When discussing news routines and how they can reflect organizational
ideology, Cornelissen refers to a study by the BBC trust that criticized the BBC
business editors’ “negative and narrow views on business” (p. 147). I laughed
when I read this; no wonder I like to listen to the BBC World Service so much. Of
course, I have always known that I like the BBC and NPR because my views align
with the emergent ideologies of their news routines.
While I found his framework for news routines a helpful
description of media practices, his discussion of agenda-setting left me asking
a few questions. I do understand he is attempting to neutrally present the
critical theory of other scholars, but I also think he can do that while
discussing where it might be limited. I struggle to imagine a critical reader
who encounters the statement, “The news media thus ‘set’ the public agenda” (p.
148). This statement alone at face value
is contradictory to the stakeholder theory which he earlier claimed was now
widely accepted and practiced. Yes, the media has a role in setting the public
agenda, but media outlets are for profit institutions which must also be
responsive to the preexisting interests of their audiences. Also, many media outlets are under the
umbrella of publicly traded companies, so shareholder agenda must also be
considered. Again, I find myself asking Cornelissen for more counter-examples
of the models and theory he presents.
The notion of agenda setting, for me, relates to Cornelissen’s
discussion of internal employee communications. Whether upward or downward
communication, issues can easily become salient within organizations by volume
and will. That is, employees can be heard even in organizations where upward
communication is not the norm if there is enough volume. The IBM case study (p.
174-177) posits that open (upward and downward) lines of communication centered
on corporate values were created in response to low employee morale: new employees
had no idea of a corporate value system and long term employees were disillusioned
as a result of cuts in benefits and increases in layoffs.
The result of this initiative was an articulation of core
values, but I am left wondering about the initiative’s effect on employee
satisfaction and productivity. There is a mention of aligning performance
management and compensation with these newly articulated values, but there is
no further mention of the “disenfranchised” long term employees.
The communities of practice idea also strikes me as
marketing efficiency to shareholders rather than an effort to improve employee
direction and morale.
Was this an initiative generated from employee
dissatisfaction and listlessness that only led to reframed corporate messaging?
I am unsure of how to interpret this case study.
Kevin, I think the practice of framing in media practice as you highlight in the chapter are changing. As consumers/stakeholders expect a two way dialogic communication internally and externally in corporations, and we all have the chance to filter our feeds-- as you suggest "I have always known that I like the BBC and NPR because my views align with the emergent ideologies of their news routines." We do the same by who we follow on Facebook, Twitter and the like. The gatekeeps of journalistic editors become less important when what is "trending" gets more attention. Trending really changes how things are angled and framed in dominant media-- collectively this changes what becomes salient.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the media is less able to set the agenda on a topic, but I don't think that necessarily contradicts Cornelissen's analysis. As both you and Wendy mention, the interests of the audience--what is "trending"--is at least as important. I think journalists still have the power to frame a topic, but it's weakened significantly since Cornelissen's examples of corporate communicators trying to strategically influence media output. While corporations may be less able to set the agenda of journalists, who are less able to set the agenda of audiences, I don't think this means corporate communication has lost its teeth. If anything, the current environment may be lessening critical analysis of corporations, since audiences (consumers) are increasingly setting their own agendas by filtering information.
ReplyDeleteI think Cornelissen's use of communities of practice is less than engaging. COPs are informal groups that build a domain of knowledge the meaning of which is continually negotiated through practice. COPs should not be "managed" and those who try to manage them are not managing COPs. COPs, as Wenger and Lave say in their book, should grow organically from a situation that requires negotiation. I think he "threw" this concept into his discussion without really knowing what COPs are.
ReplyDelete