The ambivalence of recognition: How awarded journalists assess the value of journalism prizes

Abstract

In times of increasingly precarious media work, being recognized for one’s performance has become more and more important for journalists’ sense of well-being and can even constitute a competitive advantage in the journalistic field. As material forms of recognition, journalism awards decisively contribute to accumulated journalistic capital and work as an instrument of cultural hierarchy within the field. However, despite the growth in journalistic prizes and the added importance of recognition in times of crisis, we still have an incomplete understanding of how journalists themselves assess the meaning of awards for their position in the field. In this study, we therefore focus on journalists’ evaluations of awards. Drawing on 40 semi-structured interviews with young awarded journalists we explore the meaning of prizes to better understand the relationship between recognition and capital. Our results indicate that from the perspective of awarded journalists receiving an award does not automatically contribute to prestige and hence the accumulation of journalistic capital. Instead, our study suggests that journalists consider prizes to be an ambiguous and ambivalent form of recognition. Whether an award is considered prestigious depends on aspects such as its scarcity, its sponsors, the composition of juries, the visibility of the award in the industry as well as the genre and category that is awarded.

What if you hate your boss? How journalists evaluate newsroom leaders

“…awards), journalists tended to be more forgiving, but the lack of social capital and rooting in journalistic doxa were deemed to be essential. Prior research has reflected that forms of capital can be transferable-that is, those with great cultural capital tend to have greater access to social capital and economic capital (Driessens, 2013;Nölleke et al, 2022). Yet what journalists reflected in this study is that, while this did not always happen in the case of their supervisors, what made them perceive their leaders as being more effective within the field was a combination of doxa and internally-focused social capital.…”

“…For example, journalists with stronger access to economic capital-money-may have a more robust ability to compete for awards within the field, a key aspect of cultural capital (Jenkins & Volz, 2018). Similarly, journalists with strong cultural capital may also obtain easier access to developing their audience, a reflection of social capital (Nölleke et al, 2022).…”

Effective Leadership in Journalism: Field Theory in how journalists evaluate newsroom leadership

“…Capital also tends to be transferable; while having one form of capital does not inevitably lead to the other, it does facilitate access to it. For example, journalists with stronger access to economic capital-money-may have a more robust ability to compete for cultural capital (Jenkins & Volz, 2018;Lincoln, 2023); also, journalists with strong cultural capital-knowledge and expertise often reflected in the accumulation of awards-may also obtain easier access to developing their audience, a reflection of social capital (Nölleke et al, 2022a). Bourdieu perceives "economic capital as one of the two most dominant forms of capital, the other being cultural capital which will be different from field to field" (Shultz, 2007, p.194).…”

Effective leadership in journalism: Field theory in how journalists evaluate newsroom leadership

“…Capital also tends to be transferable; while having one form of capital does not inevitably lead to the other, it does facilitate access to it. For example, journalists with stronger access to economic capital-money-may have a more robust ability to compete for cultural capital (Jenkins & Volz, 2018;Lincoln, 2023); also, journalists with strong cultural capital-knowledge and expertise often reflected in the accumulation of awards-may also obtain easier access to developing their audience, a reflection of social capital (Nölleke et al, 2022a). Bourdieu perceives "economic capital as one of the two most dominant forms of capital, the other being cultural capital which will be different from field to field" (Shultz, 2007, p.194).…”

“…Finally, illusio is employed by Bourdieu to reflect "interested participation in the game" (Bourdieu, 1996, p. 228) and hence, is "partly composed by the belief in the journalistic mission of providing a public service" (Nölleke et al, 2022b, p. 331). As Nölleke et al (2022a) found, actors can at times experience disillusionment in the field when these preexisting ideas are not met; this is mitigated when actors have high status, and better access to various forms of capital. A key area where journalists find their illusio dashed is in regards to labor, in that "even journalists with a high level of journalistic capital, or prestige, do not necessarily experience ideal working conditions" (Nölleke et al, 2022a, p. 322).…”