Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a critique of a new model of journalism known as public or civic journalism. Public journalism asserts that public life is in crisis, and that journalism, as it has come to be practiced, is partially responsible. Public journalism is an attempt to revitalize public life. The model is analysed by identifying and examining public journalism's largely implicit theoretical underpinnings, namely the communicative theory of American pragmatist John Dewey and German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. The connections between public journalism and these two philosophers are made explicit before turning to an analysis of public journalism in light of critiques made against Dewey and Habermas's communicative theories. Public journalism is, to a significant extent, an attempt to put Habermas's vision of discursive politics (the theory of communicative action) into practice. Public journalism is then assessed in light of its theoretical and practical connections to the theory of communicative action. Given these connections, public journalism, as a democratic rethinking of journalism, carries with it the limitations of communicative democratic theory. Moreover, the problems of public journalism fail to provide a critique of public life that is informed by the political and economic context of the media industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".