Beyond Journalism about Journalism: Amicus Briefs as Metajournalistic Discourse

References

• Allern, S., and E. Pollack. 2019. “Journalism as a Public Good: A Scandinavian Perspective.” Journalism 20 (11): 1423–1439. doi:10.1177/1464884917730945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andsager, J. L., and M. M. Miller. 1994. “Willingness of Journalists and Public to Support Freedom of Expression.” Newspaper Research Journal 15 (1): 102–114. doi:10.1177/073953299401500111.
   Google Scholar
• Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., and D. P. Christenson. 2014. “The Evolution and Formation of Amicus Curiae Networks.” Social Networks 36 (1): 82–96. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.07.003.
   Google Scholar
• Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., D. P. Christenson, and M. P. Hitt. 2013. “Quality Over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 107 (3): 446–460. doi:10.1017/S000305541300021X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, J. W. 1987. “The Press and Public Discourse.” Center Magazine 20 (2): 4–32.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, M. 2007. “Blogs and Journalistic Authority: The Role of Blogs in US Election Day 2004 Coverage.” Journalism Studies 8 (2): 264–279. doi:10.1080/14616700601148861.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, M. 2016. “Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional Control, Boundary Work, and Legitimation.” Communication Theory 26 (4): 349–368. doi:10.1111/comt.12088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, M. 2018. “Boundary Work.” In The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies, edited by T. P. Vos, and F. Hanusch, 1–6. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118841570.iejs0035.
   Google Scholar
• Coddington, M. 2012. “Defending a Paradigm by Patrolling a Boundary: Two Global Newspapers’ Approach to WikiLeaks.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 89 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1177/1077699012447918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, P. M. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, P. M., and W. L. Martinek. 2010a. “Friends of the Circuits: Interest Group Influence on Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Social Science Quarterly 91 (2): 397–414. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00699.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, P. M., and W. L. Martinek. 2010b. “Who Participates as Amici Curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals?” Judicature 94 (3): 128–136.
   Google Scholar
• Craft, S. 2010. “Press Freedom and Responsibility.” In Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach, edited by C. Meyers, 39–51. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deacon, D., M. Pickering, P. Golding, and G. Murdock. 1999. Researching Communications: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Easton, E. B. 2007. “The Press as an Interest Group: Mainstream Media in the United States Supreme Court.” UCLA Entertainment Law Review 14 (2): 247–264. doi: 10.5070/LR8142027099
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, L., and J. Knight. 1999. “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Information Role of Amici Curiae.” In Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, edited by C. W. Clayton, and H. Gillman, 215–236. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glasser, T. L., and M. Gunther. 2005. “The Legacy of Autonomy in American Journalism.” In The Press, edited by G. Overholser, and K. H. Jamieson, 384–399. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, S. 1975. “Introduction.” In Paper Voices: The Popular Press and Social Change, 1935–1965, edited by A. C. H. Smith, E. Immirzi, and T. Blackwell, 11–24. London, UK: Chatto & Windus.
   Google Scholar
• Hendricks, M. A., and R. J. Thomas. 2018. “What’s in a Name? Journalistic Boundary Work and a High School Newspaper’s Effort to Ban ‘Redskin’.” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 73 (4): 454–468. doi:10.1177/1077695817736688.
   Google Scholar
• Hindman, E. B. 1992. “First Amendment Theories and Press Responsibility: The Work of Zechariah Chafee, Thomas Emerson, Vincent Blasi, and Edwin Baker.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 69 (1): 48–64. doi:10.1177/107769909206900106.
   Google Scholar
• Hindman, E. B. 1997. Rights and Responsibilities: The Supreme Court and the Media. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hindman, E. B. 1999. “Divergence of Duty: Differences in Legal and Ethical Responsibilities.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 14 (4): 213–230. doi:10.1207/S15327728JMME1404_2.
   Google Scholar
• Hindman, E. B., and R. J. Thomas. 2013. “Journalism’s ‘Crazy Old Aunt’: Helen Thomas and Paradigm Repair.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 90 (2): 267–286. doi:10.1177/1077699013482909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. G., and K. Kelling. 2018. “Placing Facebook: ‘Trending,’ ‘Napalm Girl,’ ‘Fake News’ and Journalistic Boundary Work.” Journalism Practice 12 (7): 817–833. doi:10.1080/17512786.2017.1349546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, M., and L. Vinson. 2009. “Friends of the First Amendment? Amicus Curiae Briefs in Free Speech/Press Cases During the Warren and Burger Courts.” Journal of Media Law & Ethics 1 (1/2): 83–106.
   Google Scholar
• Lindlof, T. R., and B. C. Taylor. 2011. Qualitative Communication Research Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Martinek, W. L. 2006. “Amici Curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” American Politics Research 34 (6): 803–824. doi:10.1177/1532673X06291678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrill, J. C. 1974. The Imperative of Freedom: A Philosophy of Journalistic Autonomy. New York, NY: Hastings House.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connell, K. J. 1989. “An Outline of a Continuing Education Program for Appellate Judges.” Oregon Law Review 68 (3): 691–722.
   Google Scholar
• Plaisance, P. L. 2005. “The Mass Media as Discursive Network: Building on the Implications of Libertarian and Communitarian Claims for News Media Ethics Theory.” Communication Theory 15 (3): 292–313. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00337.x doi: 10.1093/ct/15.3.292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roesch, R., S. L. Golding, V. P. Hans, and N. D. Reppucci. 1991. “Social Science and the Courts: The Role of Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Law and Human Behavior 15 (1): 1–11. doi: 10.1007/BF01044826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, B. W., and J. E. Kirtley. 2005. “The First Amendment Tradition and Its Critics.” In The Press, edited by G. Overholser, and K. H. Jamieson, 263–276. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmid, K. H. 2002. “Journalist’s Privilege in Criminal Proceedings: An Analysis of United States Courts of Appeals’ Decisions From 1973 to 1999.” American Criminal Law Review 39 (4): 1441–1499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schudson, M. 1983. The News Media and the Democratic Process. New York, NY: Aspen Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Schudson, M. 1992. Watergate in American Memory: How We Remember, Forget, and Reconstruct the Past. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schudson, M. 2008. Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spriggs, J. F., and P. J. Wahlbeck. 1997. “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (2): 365–386. doi:10.1177/106591299705000206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R. J., and M. F. Perreault. 2018. “A Lineage of Leakers? The Contingency of Collective Memory in Coverage of Contemporary Leaking Cases.” Journalism Practice 12 (10): 1259–1276. doi:10.1080/17512786.2017.1389293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, S. J. 2013. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ugland, E., and J. Henderson. 2007. “Who Is a Journalist, and Why Does It Matter? Disentangling the Legal and Ethical Arguments.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22 (4): 241–261. doi:10.1080/08900520701583511.
   Google Scholar
• Vos, T. P., and S. Craft. 2017. “The Discursive Construction of Journalistic Transparency.” Journalism Studies 18 (12): 1505–1522. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2015.1135754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vos, T. P., and R. J. Thomas. 2019. “The Discursive (Re)construction of Journalism’s Gatekeeping Role.” Journalism Practice 13 (4): 396–412. doi:10.1080/17512786.2018.1478746.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall, M. 2015. “Citizen Journalism: A Retrospective on What We Know, an Agenda for What We Don’t.” Digital Journalism 3 (6): 797–813. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.1002513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, J. C. 2002. “Times v. Sullivan: Landmark or Land Mine on the Road to Ethical Journalism?” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 17 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1207/S15327728JMME1701_02.
   Google Scholar
• Zelizer, B. 1992. Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media, and the Shaping of Collective Memory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zelizer, B. 2011. “Journalism in the Service of Communication.” Journal of Communication 61 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01524.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelizer, B. 2013. “On the Shelf Life of Democracy in Journalism Scholarship.” Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 14 (4): 459–473. doi:10.1177/1464884912464179.
   Google Scholar