ReMeD researchers led by LMU Munich shed new light on the media actors in the periphery of journalism who are profoundly transforming the information sector. In this interview, Andreas Riedl, Research Associate at the Department of Media and Communication at LMU Munich, shares unique insights on their profiles, values and perceived influence of their roles in society.
Who are these new actors that have entered the journalism field and whom you call “peripheral actors in journalism”? What typically characterizes them?
Peripheral actors in journalism resemble traditional journalists in some respects but diverge from them in others. They might produce content that looks like journalism to audiences, yet follow different goals or operate under alternative logics. Some share core journalistic values, such as accuracy or public service, but organize their work in ways that differ fundamentally from traditional newsrooms. To capture this diversity – without comparing apples and oranges across the countries in our study* – we focused on five types of actors. These include so-called alternative media, which oppose traditional journalism and see themselves as correctives to “mainstream” journalism; fact-checkers, who work to identify and counter misinformation; social media influencers, who build personal brands while producing and distributing content across platforms; and corporate journalists, who create a journalism-like product on behalf of companies or organizations with strategic interests.
How do their characteristics differ from or overlap with those of established journalists?
In our study, we focused on the roles and values that peripheral actors support, as these offer insight into the principles that guide their work. Compared to traditional journalists, many peripheral actors – though by no means all – consider it less important to inform the public in a neutral and detached way or to act as critical “watchdogs” holding power to account. Instead, they are often more focused on influencing public opinion, setting political agendas, or actively advocating for social change. At the same time, we observed interesting overlaps. Like traditional journalists, many peripheral actors value roles rooted in everyday life, such as providing entertainment or relaxation. This suggests they aren’t disengaged from broader societal concerns but rather approach them differently. We also found that peripheral actors who still identify as journalists tend to embrace roles and values that are closer to those of traditional journalism. In other words, how these actors define themselves is closely tied to what they see as the purpose of their work.
For some of them, in particular influencers, we assume that they serve interests other than the public interest, in particular commercial interests. Does your research confirm this?
We analyzed which kinds of influences peripheral actors perceive in their work and how much autonomy they feel they have in comparison to traditional journalists. Interestingly, many of them report similar levels of perceived political influence as traditional journalists – even though some actively produce content on behalf of political parties. Even more surprising, they often perceive lower levels of economic influence, despite the fact that many face significant challenges in securing funding for their work. This low perception of political and economic pressures may also indicate a lower awareness of such influences. And that can be problematic – especially when it comes to safeguarding editorial independence or developing strategies to resist undue interference. So, while many peripheral actors may feel they have a great deal of autonomy, they might not always be fully aware of how certain forms of influence shape their work.
To what extent do they contribute to a shift in the way we do journalism nowadays, according to you?
In our view, peripheral actors don’t just do journalism differently – they also contribute to redefining what journalism is. By challenging core values of the journalistic field, they contribute to shifting both public and professional understandings of journalism itself. This, in turn, feeds back into the field as a whole and may gradually reshape its boundaries. We observe that many peripheral actors are moving journalism toward more interventionist, and in some cases even activist, directions – while still maintaining certain ties to traditional journalism. In that sense, they don’t necessarily replace established journalism but rather reshape it from the margins, expanding what is recognized as accepted journalistic practice today.
To what extent is this ReMeD research on peripheral journalists groundbreaking?
Until now, research has mostly focused on individual case studies of specific peripheral actors in journalism. What has been missing is a broader, systematic understanding of the diverse actors operating at the margins of traditional journalism. Our study is the first to provide such a comprehensive and comparative data basis. In that sense, the study marks an important step toward making sense of a field that is becoming increasingly diverse and complex.