THE INDIGENOUS PUBLIC SPHERE Journalism and indigenous public spheres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
JOURNALISM has played – and continues to play – a crucial role in ‘im-agining ’ indigenous people and their affairs for most non-indigenouspeople. Although the trend in the past 20 years has been away from the overt racism of the colonial press, institutionalised racism is manifested in the systematic omission of indigenous voices in the news media. Indigenous sources make up a fraction – between one fifth to one third – of all sources used by journalists in stories about indigenous affairs. This alarming statistic has remained unchanged in Australian journalism for the past 20 years and is a prominent feature of news coverage of Native people in the United States and Canada (Weston, 1996; Meadows, 2001). Adam (1993) reminds us that journalism is ‘a form of expression that is an invention. It is a creation – a product of the Imagination – in both an individual and a cultural sense. ’ In making his case, Adam suggests that the world – through acts of nature – is ‘born in our imaginations’. Here, he is drawing on the work of Anderson (1984) who highlights the role played by the media – journalism, in particular – in the process of ‘imagining ’ the mod-ern nation state and our place within it. Journalism is a key cultural resource in the strategic management of cultural goods, like the media – hence, a cen-tral process in what we call the public sphere. In the eyes of many theorists – including Jurgen Habermas (1989), generally acknowledged as the instigator of the idea of the public sphere – the media and the public sphere are one and the same. Much earlier, Antonio Gramsci (1988), himself a journalist, recog-nised the media as the ‘most dynamic part ’ of the ideological structure of society. Since then, global media systems have extended their power and reach. The point I want to make here is that the cultural practice of journalism, as
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".