“Part of the Team”: In-House Sports Reporters Navigating the Journalistic Periphery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review “‘Part of the Team:’ In-House Sports Reporters Navigate the Journalistic Periphery." This paper offers a thoughtful, valuable look into the complexities and negotiations in identity experienced by in-house sports journalists. As someone with experience as an in-house sports journalist, this paper was of particular interest to me, and I appreciate the care with which the authors explored this topic. As the authors mention, the boundaries within sports journalism are shifting, and thus this subject warrants the kind of detailed analysis provided in this paper. I recommend this paper for publication following minor revisions.

 

The introduction of the paper is clear and organized. The authors make a strong case for the value of field theory in this study and offer an interesting discussion of the journalistic periphery. I do encourage the authors to dig a little deeper into their (valid) points about “journalism’s ideals and practices (pg. 2).” Who set these ideals? How did they come about? I understand the point the authors are making here about “traditional journalism” versus other forms of content creation, but, given the exploration of power in this early part of the paper, further assessment of “ideals” is needed. How do these ideas intersect with issues of race and gender? How did the establishment of journalism itself perpetuate ideas of who belongs and who can be a journalist? I recognize that this paper is not focused on gender or race specifically, but one or two more sentences about the history of journalistic values would add more context to the understanding of “values” and the power dynamics at play in the formation of these values. 

 

Similarly, the authors use Bourdieu to discuss capital, a useful framework in this study. Again, a deeper discussion of who defines concepts like cultural capital and social capital in a given society would be notable. Does this differ between the United States and Austria? 

 

The authors engage with the existing literature well. I’m particularly interested in a point that the authors make on pg. 3 when they explain that “influencers did not often refer to themselves as journalists, but they did acknowledge that they produced content that resembled journalism…” A more clearly defined set of journalistic values would help distinguish between ‘content creation’ and ‘journalism,’ particularly if the authors argue that those constitute different activities according to historical journalistic values. The authors address this point better later on this page when talking about the titles that in-house reporters use with some calling themselves “writers” and following “ethics” as opposed to serving as public relations experts. I understand that the tension in these points is part of the essence of this paper: journalism is hard to define, and different individuals have different definitions. However, if the authors are going to compare the values and definitions of journalism amongst different individuals, the values of those considered “journalists” and not “in-house reporters” should be more clearly articulated by the authors. 

 

This was a particularly interesting and smart sentence: “...legitimacy, which in turns underpins the cultural authority of news producers, depends crucially on public acceptance” (pg. 4). This is a great sentence to explain why popular in-house sports reporters are so critical to explore in journalism studies. The last sentence of the literature review is the perfect transition into the methods and specifics of this particular study. 

 

One question I have after reading the methods: Would you expect the results to differ if in-house reporters for women’s-only leagues like the WNBA were included? Again, I recognize that this paper is not about gender, and I don’t expect the authors to shift the focus of the study, but I am curious. I appreciate that the authors addressed gender in the limitations. Perhaps one or two more sentences could be added to expand on that point, both with regards to the journalists themselves and in relation to the sports that they cover. 

 

The notion of ‘aspirational labor’ is interesting. The Duffy (2017) citation is perfect to emphasize this point on pg. 12. One of the biggest strengths of this paper is its ability to bridge classic journalistic literature with digital studies work and critical cultural theory. 

 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I look forward to hopefully reviewing a revised version in the near future. 

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to review “‘Part of the Team:’ In-House Sports Reporters Navigate the Journalistic Periphery." This paper offers a thoughtful, valuable look into the complexities and negotiations in identity experienced by in-house sports journalists. As someone with experience as an in-house sports journalist, this paper was of particular interest to me, and I appreciate the care with which the authors explored this topic. As the authors mention, the boundaries within sports journalism are shifting, and thus this subject warrants the kind of detailed analysis provided in this paper. I recommend this paper for publication following minor revisions.

-->Thank you for the positive feedback and the concrete and actionable suggestions in your review!

The introduction of the paper is clear and organized. The authors make a strong case for the value of field theory in this study and offer an interesting discussion of the journalistic periphery. I do encourage the authors to dig a little deeper into their (valid) points about “journalism’s ideals and practices (pg. 2).” Who set these ideals? How did they come about? I understand the point the authors are making here about “traditional journalism” versus other forms of content creation, but, given the exploration of power in this early part of the paper, further assessment of “ideals” is needed. How do these ideas intersect with issues of race and gender? How did the establishment of journalism itself perpetuate ideas of who belongs and who can be a journalist? I recognize that this paper is not focused on gender or race specifically, but one or two more sentences about the history of journalistic values would add more context to the understanding of “values” and the power dynamics at play in the formation of these values. 

--> You’ll see we now offer some reflection on journalistic ideals, and what shapes them, in section 1.1. on peripheral actors and journalistic identity.

Similarly, the authors use Bourdieu to discuss capital, a useful framework in this study. Again, a deeper discussion of who defines concepts like cultural capital and social capital in a given society would be notable. Does this differ between the United States and Austria? 

-->You’ll see we’ve now added some reflection on this—broadly we don’t feel that they differ on a macro level even though the markers of cultural and social capital may differ between national environments. You’ll find this in 1.1.

The authors engage with the existing literature well. I’m particularly interested in a point that the authors make on pg. 3 when they explain that “influencers did not often refer to themselves as journalists, but they did acknowledge that they produced content that resembled journalism…” A more clearly defined set of journalistic values would help distinguish between ‘content creation’ and ‘journalism,’ particularly if the authors argue that those constitute different activities according to historical journalistic values. The authors address this point better later on this page when talking about the titles that in-house reporters use with some calling themselves “writers” and following “ethics” as opposed to serving as public relations experts. I understand that the tension in these points is part of the essence of this paper: journalism is hard to define, and different individuals have different definitions. However, if the authors are going to compare the values and definitions of journalism amongst different individuals, the values of those considered “journalists” and not “in-house reporters” should be more clearly articulated by the authors. 

-->We’ve added some reflection on journalistic values to the section on journalistic identity and you’ll see that we reflect on this a bit as well in the discussion now and we believe that this allows us to make a much more nuanced argument.

This was a particularly interesting and smart sentence: “...legitimacy, which in turns underpins the cultural authority of news producers, depends crucially on public acceptance” (pg. 4). This is a great sentence to explain why popular in-house sports reporters are so critical to explore in journalism studies. The last sentence of the literature review is the perfect transition into the methods and specifics of this particular study. 

-->Thank you so much!

One question I have after reading the methods: Would you expect the results to differ if in-house reporters for women’s-only leagues like the WNBA were included? Again, I recognize that this paper is not about gender, and I don’t expect the authors to shift the focus of the study, but I am curious. I appreciate that the authors addressed gender in the limitations. Perhaps one or two more sentences could be added to expand on that point, both with regards to the journalists themselves and in relation to the sports that they cover. 

-->You’ll see now that we reflect on this further in the limitations section as an area that, absolutely, could reflect some nuanced results.

The notion of ‘aspirational labor’ is interesting. The Duffy (2017) citation is perfect to emphasize this point on pg. 12. One of the biggest strengths of this paper is its ability to bridge classic journalistic literature with digital studies work and critical cultural theory. 

--> Thank you!

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I look forward to hopefully reviewing a revised version in the near future. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I enjoyed reading this research and concur it is an area lacking in the body of knowledge.  A couple of issues came to mind while reviewing.  One, it would strengthen your research if you included information about the type of coverage in-house sports "reporters" cover.  In other words, do they cover negative aspects about the team, players, and/or owners?  If they weigh audience expectations, then the content of their stories could be significantly different than "traditional sports reporters."  Second, I believe your study shows the decline of "journalism ethics."  You could argue that "traditional reporters" (whether they admit to it or not) cover stories through the lens of the media owner, and in turn, through the lens of the news outlet's readers/viewers.  You state on page 10 that "It's about retaining your own community and keeping them loyal to the club."  This is also true for traditional reporters but instead of the club it's the media outlet.  Also on page 10 you wrote, "This acceptance only becomes valuable when it is transferred to the consumption of team related products."  Instead of "team related products" you could insert newspaper, magazine, or newscast.

Otherwise, well done.

Author Response

Overall, I enjoyed reading this research and concur it is an area lacking in the body of knowledge.  A couple of issues came to mind while reviewing.  One, it would strengthen your research if you included information about the type of coverage in-house sports "reporters" cover.  In other words, do they cover negative aspects about the team, players, and/or owners?  If they weigh audience expectations, then the content of their stories could be significantly different than "traditional sports reporters."  

-->Thank you for this feedback! You’ll see we clarify this now in the manuscript in the literature review in the section on In-House Sports reporters.

Second, I believe your study shows the decline of "journalism ethics."  You could argue that "traditional reporters" (whether they admit to it or not) cover stories through the lens of the media owner, and in turn, through the lens of the news outlet's readers/viewers.  You state on page 10 that "It's about retaining your own community and keeping them loyal to the club."  This is also true for traditional reporters but instead of the club it's the media outlet.  Also on page 10 you wrote, "This acceptance only becomes valuable when it is transferred to the consumption of team related products."  Instead of "team related products" you could insert newspaper, magazine, or newscast.

-->You’ll see we reflect a bit on the discrete categories of in-house reporting and journalism re: ethics in the discussion.