When I started studying the American press as an institution (around 35 years ago) I did not assign much significance to a factor that would later feel huge and at times even decisive: the professional culture of the press. It's a beast. But now that beast is changing. THREAD. 1/
By newsroom culture I mean the beliefs, attitudes and styles that young journalists acquire as they learn to be pros. An occupational culture is absorbed by people more than it is taught to them. It is neither a conscious nor a fully unconscious possession, but semi-conscious. 2/
One place to find professional culture is in newsroom "types," characters found again and again in workplaces. The curmudgeon, for example. Ill-tempered, suspicious of all schemes for improvement, impatient with abstractions, profane, unwowable, a professional eye-roller. 3/
In a best-selling book from the 1950s sociologists David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney wrote about a character type they called "the inside dopester." They were not referencing journalism per se. Rather, the culture of the press became an ideal home for this type. 4/
Here's scholar Wilfred McClay looking back at that book ("The Lonely Crowd") 50 years later, and marveling at the effectiveness of its descriptions. My own critique of the "savvy" style in journalism originates in this kind of observation. archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/fifty-y… 5/ Screenshot: 
Besides character types, there are characteristic beliefs that tell you a professional culture is operating. "If your mother says she loves you, check it out..." is a good example. It not only says, "check your facts," which is an important reminder, but "question everything." 6/
In practice, "question everything" would make it impossible to report the news and meet your deadline. It's an affectation as much as an instruction. But if you want to be part of the professional culture of the press, it would not be wise to question "question everything." 7/
The most valid (and most valuable) feature of professional culture in the press — its true strength — is the way it instructs journalists to protect the independence of the newsroom and resist interference from powerful people who are used to getting their way. In fact... 8/
...this is what distinguishes an editorial company from other kinds of businesses. An editorial company makes normal the insulation of the newsroom from both external pressures and internal demands that would weaken the product. Which is not to say it always succeeds at that. 9/
In this sense the professional culture of the press is conservative. It tries to conserve conditions that make it possible to do good work. The threats to independent, honest journalism are known, predictable— eternal, even. Craft culture tutors its members in how to resist. 10/
But you can see the problem. What happens when the practice of journalism has to change? Like when the business model fails and you need a new one. When routine practices turn out to erode trust. When whole categories of people are ill-served by journalism. Shall I continue? 11/
When political movements arise that incorporate a hate movement against the press. When "asymmetric polarization" descends. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…. When changes in the underlying media system on top of which the practice of journalism "runs" make reinvention a necessity. 12/
Under conditions like these, the professional culture of the press flips around and becomes a handicap, even as it remains essential in resisting illegitmate pressures and creating esprit de corps. Which is why I called it a beast. Can't ignore it. Hard to move it. 13/
But now that situation is itself changing. It has taken a LONG time. Indeed, it's taken overlapping crises and a collapse in trust to cut through and clarify the stakes. Today I can point to multiple movements that have support within journalism AND try to alter its culture. 14/
One of these is the solutions journalism movement. solutionsjournalism.org (In Europe it's called "constructive journalism.") It states that reporting on problems is incomplete unless it also includes what is known about solving them— which doesn't mean becoming an advocate! 15/
Then there's "engagement journalism." americanpressinstitute.org/publications/r… It says that sometimes before you can inform people about their problems you have to listen well to them. But if you can succeed at that, your work will land with more force and draw support from the community. 16/
The Washington Post used to have a handful of developers. Now: 300. Expanding its culture to include programmers has changed journalism for the better, bringing open source values and a focus on learning new stuff. You can see what I mean at this site: srccon.org 17/
It's not a movement yet but there is a current that seeks to make journalism less "extractive." Meaning the tendency to parachute into a community, especially around a trauma, and "extract" news from it without caring what happens after. Here's a link: ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/why-should-i-t… 18/
About trauma, it is far more common now for journalists who have undergone trauma themselves to seek help for it and talk about their experience, not something the culture of the newsroom — with its glorification of toughness — supported well before. 19/
Engagement journalism, solutions journalism, less extractive journalism, a more agile, iterative newsroom. Nothing I have seen while watching these emerge suggests they are going away soon. The shocks to the system have been so many that the culture of the press is evolving. 20/
I devote a lot of my feed here to problems in the press, and to criticism of some of its worse practices. But I don't want to leave the impression that everything is collapsing and getting worse. For some things in journalism are collapsing— and it's actually getting better. END
