Spanish Journalists at the Epicentre of Power: From the Media to Institutions

Abstract

This article examines the work of journalists employed in communication offices within key centres of power, specifically, prominent institutions. It explores their professional self-perception, the working conditions they face, and how occupying such positions influences their subsequent career paths. To this end, the study conducted fourteen in-depth interviews with Spanish journalists who hold or have held significant roles in institutional communication offices in this country. Many of these professionals previously worked in the media, and some have returned to journalism after their tenure in administration. The results obtained from these interviews reveal a significant disparity in the levels of pressure experienced by professionals in offices closely tied to political decision-making compared to those in secondary institutions, despite similar financial compensation. Moreover, the study confirms that professionals working near major centres of power—referred to as “nuclear reactors” in their own words—encounter greater challenges when returning to journalism and the media due to increased political stigmatisation. Additionally, the interviews show that journalists in such offices experience stress and work pressures on a par with or exceeding those encountered in media roles.

1. Introduction and Theoretical Framework

The field of journalism has undergone substantial transformation in recent years, driven by factors such as digitalisation and the industry’s struggle to establish a sustainable business model. These challenges have exacerbated precarious working conditions in the profession (Goyanes & Rodríguez-Castro, 2018), prompting many journalists to pursue roles beyond traditional media, including positions in institutional communication offices. This study examines aspects of this increasingly common career path, which typically offers better remuneration than roles in media newsrooms. Although these positions often require prior experience, they demand less technical expertise in emerging digital skills, which are becoming increasingly essential in news organisations.

In recent years, career diversification within the communication sector has accelerated. The 2007–2008 economic crisis led to widespread redundancies in newsrooms, significant market shifts (Zallo, 2016), and an intensified digital transition (Calvo et al., 2024). All of this has contributed to a decrease in the number of people working in the media but also to changes in the profiles required in newsrooms. Between 2008 and 2015, the Madrid Press Association (APM Professional Survey, 2015, p. 8) reported the loss of 12,200 jobs in the media industry, the closure of 375 media companies, and an average 17% decline in salaries for journalists. Further reports by the same organisation in 2021 and 2022 revealed that 70% of the professionals who lost their jobs during this period had been employed in the media sector.

Looking at more recent data on the journalism situation in Spain, the latest APM Professional Survey (2024) points to job insecurity continuing to be the profession’s biggest problem, followed by poor pay for journalistic work. On this issue, the study reveals that the working week exceeds the 40 h permitted by law in Spain, and for 20% of journalists, it exceeds 45 h. This must also be viewed in the context of the low salaries that, according to this report, 40% of contracted professionals receive, earning between EUR 1000 and EUR 2000 per month.

The shrinking number of traditional journalism roles has led many professionals to redirect their careers towards other opportunities, such as communication departments in corporations or public institutions. A study by Pérez et al. (2023) confirmed this trend, highlighting the decline in media employment during the economic crisis and the slower recovery of journalism-related jobs compared to the overall economy. The study also notes substantial differences between media subsectors; newspapers and magazines suffered the most significant setbacks, while radio, film, and television employment also stagnated. In contrast, jobs in information services and technology-driven activities have grown by around 10% annually in recent years.

The same study emphasised the growth of communication offices as an alternative career path for journalists. “There is a significant job market for graduates in Journalism and Communication within the communications departments of companies of various sizes or diverse institutions. Although the exact size and scope of these roles are not clearly defined, the APM Professional Survey (2019) estimates that they account for approximately one-third of graduate employment” (Pérez et al., 2023, p. 161).

Historically, journalists working in the media have viewed positions in communication offices with a degree of disdain (Timoteo Álvarez, 2005). This perspective reflects the persistent notion within the profession that work conducted in such offices constitutes a kind of “second division” of journalism. Indeed, over 60% of newsroom professionals believe that journalists employed in corporate or public institution communication departments do not engage in journalistic work, as consistently highlighted in recent APM reports.

Relations, therefore, between journalists and institutional communication directors, based on “antagonistic cooperation” (Rolke, 2002), are often tense and lead to each professional group offering a critical or even negative assessment of the other’s work (Bulicanu, 2022) or at least to a love–hate relationship between the two sectors, as reflected in the study based on 418 interviews with professionals carried out by Sallot and Johnson between 1991 and 2004. Media journalists frequently consider that the main task of a public institution’s office is to satisfy the information needs of the press, while communication directors act to avoid harm to the image of the institutions in which they work. Consequently, they go as far as to conceal information of public interest, given that they consider that the declared intentions of journalists when requesting information always differ from that of objectively informing the public (Bulicanu, 2022).

This is a structural conflict that, for some authors, is evidence of the struggle between both professional groups to control the agenda-setting function (Francescutti & Saperas, 2015) and which leads to permanent distrust. “Peer relations between journalists and communicators are a rarity, because the first reflex of communicators is to avoid the dissemination of information about the real state of affairs, and journalists, aware of the interests of communicators, look for alternative sources, able to refute or confirm official information” (Stepanov, 2015).

On the other hand, the precariousness in the media resulting from production routines affects information quality and is also a key element in understanding the current situation of the profession and the factors that influence why journalists seek other job opportunities in institutional communication offices. In newsrooms, there is more work to be done, more deadlines to meet, and fewer staff available, which means that journalists are less able to rigorously check the information they receive (Erjavec, 2005; Moloney, 2006; Davies, 2008), which often results in material provided by the offices being replicated without verifying the information (Sissons, 2012; Aguar Torres, 2024) and, ultimately, a greater dependence of journalists on communication professionals (Iturregui-Mardaras et al., 2020). A combination of factors, such as lack of time, resources in newsrooms, and the increased influence of communication offices was also noted in the Worlds of Journalism Study (2017) on the profession in Spain. These studies invite analysis of the reasons, causes, and consequences of the transition of journalists from the media to what some authors call the “dark side” of the profession (Lalueza Bosch & Estanyol i Casals, 2013).

Academically, institutional communication offices remain an under-researched topic, particularly concerning their impact on the careers of journalists who transition to such roles. This gap in research is noteworthy given the media’s longstanding role as the primary conduit for messages between politicians and citizens (Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999). Within this context, communication offices serve as key intermediaries. Journalists in these roles act as official sources for the media while also managing dissemination strategies through other channels, such as social media, which are increasingly vital for reaching the public.

The professional shift from newsrooms to institutional communication offices, which was often necessitated by workforce reductions, has become more voluntary in recent years. This trend reflects the media sector’s worsening economic conditions and the challenges posed by high stress levels and irregular schedules, which are often incompatible with personal and family life. Another factor exacerbating the decline in media working conditions is the emphasis on immediacy in content distribution, which undermines journalistic quality (Aguar Torres, 2024). International studies have also linked this immediacy, along with improvisation and other factors that compromise journalistic standards, to audience scepticism and disengagement from traditional media (Lacy & Rosenstiel, 2015; Costera-Meijer & Bijleveld, 2016; Newman & Fletcher, 2017). In this context, the difficulties of producing in-depth, well-researched content are compounded by excessive workloads, leading to factual errors and a lack of rigorous information verification (Palau-Sampio & López-García, 2022).

These deteriorating working conditions—both practical and ethical—help explain why many journalists transition to alternative roles. However, an association with politically influential institutions can negatively impact their careers and hinder their reintegration into the media industry. Previous research has explored the relationship between media outlets and press officers, who are often seen by newsrooms as obstacles or gatekeepers (Pérez Curiel, 2008, p. 253; López-Rabadán et al., 2016, pp. 84–85). This dynamic is particularly evident in countries like Spain, which follow a polarised pluralist model (Hallin & Mancini, 2004).

This perception is not new. A 1998 study by Txema Ramírez surveyed seventy editors and newsroom managers, identifying institutional press offices as the least credible sources (56%) compared to economic organisations, social movements, NGOs, political parties, and trade unions (Ramírez, 1998). Doubts about the reliability of institutional communication offices have become increasingly difficult to dispel in recent years. This is due to the evolution of these offices, which have shifted from more defensive strategies against the “media pack” (Dader, 2014, p. 640) to a more proactive role, supported by expanded teams and resources that often surpass those available to news outlets.

Within this context, the aim of this study is to examine the experiences and perceptions of journalists transitioning from newsrooms to institutional communication offices. Specifically, it aims to identify the factors influencing their decisions, assess the stress and demands associated with these roles, and explore the impact on their credibility based on the importance of the institution, their political involvement, and the nature of their responsibilities. Starting from the hypothesis that varying levels of pressure exist depending on the institution’s importance and its proximity to decision-making, this research delves into the factors journalists consider decisive when choosing these positions or less demanding alternatives. It also investigates how their credibility is affected based on the prominence of the office they work in, their degree of political engagement, and how they fulfil their roles.

Therefore, this research aims to contribute to answering some questions related to how journalists transition from the media to institutional communication offices, including motives, factors influencing the decision, consequences, stress levels, and effects on professional ethics. To clarify the purpose of the study, these challenges can be summarised into the following questions:

-

RQ1. What motivates Spanish professionals to transition from journalism to working in institutional offices?

-

RQ2. What differences in working conditions do they experience?

-

RQ3. What challenges does the transition entail, and how do the professionals deal with them?

2. Methodology

This study employs a qualitative methodology based on in-depth interviews to collect data. The sample consists of fourteen professionals working in communication who have held or currently hold prominent positions in institutional offices across various sectors of the administration in Spain. Additionally, all participants worked in national or regional media organisations prior to or following their roles in these offices.

The interviews were conducted with active journalists who, between 2011 and 2023, held significant positions within the communication departments of institutions governed by different political parties. In addition, professionals from both highly influential and less politically relevant institutions were included.

The sample reflects a wide range of responsibilities and operational contexts, including state, European, regional, and local institutions. This diversity allowed for the identification of both similarities and differences in the interactions between institutional offices and the media based on their sphere of influence. All participants previously worked as journalists in the media before transitioning to institutional communication and have a total average of 23 years of professional experience.

All held positions as communication directors or press advisors in institutional settings, particularly in political communication, while their media careers included various editorial and reporting roles.

The methodology applied for these was an open research interview. “A conversation between two people, an interviewer and an interlocutor, directed and recorded by the interviewer, with the purpose of favouring conversational, continuous discourse and with a certain line of argument—not fragmented, segmented, pre-coded and closed by a previous questionnaire—by the interviewee on a topic defined within the framework of the research” (Alonso Benito, 2016).

The professionals invited to take part—chosen mainly for their work experience in the media and institutional offices—requested that their anonymity be guaranteed in the interviews for reasons of job security, given that, in many cases, they are still working in organisations that depend on political parties, but also for other reasons, such as the fear of burning bridges to the labour market in the future. As a consequence, through the minimal framework of a thematic script, we sought to create a dynamic relationship with interviewees so as to avoid the feeling of a question–answer format and to invite trust (Alonso Benito, 2016).

Interviews were conducted between May 2022 and July 2023, lasting between 90 min and 2 h. All sessions were recorded with participants’ consent, ensuring anonymity, and subsequently transcribed for analysis. The transcription was considered a crucial tool, both for recording and for studying the words of the interviewees, given that the analyst was responsible for this function, which provides more keys to be able to interpret the discourse based on those saying it (Requena, 2014). To foster a comfortable atmosphere, most interviews were conducted in public spaces. Participants were informed beforehand about the general purpose of the interview but were not provided with specific questions to encourage spontaneous responses.

A flexible thematic script was employed, functioning as a comprehensive list of topics rather than a rigid sequence of questions. This approach aligns with the principles of semi-structured interviews (Corbetta, 2007; Alonso Benito, 2016) in order to offer “ample freedom to both the interviewee and the interviewer, while ensuring that all relevant issues were explored and all necessary information was collected” (Corbetta, 2007, p. 353). This flexibility proved particularly valuable for discussing sensitive topics related to communication strategies in politically significant institutions. Interviews typically began with participants introducing themselves and summarising their professional paths, after which questions on various topics were introduced in an open dialogue. This approach facilitated the inclusion of anecdotes and unscripted insights, resembling the “informal open interview” model (Alonso Benito, 2016), where “questions, their sequence, and phrasing are not pre-established or fixed” (Alonso Benito, 2016, pp. 391–392).

3. Results

This study aims to analyse the working conditions of communication directors and press advisors in institutional offices, focusing on both centres of power where significant political decisions are made and departments with less influence. Beyond examining specific tasks, the research seeks to understand how undertaking this professional role affects journalists’ careers during three stages: accepting the position, performing the role, and potentially returning to media work. The following presents the results of the discourse analysis, supported by translated verbatim excerpts from the interviews to substantiate the reflections offered here.

In general, participants widely perceive that the economic conditions in institutional offices are typically better than those currently offered by the media. However, professionals working in highly politically significant institutions dismiss the notion that their schedules, availability, or work–life balance are better than those they experienced in the media.

Similarly, participants do not believe that levels of stress, pressure, or demands are lower in public institutions than in their previous roles in newsrooms. On the contrary, they generally view the work in communication offices as marked by considerable pressure and demands.

Moreover, there is greater concern among those in highly influential offices about the possibility of being more politically “stigmatised” due to their proximity to key political figures. However, this perception changes for those working in institutions further removed from political power centres. These professionals report better salaries than during their time as journalists while also enjoying more manageable schedules, a better work–life balance, and reduced stress or high-pressure moments. They also feel less burdened by potential stigmas if they return to media work.

A clear distinction emerges between what some interviewees refer to as the “nuclear reactor”, meaning offices located near the core of political decision-making, and other departments situated further from power, which are less politicised and experience lower levels of pressure. Indeed, several interviewees emphasise the demands and involvement required depending on the type of institutional communication office they belong to.

“Being close to the reactor core means dedicating yourself 24 h a day. The further away you move, the more things change” (Male, 59 years old).

“I am available 24 h a day, seven days a week, and not only available, but alert. There are no shifts, particularly at higher levels of communication” (Male, 54 years old).

This view is consistent when distinguishing between offices in politically significant institutions and those removed from major decision-making, although some nuances are noted: “At an institutional level, the closer you are to your boss or the more trust your boss places in you, the higher the level of stress” (Female, 40 years old).

Even within the most prominent offices, there are degrees or categories that determine the level of responsibility and pressure based on proximity to the political leader. Regarding causes of stress, participants highlight several factors: “In a Presidency or Vice Presidency, especially during a crisis, the focus is constant and ongoing, whereas in other departments, it is sporadic” (Male, 49 years old).

This same participant emphasises why such positions can be more stressful than working in a newsroom: “Serious mistakes can happen, and I’ve seen them. But in the media, they’re often forgotten or corrected within days. Here, in institutions, a major mistake is paid for dearly”. Another participant working in a less politically exposed office shares a similar view when discussing moments of tension: “In the four years I’ve been here, I’ve faced about one and a half ‘fires’, while in a government institution, they might be facing fires every two hours” (Male, 41 years old).

Participants from offices in high-pressure political environments highlight the “special tension” that comes from constantly being on top of current events: “We are always the last resort for journalists, if not the first […] We are never in limbo about anything” (Male, 54 years old). Another participant with experience in a prominent office shares this sentiment: “In an institution […] you never know what’s going to happen, and it’s truly 24/7. That’s not just a figure of speech—it’s reality. You’re always the press chief, so they call you every day, at all hours” (Female, 47 years old).

3.1. Economic Conditions and Work–Life Balance in Communication Offices vs. the Media

One of the key aspects of this study involves exploring the reasons behind journalists transitioning from media roles to institutional communication offices. While most interviewees cite their desire to take on a new professional challenge, nearly all acknowledge that the financial benefits offered by communication offices are a decisive factor. However, some add nuance to this point: “It’s not so much that the offices are well paid but that the media are terribly underpaid […] The precariousness is astounding” (Female, 39 years old).

This sentiment regarding the poor economic conditions in news organisations is widely shared among participants. “Generally speaking, institutional jobs pay nearly double what most of their colleagues earn in the media. I would estimate that a salary of EUR 1200 in the media today is fairly standard […] In institutions, common salaries range from EUR 1700 to EUR 2300, which is about a thousand euros more” (Male, 54 years old).

Another interviewee offered a similar perspective, stating that his salary at the media company where he had worked for ten years was EUR 1300 per month (across 12 payments annually), whereas in the public administration, his salary increased to EUR 2300, spread over 14 instalments. However, he noted that the work conditions regarding availability, demands, and pace were much tougher in institutional communication roles: “Objectively, the quality of life is worse” (Male, 43 years old).

He also introduced another factor into the discussion, pointing out that press advisors in his administration earned the same salary regardless of the department they worked in: “There are others who earn the same as me and live better”. This idea was echoed by another participant, who observed disparities between communication offices within the same institution: “Some people can fly under the radar for an entire legislative term and still earn exactly the same as I do” (Male, 54 years old).

Several participants noted a growing preference among media professionals to transition to institutional communication roles, particularly second-line positions. “They’re looking for jobs where they can have a normal life […] Meet their friends, have weekends off, have holidays, and not have a sudden drama or catastrophe that means they will disappear for five days” (Female, 41 years old).

Beyond better financial and working conditions in second-tier offices, other participants explained that their reason for accepting such roles was precisely because the position was distanced from power centres. This allowed for a break from the media while earning a better salary and pursuing new challenges, without jeopardising a return to journalism later. “It’s been a way to take a break from daily journalism […] I chose it because it didn’t involve anything too ‘radioactive’, knowing I would get as few stains as possible for when I returned. I tried to put not one but seven walls of reinforced concrete between myself and the nuclear reactor” (Male, 41 years old).

Such reflections highlight the stark contrast between high-pressure political offices and other institutional roles. One participant, leading communications in a highly significant institution, summarised the intensity: “By 7 a.m., you’re reviewing the press and seeing that, if it’s not one thing, it’s another. You’ve taken a ‘hit’, something negative has emerged, or there’s a ‘bomb’ you need to defuse. It may not be a huge bomb, but your boss will always think it’s a big one that must be dealt with”. Another participant overseeing communications for several major institutions supported this assessment: “It’s a thankless job. You constantly deal with problems and crises; it’s very demanding and leaves you feeling unappreciated […] People only notice when something goes wrong” (Male, 51 years old).

The dual pace at which communication offices operate—depending on their political relevance—creates a high-pressure environment in prominent positions. This pressure often leads professionals to leave these roles quickly, despite the generally competitive salaries offered by public administration. “Nowadays, probably because of the salary, most people want to join a cabinet. But when they experience institutional communication, they also realise the tension; I’ve had many people leave because they couldn’t handle it” (Female, 41 years old).

The demands of working in an institutional communication role close to the so-called “nuclear reactor”, with higher pressure, difficulty balancing your personal and professional life, and similar pay to less intense positions in public administration, raise questions about what motivates professionals to take on such jobs beyond the “professional challenge” many automatically cite as a dominant social narrative. Some claim that their motivation is youth, ambition, or the desire to be close to power and, in some way, involved in major decisions and events. “If you are younger or more ambitious or more adventurous […] you want something with more prestige or more responsibility. If you are older and want more comfort, you prefer to work somewhere you can finish work at 3 p.m. and spend time at home with your family” (Male, 49 years old).

At this point, another participant discussed the addictive nature of such intense and demanding roles, comparing it to the pressure experienced in journalism but from the perspective of producing the news. “There are journalists who love being the first to report something. In my case, I enjoy experiencing it first-hand […] Those of us who are in this field and stay here are ‘junkies’ for this type of work—we like it this way” (Female, 41 years old). When asked why some journalists prefer such demanding positions, one professional directly referred to the allure of being in high-profile institutional roles as a matter of personal pride. “Honestly, it’s because we have big egos—I don’t know a single journalist who doesn’t have an ego” (Female, 34 years old).

Nearly all participants acknowledged the challenges of balancing family life in positions near the so-called “nuclear reactor”. However, some introduced nuances or comparisons with media roles and less demanding positions within other administrative departments. Those without children generally ruled out the possibility of having them while in such roles, describing it as “very difficult”. “I couldn’t have children. You can’t balance your work and family lives when you wake up at 7 a.m. to read the newspapers, work all day, and have that work extend until 7 or 8 p.m., even on weekends…” (Male, 43 years old). Others disagreed, arguing that work could be reorganised to accommodate personal priorities: “I fell into that trap, and I hope no one else does”. I haven’t had children, but other colleagues have. People […] need to make time for everything, including taking care of themselves. But you don’t realise it when you’re there because you give everything—you do it because it fulfils you, and no one forces you to” (Female, 47 years old).

Participants who already had children before entering institutional communication also acknowledged the difficulties of balancing their professional and family lives, both in media roles and in offices. “Family sacrifices […] are very painful. At least from my perspective, if you have children or a partner, you have to make many sacrifices” (Male, 54 years old). “You miss out on a lot with your family […] In my case, they were already used to it, but yes, you live badly” (Male, 51 years old).

Overall, participants generally viewed the work–life balance in top-tier offices and the media as similarly challenging, though some noted that advances in digital tools have reduced the need for in-person meetings—particularly in print journalism—making teleworking more viable. Many also agreed that working in offices further from power centres offers a better work–life balance and family care opportunities.

3.2. Stigmas Associated with Transitions to Institutional Offices and Key Factors for Journalists Returning to the Media

Nearly all interviewees acknowledge that, within the profession, a stigma persists for journalists who transition from media organisations to institutional communication offices, especially for those working in offices close to the so-called “nuclear reactor”. Many participants agree, though they consider it “unfair”, that these roles carry a heightened risk of political branding. This risk is especially relevant when journalists attempt to return to media work. However, several emphasise that the extent of this reputational mark largely depends on how the journalist conducted themselves in these roles—specifically, whether they adhered to fundamental journalistic principles, such as prioritising news value and transparency, or whether their work was entirely focused on advancing the political interests of the institution.

“It’s true that you end up being politically marked, but I see my institutional work as a public service and maintain my journalistic integrity above pushing a political narrative at any cost” (Male, 43 years old). This interviewee expressed confidence that their work would be recognised within the sector, a sentiment echoed by others. However, some provided a harsher assessment of the implications of such transitions: “You can tell yourself that you’re a professional and independent, but the reality is that you’re not serving the reader; you’re serving a government and, subsequently, the journalists asking questions” (Male, 54 years old). This same interviewee—with a certain resignation—admitted, “The goal is to maintain as much of my credibility as possible as a journalist while managing communications for an institution, but of course, it’s not going to improve”. Others went further, acknowledging an immediate loss of credibility when moving from journalism to institutional communication: “Journalism is fundamentally about being critical. Now, I’m a propagandist. While the tools might look similar, the objectives are entirely different—journalism is one thing, and political communication is another” (Male, 49 years old).

Despite such challenges, many participants believe that returning to media work after serving in institutional communication is often a natural and relatively smooth process, provided some critical principles are maintained—chief among them, “honesty”.

“The biggest danger is doing your job poorly. Making enemies by lying, being inefficient, favouring one side excessively, or neglecting others” (Female, 39 years old).

“I’ve always tried to facilitate access to information for my colleagues, even when it conflicted with what I could or couldn’t say. You can help a journalist do their job without deceiving them” (Male, 54 years old).

“What hurts your credibility the most is lying. If you don’t lie and treat your colleagues respectfully, you’ll earn their professional respect” (Female, 40 years old).

“The most basic rule in this job is not to lie. I’m a source of information, and I need to be credible so that when journalists call me, they trust what I’m telling them” (Female, 34 years old).

“I continue to safeguard my credibility as much, if not more, than when I worked in newsrooms. I have a lot at stake. If I lie to you today, you’ll lose trust in me, and I won’t have another chance” (Female, 41 years old).

Some interviewees noted that the degree of political involvement undertaken by professionals in these roles significantly affects their post-institutional reputations. One participant explained, “You can choose to remain professional or involve yourself in every political intricacy. If the responsibility you’ve taken on translates into good work, it shouldn’t tarnish your reputation—it should enhance it” (Female, 63 years old).

Concerning reintegration into the media, particularly for those who held or led roles in politically prominent institutions, some participants suggested that returning might require an initial adjustment period in areas unrelated to their previous institutional responsibilities. This is a point on which not everyone agrees: “Some people will think I’m completely tainted because I was part of a government, but honestly, that’s their problem, not mine” (Female, 39 years old). Another interviewee, however, offered a contrasting view: “The most important thing, both in the institution and when returning to the media, is not to behave like a political enforcer” (Male, 59 years old).

Despite these challenges, most interviewees observed significant advancements in the professionalisation of institutional communication offices, which have made transitions to and from the media increasingly normalised. “There’s been a noteworthy evolution. In the past, working in institutional offices was frowned upon—people said we weren’t real journalists or called us second rate. I think that has changed now, and these roles are seen as much more professional” (Female, 47 years old).

3.3. Politicisation, Hooliganism, and Stockholm Syndrome

The interviewees also addressed how the perspective of professionals can shift upon entering politically driven institutions, with some becoming significantly influenced and acting as agents serving partisan interests, disregarding journalistic principles. This shift is identified as a potential risk for journalists’ careers and future prospects. However, many also noted that the same subjectivity or even “hooliganism” attributed to press officers is often exhibited by reporters or even editors of media outlets.

“I have observed a certain Stockholm syndrome in some colleagues who, after two weeks of harsh criticism from an institution, suddenly become its staunchest defenders” (Male, 49 years old).

“I have seen this in my colleagues. Some are better able to maintain distance, while others struggle. Personally, I think I manage it well. In fact, I’ve sometimes been criticised for my lack of involvement” (Male, 51 years old).

“It’s true that there are people who are more zealous than the Pope, although they might also be like that in the next place they move to tomorrow” (Female, 41 years old).

The recognition that institutional and political positions can shape professionals’ stances opens another debate about the attitudes of journalists working in the media. The interviewees openly acknowledged the politicisation of Spanish journalists, a characteristic of media systems within polarised pluralism (Hallin & Mancini, 2004), where journalists often display servile or priestly attitudes towards politics (Mazzoleni, 2010). Spanish journalists are considered notably more politicised than their counterparts in central and northern European countries (Albaek et al., 2014). This critique has surfaced alongside a broader reflection on journalism practices in Spain.

“I’m tired of hearing that press chiefs are just another party loyalist. There are so many so-called ‘thoroughbred’ journalists in radio, TV, and print who are more partisan and ‘hooligan’ than some press chiefs. For me, credibility comes down to professionalism” (Female, 39 years old).

“There are journalists advancing specific causes everywhere. I consider myself more independent than many of them” (Female, 34 years old).

“We’re tired of reading articles written solely because the journalist works for a media outlet with certain interests, shaping their content accordingly. Objectivity is scarce in the press as well” (Female, 41 years old).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The results of this research—working from the questions posed in the introduction and answers given by interviewees—show that the specific reasons for transitioning from the media to institutional offices are better economic conditions, seeking out new professional challenges, and also the possibility of a better work–life balance, although this last factor, as demonstrated in this study, only tends to occur in those offices that are well distanced from centres of political power. Therefore, salaries are generally better in institutional offices, but working conditions in terms of stress levels, workload, the professional’s availability, and possibilities for a work–life balance will depend on whether the institutional office is within the epicentre of political decisions or part of a second line, where the demands and pressure on professionals are often lower. In terms of the challenges for journalists moving into political communication institutional offices, the main objective of interviewees is to carry out their activity in an ethical and professional manner so as to avoid being permanently linked to the political party that controls the institution they are working for.

Before delving deeper into the answers to the three research questions given in the introduction, it is worth remembering that the journalism profession in Spain has undergone significant structural changes due to factors such as the 2008 economic crisis and digital transformation. These developments have eroded the traditional business model of the press. “It is becoming increasingly difficult for the old employment model, where a journalist starts out in a media organisation after university and ends their career in the same company, to survive” (Calvo et al., 2024). To the usual stress associated with the profession is now added the immediacy demanded by social media, which enables news to be published mere seconds after it occurs. While this enhances dissemination, it often results in a “crazy race” among media outlets to replicate news quickly (Ufarte Ruiz, 2012), relegating the task of verification, which should be the “most distinctive” aspect of a journalist’s role (Dader, 2012, p. 40).

These conditions clash with traditional journalism, not only due to differences in pace—especially in print media—but also because of the need for new digital skills, which are generally harder for senior professionals to acquire. Combined with the pressure for immediacy and the context of information saturation, this generates a sense of feeling overwhelmed and insecurity among journalists (Franco & Gértrudix, 2015, p. 154). This is why journalists—especially the more experienced ones—are increasingly drawn to institutional communication offices, where career longevity, established networks, and accumulated expertise are valued more highly than technical proficiency in emerging technologies. These qualities are particularly significant for political entities aiming to influence media agendas and shape the framing of journalistic discourse (Valera-Ordaz, 2019).

Alongside these professional shifts, the study highlights the precariousness and economic decline of traditional media roles (Goyanes & Rodríguez-Castro, 2018). Many news organisations have implemented redundancy schemes targeting senior journalists, replacing them with younger, lower-paid staff or those working under precarious conditions. This shift has led to a talent drain from newsrooms to institutional communication offices, weakening traditional media while strengthening the operational capabilities of press offices.

In this vein, the increased number of professionals in these offices coincides with a worsening of the professional and working conditions in which Spanish journalists in the media work—a sum of factors that undoubtedly has implications in the relations of influence that have been established between both groups of professionals (Iturregui-Mardaras et al., 2020, p. 4). In fact, the academic literature has been reporting for years on the “antagonistic cooperation” (Rolke, 2002) or “love–hate” (Sallot & Johnson, 2006) relationship between journalists and communication offices, the conflict in the struggle to control the agenda (Francescutti & Saperas, 2015), and the mutual criticisms in the work of both groups (Bulicanu, 2022). In this respect, our results suggest a change of perspective and a better assessment by journalists coming from the media of the work carried out in institutional communication offices, something that could be of interest for future studies.

Looking at the first research question, economic incentives are frequently cited by the interviewed professionals as a primary factor for moving from media roles to institutional positions, with many reporting salary increases of up to double their previous earnings, particularly among those with less than two decades of experience. On the other hand, the challenge of being part of creating messages in positions close to power, the journalist’s own ego, youth, and the personal conditions compatible with managing a position with these characteristics are other reasons mentioned by the interviewees for transitioning from the media to institutional communication offices.

Looking at the second research question, focused on the differences in working conditions experienced by professionals, the interviewees underlined the differences that exist depending on the institution in which they work. In this regard, they agree that stress factors, possible stigma, or difficulties in the work–life balance are not replicated in second-tier institutional communication offices, which are far from the political loudspeaker and major decisions, despite salaries being generally identical or similar to those in high-pressure positions. Professionals who have found themselves in positions immersed in or close to the centres of power and decision-making, what some of them call the “nuclear reactor”, say that the conditions are even tougher and more demanding than in the media, both in terms of the pressure and time and the family or personal incompatibilities that this entails.

Regarding the third question posed in the introduction on the challenges for professionals in transitioning from the media to institutional offices, professionals admit the greater danger and concern of being “marked” from a political point of view if the work is carried out in a major institutional office and, even more so, if there is proximity to the political leader. Here, there is a widespread belief among interviewees that the key to suffering the least possible attrition—although all recognise that there is some—lies in the honesty they have with their work—especially in their relationship with colleagues working in the media—and in not falling into what they call hooliganism. In any case, the majority of those interviewed recognise that there is still a stigma attached to the mere fact of leaving a media outlet and moving to a major institutional communication office, although, in general, they accept that recent progress has been made towards professionalisation in this field, precisely because more and more media journalists—for one reason or another—are embarking on this path, which has also contributed to the perspective easing.

On the other hand, professionals within institutional communication offices frequently criticise the perceived lack of independence and objectivity in news organisations, particularly when mimicry with political institutions or leaders is raised. As noted in earlier research, “At least in communication offices, it is clear who is behind them and who they work for” (Almansa-Martínez, 2011, p. 177). Future studies could explore the relationships between professionals in these different domains further.

Beyond these motivations, the shrinking number of newsroom jobs, increasing multitasking demands, and persistently low wages in the media have made institutional communication an increasingly common—and in many cases, desirable—alternative. This shift signals a broader change in perception, with journalists beginning to see these roles not as a step down from traditional journalism but as legitimate, professionalised opportunities. The challenges of building and sustaining a lifelong career solely within the media, as outlined above, have driven more editors to transition into institutional offices. This shift is also reshaping how journalists perceive the work undertaken in these roles and the level of professionalism they entail. Such an evolution could gradually reduce the stigma attached to moving from the media to institutional offices, presenting an area of interest for future research.