and by manipulative uses of communication infrastructures that have been harnessed to produce, circulate and amplify disinformation on a larger scale than before, often in new ways that are still poorly mapped and understood’ (European Commission 2018, 5). To combat this, the Commission proposes a 'multidimensional approach’ with five main elements: greater transparency in online media, further promotion of media and information literacy, tools to give more influence to journalists and citizens to raise awareness of these issues, safeguarding the diversity and sustainability of the European information ecosystem, and promotion of research on disinformation in Europe. Fake news and hoaxes are certainly not new. For example, Hamilton (2020) has just reminded the academic community of the practice of propaganda in the United States during Woodrow Wilson’s administration with the Committee on Public Information in the World War I years, when ‘the government exercised unprecedented power to shape the views and attitudes of the citizens it was supposed to serve’ (Hamilton 2020, 4).

In this context, it may help to consider media competence as an ‘augmented competence’ (Kačinová and Sádaba Chalezquer 2021) that needs to be fostered at different educational levels. Citizens need the necessary skills to better understand content in digital contexts at a time when media are increasingly present and the temptation to manipulate persists. The participatory paradigm, ‘hyper-connectivity’ and the proliferation of misinformation require the extension of capacities and skills in accessing, evaluating, analyzing, creating, and communicating news and media. Such skills combine previous forms of media literacy with others more specific to the digital environment. Continuing on the path that avoids misinformation will mean improving resources and time for research and training. If the media continue to be slaves to ever shorter news cycles, this essential task will continue to be complicated: the inaccuracies and falsehoods that contaminate the task of communicating will continue. Even if self-criticism is sometimes lacking, it must be recognized that media professionals often do not know well enough what they are talking about, and it is necessary to make time for research that is also adapted to the new possibilities that arise (Carson and Farhall 2018).

When they do their job well and the conditions for listening and investigating are in place, journalists are a source of hope for society:

Journalism does not come about by choosing a profession, but by embarking on a mission, a little like a doctor, who studies and works so that the evil in the world may be healed. Your mission is to explain the world, to make it less obscure, to make those who live in it less afraid of it and look at others with greater awareness, and also with more confidence […] The risk, as you well know, is to be overwhelmed by the news instead of being able to make sense of it. This is why I encourage you to preserve and cultivate that sense of mission that is at the origin of your choice. And I will do so with three verbs that I believe characterize good journalism: listen, investigate and report. (Francis 2021)

The flood of information and its ubiquity through social networks and mobile platforms is making the function of research and investigation even more critical. This is what Francis recalled in the same speech, which recognized the professional careers of two Vatican correspondents, Valentina Alazraki and Philip Pullella:

Every piece of news, every fact we talk about, every reality we describe needs to be investigated. At a time when millions of pieces of information are available on the web, and when many people obtain their information and form their opinions on social media, where unfortunately the logic of simplification and opposition sometimes prevails, the most important contribution that good journalism can make is that of in-depth analysis. (Francis 2021)

3.2. Primacy of audiences

The anthropology of communication requires professionals to be scholars of people, their reality, and motivations, to be experts respectful of the context in which people live, and to move from a paradigm of dissemination and transmission to a paradigm of listening. In this sense, all communication is personal. In his biography, Goodwin quotes Lincoln: ‘What I want is an audience. Nothing sounds the same when there is no one to listen and find fault with it’ (Goodwin 2009). Indeed, audiences make professionals and their organizations better: they put them in their place by providing essential external references to the work. Knowledge of audiences is key because listening more enables organizations to serve them better. But there are companies, professionals, and institutions that still consider the reactions of audiences and advertisers almost as a ‘curse’. Knowing what audiences think is always necessary, even if one doesn’t like what they are saying. It is not enough to worry about the message to be conveyed: it is necessary to understand what is understood by the audience and what happens afterward. Saying ‘I have already said it’ can be considered one of the great failures of the communicator: what is important is not only what is said but above all what others understand (Luntz 2007). Following the phrase attributed to George Bernard Shaw, the biggest problem in communication is the ‘illusion’ that has taken place.

Perception research then becomes a fundamental part of journalists’ work. Audience perceptions contain elements of truth. Analyzing the feedback they provide is essential for professionals who aspire to turn learning into habit: the most capable are used to reading the challenges raised by the immediate environment, context, culture, or society in which they live. In contrast, companies and institutions in decline suffer from an almost endemic inability to listen and recognize mistakes. In these crumbling giants, ‘the rhetoric of success’ has replaced understanding the problems; the deteriorating climate of debate and dialogue results in artificial consensus (no one wants to disagree) as danger signals from outside are ignored (Collins 2009).

It is necessary to be close to the public in order to develop mechanisms for the early detection of problems. This requires asking, listening, understanding, responding, and gathering information. Fortunately, the current scenario favors this. It is necessary to strive to see reality through the eyes of the audience, improving personal and organizational listening skills to avoid the syndrome of those who end up in ‘splendid isolation’. It is also a job for many professionals: to become the voice and eyes of the public in their companies and institutions. The goal is lofty: to get ever closer to personal communication. Working in this way is more in keeping with what might be an anthropology of communication: the most successful metaphors for communication are communion and relationship. It is therefore consistent for communication professions to develop their ‘architecture of listening’ (Macnamara 2016) so as not to fall victim to ‘echo chambers’ or ‘bubble filters’ (Pariser 2011). In a sometimes polarized climate, professionals and media occasionally succumb to the temptation to privilege their own points of view over the audience’s understanding.

3.3. The personal growth of professionals

The personal nature of the work requires the growth of the professionals who carry it out, who see their knowledge strengthened, and also their dignity, which is intrinsic to the work of people, as we have seen above. However, there are many unmotivated people among journalists. The profession can often be seen as a paradigmatic scenario of the symptoms of the ‘burnout society’ (Han 2016). To foster a climate of growth and innovation, it is vital to nurture talent and facilitate its training. The media industry’s track record in this respect is less than exemplary: media companies spend five times less on training than other companies (Chittum 2014). Their managers do not devote sufficient time and attention to team building. They often state publicly that talent is a key factor in the industry, but despite the statements, they tend to be content with analyzing items like market share, turnover, revenue, profit, or debt. At least in practical terms, they do not seem to understand that data is a consequence of managing their intangible assets: knowledge, trust in their brands, creativity, or innovation. The primary source of competitive advantage has shifted from money and machines for producing goods and services to intangible assets, directly linked to the creativity and innovation of workers (Bakker and Schaufeli 2008).

In this case, the verb ‘invest’ in people is truly accurate: resources channeled into increasing the expertise and commitment of staff will only pay off in the long run. Paradoxically, companies that do not hesitate to invest in technologies, printing plants, or distribution systems, do not feel the same need to invest in training their staff. Most media companies have been generally mediocre at finding, hiring, and retaining capable people. But they tend to be even worse at increasing employee engagement. Addressing this managerial weakness in the industry is crucial to transforming a group of ‘obedient but passive workers’ into a ‘team of dynamic and innovative entrepreneurs’ who are in a position to regain lost trust. Trust is not only crucial for audiences: it is also vital internally, as every company depends more on cooperation than control: ‘Large companies are realizing that to get the best out of their employees they must provide them with the conditions to feel free and in charge of their work. There is no creativity without freedom’ (Bruni 2019, 34).

The intellectual nature of journalism has driven the idea that organizational systems are at the service of creative professionals, who are responsible for finding coherent and appropriate responses to each challenge in the production and marketing of broadcast content. Rigid systems of control have a damaging effect on companies because they limit freedom of action. Expressed in a more positive sense, thinking that employees have a relevant influence on the fate of the company is one of the most powerful incentives to foster entrepreneurship (Labafi and Williams 2018). Organizations must therefore relinquish some control of the situation to ensure internal co-responsibility, which becomes an intangible but decisive competitive advantage. Employees will share their talent with companies that have a leadership they can trust. Indeed, greater trust is likely to increase employee happiness and performance. There is evidence of the relevance of what might be called the ‘trust factor’: in companies with high levels of trust, employees are 50% more productive, 106% more energetic, 76% more engaged, and 66% more sociable. They also suffer less stress (74%) and work 36% happier (Zak 2017, 195–196).

In addition to the need for true leaders, it may be interesting to underline the creative nature of these jobs. Their creative dimension has a positive influence on their performance. Therefore, the concept of creation and the study of it can be valuable to deepen this anthropology of journalists’ work, which is notable for having a valuable intangible component. The growth of professionals in the sector also has to do with their possibilities of creation (Killebrew 2003). In this way, work also becomes a ‘channel for personal growth’ (Francis 2020).

4. Conclusions and future lines of research

These pages attempt to outline lines of argument to broaden the anthropological and humanistic understanding of journalism, based on the recognition of the creative contribution of the work and its intrinsic dignity, which does not depend only on its performance and results. The proposals highlight structural shortcomings in the sector that are related to the deterioration in the quality of its content and the need for solutions to make media companies more sustainable. The literature review suggests that conditions in the sector contribute to a somewhat deleterious working environment, which causes the quality of professionals’ work to deteriorate and damages its content, contributing to the general lack of trust in media content that is observed in several countries and often also results in a general decline in media audiences. In other words, if media companies want to regain the public’s trust in news, they will have to be more concerned with improving the working conditions of journalists and their training.

In the frenetic context of journalism practice, which prioritizes activity, production, and rapid publication, distrust of media content seems to be growing. In order to respond to the hypothesis and the questions posed in our research, three lines of argument are proposed: recovering time, making research the working method; remembering the primacy of audiences; and fostering the personal growth of professionals. All three are paths more in line with the anthropology of work that helps to give meaning to the personal dedication of employees in order to regain the public’s trust in the content that they produce. Future qualitative research could test to what extent these three approaches can be used in practice to improve working conditions, the motivation of employees in media companies, and, at the same time, the closeness of audiences to the important work of journalists in changing contexts.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Francisco J. Pérez-Latre

Francisco J. Pérez-Latre (Barcelona, March 4, 1966) is Professor of Journalism and Academic Director of the Master’s in Management of Communication Companies (MEGEC) at the School of Communication of the University of Navarra, where he began working in 1989. He was Director of Studies and Vice Dean of the School of Communication at the University of Navarra and Academic Director of the Institute of Media and Entertainment (IME) in New York. He has been Deputy President of the European Media Management Association (EMMA). He holds a Master of Arts degree in Marketing Communications/Advertising from Emerson College, Boston (1993) and is a visiting professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Rome, Italy). He is the author of ten books: Marcas Humanas (2017); La publicidad y los medios: ensayos de Introducción a la Publicidad (2015); Innovación en los medios: la ruta del cambio (2012, with Alfonso Sánchez Tabernero); La publicidad y los medios (2011); Darse a conocer. La empresa ante los medios de comunicación (2007); Issues on Media and Entertainment (2006); Los nuevos areópagos (2003), Planificación y gestión de medios publicitarios (2000); Curso de Medios Publicitarios (1999) and Centrales de Compra de Medios (1996), the book that collected his doctoral thesis work, directed by Alfonso Nieto. In addition, he has written 35 chapters in books and 78 scientific and popular articles on communication, advertising and the news business. Some have appeared in leading international publishers such as Routledge and Springer and scientific publications such as the Journal of Media Business Studies, the Journal of Spanish Language Media, The International Journal on Media Management, Media Ethics, Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, Revista de Estudios de Juventud, Communication & Society, Church, Communication & Culture, Historia y Comunicación Social, the Spanish edition of Campaigns & Elections and Nuestro Tiempo. He has published 69 opinion articles in newspapers. His research focuses on the humanistic foundations of communication, marketing and the news enterprise. He shares his research, readings and ideas on communication and media on Twitter @perezlatre

Charo Sádaba-Chalezquer

Charo Sádaba (PhD) is a Full Professor of advertising and marketing at the School of Communication at the University of Navarra (Spain). Her research has been focused on the impact of digitalization on children and teenagers, their behavior, attitudes, and opinions towards technology, particularly in Spain and Latin American countries. As Dean of her School since 2017, she is also interested in the important role of communication in a digital world, fighting phenomena such as disinformation. She was a member of the EU Expert Group on Tackling Disinformation and Promoting Digital Literacy in Education (2022). She is also part of the research team of Iberifier, one of the hubs of the European Digital Media Observatory.

Xavier Bringué

Xavier Bringué (PhD) is an Associate Professor of Audiovisual Communication and Advertising at the School of Communication of the University of Navarra. He holds a degree in Educational Sciences (1992), a Ph.D. in Communication (1999), a Master's in Marriage and Family (2015) from the University of Navarra, and a Specialization in Brief Systemic Therapy (UOC 2022). He has directed research projects related to marketing, young people, and the media for the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs, Imaginarium, the Spanish Association of Advertising Agencies, the European Association of Communication Agencies, Nutrexpa, Vinizius Young & Rubicam, Vocento, Vialogoscopio, and Telefonica Internacional. Founder and first Chairman of the Academic Advisory Board of the Foro Generaciones Interactivas, founded by the University of Navarra and Telefonica, is a member of the Observatorio del Juego Infantil, an initiative promoted by the Spanish Association of Toy Manufacturers. President of the ‘Best Toy of the Year’ Jury.

Notes

1 Frances Haugen is a Facebook employee who came into the public eye on 4 October 2021, alleging that Facebook was aware of the mental health problems that can be caused by the use of its platforms and was not proactive in addressing those risks. See, for example, BBC News, October 4, 2021 at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58784615. Downloaded 15 December 2021.