Birte Leonhardt
Journalism today is often produced under significant time constraints and external pressures, which means that decisions are rarely made under ideal conditions. Within this context, journalists often find themselves negotiating between personal convictions, institutional demands, and editorial expectations. In this article, EJO spoke with Birte Leonhardt, a doctoral candidate at the University of Vienna, about her research examining how journalists interpret, negotiate, and prioritise universal values.
EJO: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your current research into journalistic values, cultures, and practices? What inspired or motivated your research?
BL: In my dissertation, I am researching interventionist journalism. That’s what brought me to this topic. I am interested in the more active, more transformational potential of journalism, particularly in understanding why journalists act the way they do and how they make decisions. Understanding what brings journalists to leave their detached observer role in the first place, and to intervene and want to shape social reality and public discourse is one of my main interests.
In addition to this, I am also doing a lot of research on constructive journalism. I am doing a comparative study of different European countries on trust-building strategies, looking into constructive journalistic culture and their role. In this study, we examine how constructive journalism can be conceptualised as a journalistic subculture through distinct role perceptions, epistemologies, and ethical ideologies, and how these perspectives differ between countries. Constructive journalists in Italy, Germany, and Austria were surveyed for this purpose. The study shows, for instance, that differentiation occurs not only between but also within nations and journalistic cultures, and provides a more granular analysis of journalistic (sub)cultures.
Your recent research focuses on how Austrian journalists interpret, negotiate, and prioritise universal values in practice. Can you start off by telling us what you mean by universal values?
The concept of universal values comes from social psychology. Universal values differ from journalistic values, which are more externally-defined professional norms. Universal values, according to Schwartz (1994), are self-direction, benevolence, universalism, security, stimulation, hedonism, conformity, achievement, power, and tradition. These are core human values that everyone holds, although people prioritise them differently. Values that everyone acknowledges but puts a different relevance on them. Research in social psychology shows that these values guide actions and function as motivational drivers. Values provide an internal compass: they not only inform how people evaluate situations, but also motivate them to act in ways that align with what they consider meaningful or desirable. In this sense, values help explain why journalists prioritise certain actions over others, especially when they face competing demands or tensions, for instance, when journalists face organisational expectations.
Can you talk to us about your findings – how do journalists navigate tensions between institutional / news values and their own personal values?
There are different values that are considered important by different groups of journalists. I defined several groups in my study. For instance, the first group, referred to as “universalist-security-oriented journalists,” assigns particular importance to the values of security, conformity, and universalism, while considering stimulation, achievement, and power as less significant. This group represents journalists who prioritise universal and security-oriented values, emphasising equality, and social responsibility. They favour stability over power and individual ambition.
The second group, themed “achievement and stimulation-oriented journalists,” prioritises stimulation, achievement, and universalism while placing less emphasis on power, security, and conformity. This group is characterised by an openness to change, a strong orientation toward achievement, and a willingness to experiment. They value innovation and success, but tend to reject traditional structures and a security-focused mindset.
Thus, while the first group is defined by a preference for stability, collectivism, and social responsibility, the second group is more change-oriented, individualistic, and receptive to new experiences and success. Depending on their values, they have different strategies on how they deal with tensions, or how they internalise them.
Was there anything surprising that you came across?
What I found particularly interesting is that these universal human values are not separate from journalistic values in practice. Journalists actually perceive strong connections between them. Although universal values stem from social psychology and are conceptually distinct from professional norms such as objectivity, journalists often interpret them as aligning with core institutional principles of journalism. For example, self-direction, which refers to independence in thought and action, is frequently equated with journalistic autonomy, understood as independence from political or economic influence. Similarly, universalism, which emphasises equality and concern for others, is linked to objectivity and fairness in reporting. Benevolence, in turn, is associated with ethical responsibility toward audiences and the perceived duty to consider the impact of reporting. This suggests that journalists do not see their personal values and professional values as entirely separate spheres. Instead, they actively relate and translate universal human values into professional norms. I think this is an important insight for journalism research because it shows that professional values may also be rooted in broader human value orientations.
While they have these shared values, there was more variation regarding other values, such as stimulation, power, conformity, or tradition. These were not irrelevant, but more context-dependent and flexible. Rather than being core commitments, they often functioned as instrumental values, as means to uphold more fundamental values in specific situations. In this way, they help journalists navigate tensions between personal convictions, professional norms, and institutional demands.
Given the current climate in which journalists operate, where financial and political pressures persist, how important is research like this?
Given the current climate, marked by political hostility, economic pressure, and accelerating news cycles, research like this becomes even more important. Journalism today is often produced under significant time constraints and external pressures, which means that decisions are rarely made under ideal conditions. By examining the underlying value orientations of journalists, we gain insight into how they make decisions when they are under pressure, when time for in-depth research is limited, or when competing expectations collide. The findings suggest that journalists do not simply apply professional norms rigidly. Instead, they draw on flexible value hierarchies, negotiating between personal convictions, institutional demands, and editorial expectations. This helps explain the gap we sometimes observe between normative ideas of journalism and actual practice. At the same time, this approach opens up important avenues for future research, for example, comparative studies across countries, media systems, or journalistic cultures. Understanding how value negotiations differ across contexts can help us better grasp how journalism adapts to changing political and economic environments.
Opinions expressed here are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO or the organisations with which they are affiliated.
