Countering Journalist Curse in A Bourdieusian Perspective: Metajournalistic Discourse on Doxing at Remotivi

Abstract

This research is based on the phenomenon of a shift in the pattern of attacks on the independence and freedom of journalists from physical attacks to attacks that are mediatized by digital media (digital attacks), in this case, doxing. This research focuses on a metajournalistic discourse study on doxing. The aim is to describe how doxing presents a struggle among journalists to define journalism and carry out journalistic practices that are considered autonomous. Using Bourdieu's theoretical perspective, metajournalistic discourse studies outline how journalists understand and define journalism, or their own industry and profession, in the midst of stressful situations. The method used is qualitative text analysis using data sources from metajournalistic discourse documents, which are texts written by journalists about their own industry and published on Remotivi's website. The research highlights two important findings that seem contradictory. First, doxing is seen as a product of double pressures from the political and economic fields on the journalistic field, which makes the journalistic field experience a situation of 'high degree of heteronomy'. Second, there is resistance to doxing at the discourse level, which is carried out by journalists by defining journalism that is considered ideal or journalism that is closer to the pole of autonomy in the journalistic field. This resistance is possible because these journalists have habits and journalistic capital that tend to be autonomous. This research can be used as a starting point for future research to better understand the sociological aspects of the journalist profession, which is assumed to experience various pressures from its internal and external environment.