In newsrooms journalists encounter numerous constraints accelerated by increasing technological and economic pressures. The complexity of the job and the need for (constant) innovation coupled with the rising call for transparency and accountability ask for journalists who "reflect-in-action". Newsroom ethnographies consistently suggest that journalists experience a gap between the wish for increased self-reflection and its actual practice. Additionally, both newsroom research and journalists' expressions in the trade press show significant resistance against reflection as being a largely academic exercise, or simply too time-consuming. We propose that considering reflection primarily from a learning perspective can overcome this resistance. Secondly, the article acknowledges that in order to enable professionals to fit reflection into their precarious practice, critical reflection should develop out of the practice itself. Reflection only makes sense if it starts from the sense of immediacy and autonomy within journalistic practice, recognises the constraints that journalists face and acknowledges the aversion among journalists against standardised protocols in their craft. Outlining the basic tenets of reflective practice, journalism's current precarity and the learning perspective, we propose further research in how informal reflective practices can enhance professional autonomy.

PurposeThe study aims to explain the communicative basis of conflicts in which actors stand in opposition in defining a negotiated situation and to deepen knowledge of environmental conflict development, in particular on how frames are (re)shaped through discursive choices in interaction.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopts an interactional approach to framing and 1) identifies the frames shaped and reshaped in four environmental debates and 2) analyzes how framing activities affect the course of the debates.FindingsThis study contributes to understanding 1) the interactive nature of conflicts; 2) how the reception and interpretation of issue framing depends on the surrounding identity and characterization framing and 3) how framing activities, like identity work, emotional alignment and reframing, can affect the course of environmental debates toward polarizing or bridging.Research limitations/implicationsOn a methodological level, this study contributes to communication research by applying methodologies for investigating framing processes on a micro-level. This study investigates interactional framing, considering the perspectives of frame strategists engaging in issue arenas. The study provides an in-depth discourse analysis of the debates but lacks an overview on the entire issue arena regarding this conflict.Practical implicationsSkilled actors span boundaries by articulating issue frames that accommodate opponents' concerns and values while demonstrating the added value of the new frame, adjusting identity work in favor of relations with opponents. Furthermore, calibrating emotional intensity offers opportunities to mobilize support.Originality/valueThis research investigates which communicative competences are essential to act adequately in environmental conflicts, given their intractable nature, and suggests opportunities for cocreation by making discursive choices. This approach helps to uncover the micro-processes that escalate and de-escalate a conflict.

No abstract

No abstract

The implementation of a National Ecological Network poses a significant challenge to the Dutch government. The establishment of this ecological network has led to conflicts among various interest groups in the public sphere, each of which defends its own interests. In this struggle for recognition communication fulfils an important role. This article contends that the discourse about nature is driven by deep frames, is comprised of values and is rooted in world-views. The insight that worldviews play a role elucidates the various positions in the debate and shows normative dimensions in communication. This article argues that the network society, more than ever, requires the government to be explicit about its normative choices. IntroductIon Today we find ourselves living in a network society. Castells (2009) writes that in a network society each participant is a sender who can determine who receives his or her messages. At the same time each participant is a receiver who can determine from which sender he or she would like to receive messages. As compared to the industrial society that preceded it, this means a shift from allocution-where the sender determines what, when, and via keywords nature policy government communication contextual turn interaction frames world-views