A Brief History of The American Journalist Research, 1971-2026
Cleve Wilhoit, Emeritus Professor of Journalism, Indiana University
March, 2026
Fifty journalists were on President Richard Nixon's now-infamous “Enemies List” in mid-1971, during the Pentagon Papers era. The foundational research for the five decades of sociological surveys of the journalism profession that make up The American Journalist research (and the series of books described here) began then.[i] That benchmark research in 1971 was by University of Illinois at Chicago sociologists John W.C. Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski, and William W. Bowman. It was a massive effort, surveying journalists' attitudes more definitively than ever before, and resulted in the 1976 book The News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work, published by the University of Illinois Press.[ii] The pathbreaking work and its timing made possible a research program—begun at Indiana University in 1982 and located now at Syracuse University—bookended by the perilous threats to democracy from both the 1970s Nixon administration and those facing America now from the administration of President Donald J. Trump.
Few research programs focusing on professions as important to democracy as journalism can claim a six-decade perspective. This one can.
The Foundational Study in 1971 During the Nixon Era: John W.C. Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski, and William W. Bowman, The News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work. University of Illinois Press, 1976.
Challenges to journalists during the Nixon era of animosity, suspicion, and threats were immense. Conducted in the fall of 1971 after the U.S. Supreme Court, in “New York Times Co. v. United States,” rejected the Nixon administration’s attempt to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers, interviews with a national sample of 1,313 journalists from mainline news media reflected the ongoing struggle between the press and government.[iii] And it is easy to forget that there were tensions even within the press itself, in part because of the emergence during the Vietnam War of an underground, alternative press that challenged traditional news values. Johnstone and his colleagues described the tension as between the idea of “participant-whole truth” reporting and “neutral, nothing but-the-truth” journalism.[iv]
Not surprisingly, it was younger journalists who tended to be the most strongly “participant” in orientation. Overall, though, the 1971 study found that most journalists identified with elements of both orientations and that a large majority were enthusiastic about being a “watchdog” over government and analyzing and interpreting complex problems. Although ebbing and flowing somewhat, if one had to pick a theme to typify the more than half-century of values reflected in this research program, this would be it. A strong secondary news value, however, a more-neutral information role, was also present among many, although the research over the following decades will chart its relative decline.[v] And in the newest book in 2026, the professional tensions found by the Johnstone team will reemerge in what will be called “the objectivity wars” of the Trump era.
A New Study of the Profession in 1982 After Its Great Expansion: David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work. Indiana University Press, 1986.
By the time of the 1982 Indiana University research for the first volume of The American Journalist studies, the journalism profession had expanded by 61%, from about 69,000 full-time journalists to 112,000. The field was also basking in arguably U.S. journalism’s historic high moment, told grippingly in the classic 1976 film All the President’s Men. The dramatic tale of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s reporting that led to the Watergate scandal and the resignation of a president inspired a generation of young journalists to enter a field with older colleagues who had earlier been jeered with spiteful taunts of “nattering nabobs of negativism” by the Nixon administration.[vi]
The Indiana University research—supported by a grant from the Gannett Foundation—analyzed a profession that was now a mix of older and younger “baby boomers” in a greatly expanded field. Surprisingly, the new study showed a slight decline in job satisfaction and the beginning of a slight downward trend in perceived journalistic autonomy compared to what the Johnstone team found in 1971. Still, commitment to the profession remained relatively high, although the “leavers” now tended to be the older, highly experienced and educated personnel—whom we called “the best and brightest.” And critics already were claiming that the field had become too cocky and “adversarial,” particularly toward public officials. As a result, the research probed for an adversarial mindset among journalists in the national sample. We found it, but the analysis showed the stance was far less prevalent than critics claimed. And the new research suggested that what the Johnstone research had labeled a decade earlier as “participant” and “neutral” journalistic orientations were now more aptly described by three categories of roles that we named interpretive/investigative (which was slightly dominant), information disseminator (a strong but slightly secondary role), and newly emerged (but distinctly minority) adversarial role.
The American Journalist Book of 1986 Gets a Revised Edition: David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland (with contributions by Lori A. Bergen, Dan G. Drew, and Sue A. Lafky), The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work, Second Edition, Indiana University Press, 1991.
By the late 1980s, the political role of journalists was so widely recognized—and debated—that John Gallman, director of the Indiana University Press, urged us to do a second edition of the 1986 book, The American Journalist. The new edition in 1991 looked more closely at what the 1982 data showed about the growing role of broadcast news, the impact of women in the profession, and the news values reflected in the examples of “best work” shared by the national sample of journalists. IU faculty colleague Dan G. Drew and doctoral students Lori Bergen and Sue Lafky (now deceased) collaborated on a new edition, showing that women had made significant progress and had considerable impact as journalism expanded dramatically into a young person’s field. Partly because of new federal equal-opportunity rules and courageous pushing by activists, female journalists now comprised one-third of the workforce, up from one-fifth a decade earlier.
The revised book’s analysis of news stories—submitted as “best work”—written by many of those in the 1982 sample, confirmed that what they considered their best work was largely not adversarial in tone but tended to reflect their enthusiasm for the disseminator and investigative roles. Analysis of the characteristics and values of the broadcast journalists in the sample found them roughly similar to their print colleagues.[vii]
A New National Study in 1992: David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the end of an Era. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1996.
As fieldwork began in June 1992 for The American Journalist in the 1990s, the term “surfing the web” was common, but the looming Internet was not yet the dominant backdrop for the new research. Instead, a mild economic recession hit the media industry hard, slowing the growth of the news profession.
The Freedom Forum, an international foundation (and successor to the Gannett Foundation) devoted to the development of journalists and a free press, supported the new wave of research at Indiana University and the 1996 book, The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the End of an Era. The new research found that job satisfaction and perceived autonomy continued the decline that emerged a decade earlier and, more significantly, the number of journalists planning to leave the field had doubled to about 20%. And the “leavers” again, as suggested by the earlier research, tended to be among “the best and the brightest.”
Surprisingly, the 1996 research found a slight drop in journalists’ enthusiasm for the interpretive-investigative value and a resurgence of the disseminator role. More significantly, an analysis of the “best work” submitted by many of the journalists—done by doctoral student Divya C. McMillan—found that the disseminator role appeared to dominate much of the work submitted, unlike a decade earlier.[viii] Despite all that, in the minds of the journalists in the 1992 sample, a new role was forming among a small minority. We called it the populist-mobilizer orientation—the goal of encouraging audience involvement in community problem solving, largely inspired by the “civic/public journalism” movement that had gained importance early in the decade.
A highlight of the new book in 1996 was the “Foreword,” written by Everette Dennis, director of the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center at Columbia University. Despite the profession's slowing growth, Dennis wrote that a “silver lining” was that “media executives had made good on their promise to hire and promote more minorities.” While the increase was small, minority representation went from about 4% to 8% in the 1992 data. And Dennis noted that the “precepts of professionalism” that emerged from the book suggested that “when basic news decisions are made, professionalism and not personal bias, prevails.”[ix]
Another significant addition to the 1996 book was the “Afterword,” written by Trevor Brown, dean of the Indiana School of Journalism, titled “A Calling at Risk,” in which he anticipated the peril of a “wired society that informs itself if it cares to and seems to prefer that its multimedia entertain it.”[x]
A National Conference for Journalists to Review the New Book in 1996
At a national conference just after the publication of The American Journalist in the 1990s—at the headquarters of the Freedom Forum Foundation in Arlington, Virginia, whose grant supported the research—Brian Buchanan, the Foundation’s director of journalism programs, and a panel of three noted journalists reacted to critical findings from the book. James Fallows, Washington editor of The Atlantic, stressed the book’s findings about the idealism journalists expressed in being drawn to a “noble” profession. That would ring true for many, he said, although the altruistic image of their work appeared to stand in stark contrast to a growing negative, distrustful view of them among the public at large. A concern for Fallows, though, was the finding of a slight but significant decline in journalists’ enthusiasm for the interpretive-investigative value and a resurgence of the disseminator role.[xi]
Other panelists highlighted important aspects of the book. Wanda Lloyd, managing editor of the Greenville (SC) News, emphasized the data suggesting progress toward closing the “gender gap” but noted that the slight increase in minority staff showed much less progress. Richard Morin, a writer and director of polling at The Washington Post, pointed to the book’s data suggesting the field lacked diversity in both political ideology and too little reflection of the religious makeup of society at large.[xii]
A Third National Study – Done in the New Millennium, 2002: David H. Weaver, Randal A. Beam, Bonnie J. Brownlee, Paul S. Voakes, and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. Journalists At The Dawn Of A New Millennium, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2007.
The third national survey in the series was done in 2002, supported by a major grant from the John S. and John L. Knight Foundation. And, for the new research, Randal A. Beam, Bonnie J. Brownlee, and Paul S. Voakes—all Indiana colleagues then—joined us for the fieldwork and in the new book, The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People At The Dawn Of A New Millennium. That research reflected retrenchment in the field, with the words “downsizing” and “layoff” becoming common. Our estimate was that the fulltime professional workforce had declined by about 5% over the decade. The Internet was now commonplace, with the Pew Research Center estimating that about 55 million people in the U.S. used it at work. A few early social media sites had launched, but it would be a year before Mark Zuckerberg originated Facebook.[xiii] And, although online journalism was still in relative infancy, a growing number of media, particularly newspapers, had websites. As a result, the “new millennium” data included for the first time a separate sample of 100 online journalists for a chapter, all their own, in the new book. They tended to be more like journalists in the overall sample than expected but appeared less likely to be involved in reporting and to have less autonomy—and worked on larger staffs than was typical for most journalists.
In the 2002 data—as news media struggled to maintain longstanding profit margins amidst audience changes and consolidation of ownership—there were some surprises. Job satisfaction showed a slight uptick, and journalists rated the quality of their organizations’ performance somewhat higher than a decade earlier. And, for a change, salaries slightly outpaced inflation. Still, as “convergence” became a watchword, journalists were facing the emergence of “multiplatform” demands to be skilled in a variety of media forms. And perceived autonomy continued its slight but steady decline. Even so, the number of journalists planning to leave the field also declined slightly, reversing the historic rise to more than a fifth planning to “defect” a decade earlier.
Perhaps the biggest change, though, was the diminished salience of the disseminator role, with significant declines in the perceived importance of speed in getting information out to the widest audience. Along with that change, the new populist mobilizer role had increased significantly to about one-tenth of the journalists in our study. The interpretive-investigative role was dominant, although slightly less strong than in the 1970s.
The “New Millennium” book placed a stronger focus on the ethics of controversial reporting practices, which had been studied since the early 1980s. We found that the tolerance for some deceptive reporting practices had declined, especially claiming to be somebody else and going undercover. Disclosing the names of sexual violence victims was now justified by a smaller minority of journalists, as was the use of personal documents without consent. On the other hand, a majority deemed the disclosure of unauthorized official and business documents sometimes acceptable, after a surprising spike in ambivalence about this practice in the 1980s.
The Fourth National Survey in the Context of The Digital Age: Lars Willnat, David H. Weaver, & G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the Digital Age: A Half-Century Perspective, Peter Lang Publishing, 2017.
A maturing “digital age” set the stage for the fourth survey in The American Journalist series, conducted at the end of 2013 and led by Lars Willnat, then on the Indiana University faculty (now the John Ben Snow Research Professor at Syracuse University). The IU School of Journalism and its dean, Bradley Hamm, supported the new research with funds.
As some experts proclaimed that the change wrought by the emerging “smart phone” era was the greatest shift in journalism history, the questions we had asked for decades now assumed even greater importance. The creativity afforded journalists by the new multiplatform storytelling was happening at the same time social media, dominated by Facebook, were gobbling up advertising dollars at an alarming rate. Downsizing, layoffs, and social media became a near-universal mantra for the new landscape, along with a new political hostility that challenged the field's integrity. The nascent changes appeared to rekindle an old spirit among journalists, one that the newspaper columnist Russell Baker, a quarter-century earlier, called “a zealot’s belief in the importance of the present moment.”[xiv] Surprisingly, though, the 2013 study found that although the idea of getting information out quickly was still highly valued by a majority of journalists, the overall disseminator role continued its decline in perceived importance. The data suggested that most journalists aspired first to be “watchdog-interpreters”—checking official claims and then putting those findings on policy issues into a meaningful context.
The journalistic workforce, however, continued to decline in numbers, but was also more educated, seasoned, and experienced than at the turn of the century. Other markers of professionalism declined, though, with job satisfaction, autonomy, and the esteem for the quality of their news organizations’ performance down again. The level of caution in using controversial news practices also continued.
Social media use by journalists in their work was now extensive, with 76% using it and considering it at least “somewhat important.” In addition, most had overall positive views of social media’s professional impact.
Median income lagged inflation and in 2012 numbers had only 75% of the buying power journalists had in the 1970s.
The new book, The American Journalist in the Digital Age: A Half-Century Perspective, was selected for the Lang Publishing mass communication and journalism series by Lee B. Becker, professor of journalism at the University of Georgia and a Lang general editor. The book was dedicated to the distinguished journalist Gwen Ifill.
(The previous four books received national Sigma Delta Chi and Bronze Medal Awards for distinguished research in service of journalism from the Society of Professional Journalists.)
A Fifth National Survey in 2022: Lars Willnat, David H. Weaver & G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist Under Attack: Media, Trust, and Democracy, Peter Lang Publishing, 2026.
Bookended by the crisis in democracy during the Nixon era of the 1970s, the new research in 2022 took place in the stressful aftermath of the 2021 Capitol insurrection. In addition, lingering effects of the Covid-19 epidemic were still prevalent. Arguably, the timing of the fieldwork, conducted for the first time at Syracuse University, was optimal for assessing a journalism profession under severe stress. The new research builds on six decades of sociological findings on the American journalism profession, beginning in 1971.
The John Ben Snow Foundation funded the new research through its endowment of the Newhouse School of Public Communications research professorship held by lead researcher Lars Willnat.
The new book includes chapters on women and people of color, written by Syracuse University postdoctoral fellow Martina Santia. It also has a new chapter on public media journalists, written by doctoral student Stan Jastrebzki. Peter Lang Publishers published The American Journalist Under Attack: Media, Democracy, and Trust in May 2026. Dr. Elizabeth Howard, an editor at Lang Publishing, supervised the book's publication.
In the “Foreword” for the new book, now available, Margaret Talev, founding director of the Syracuse University Institute for Democracy, Journalism, and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., highlights the importance of the 2022 research findings for these critical concerns: Can traditional mainstream news survive? Is the Watergate-era framework for accountability over, and if so, what will replace it? Should objectivity remain the goal and basis for news reporting? How can newsrooms tell the story of America unless their demographics—gender, ethnicity, region, and educational attainment reflect the nation’s? Should journalists play an active or bystander role in protecting democracy?
The new book is available from Peter Lang Publishing here.
References
[i] Byrne, J. P. (2022). Enemies List. Ebsco Knowledge Advantage. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/enemies-list#full-article
[ii] Johnstone, J. W. C., Slawski, E. J., & Bowman, W. W. (1986). The News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work. University of Illinois Press.
[iii] Robertson, S. (2025, October 2). New York Times Co. v. United States )1971. The Free Speech Center. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/new-york-times-co-v-united-states/ and Johnstone et al, p. xii.
[iv] Johnstone, et al., p. 131.
[v] Johnstone, et al., pp. 117 and 131.
[vi] The taunt was spread widely by Vice President Spiro Agnew, although, apparently, it was Nixon speechwriter William Safire (ironically later an influential columnist for The New York Times) who originally penned the words. See: Remnick, R. (2006, July 10). Nattering Nabobs. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/10/nattering-nabobs
[vii] Weaver, D. H. & Wilhoit, G. C., with contributions by Bergen, L. A., Drew, D. G., & Lafky, S. (1991). The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work (2nd edition). Indiana University Press.
[viii] Weaver, D. H. & Wilhoit, G. C. (1996). The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the End of an Era. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[ix] Dennis, E., Foreword, in Weaver, D. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1996). The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the End of an Era. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. xv.
[x] Brown, T., Afterword, in Weaver, D. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1996), p. 246.
[xi] C-SPAN Archive (1996, July 9). The American Journalist in the 1990s. The Freedom Forum national conference is available for viewing. See: https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/the-american-journalist-in-the-1990s/57570#:~:text=At%20this%20FREEDOM%20FORUM%20event,issues%20that%20this%20book%20raises.
[xii] C-SPAN Archive (1996, July 9).
[xiii] Pew Research Center (2014, March 14). World Wide Web Timeline. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/03/11/world-wide-web-timeline/
[xiv] Baker, R. (1994, March 1). Observer: The Recovery Room. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/01/opinion/observer-the-recovery-room.html