Digital Journalism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdij20

What Does a Journalist Look like? Visualizing

Journalistic Roles through AI

Ryan J. Thomas & T. J. Thomson

To cite this article: Ryan J. Thomas & T. J. Thomson (07 Jul 2023): What Does a
Journalist Look like? Visualizing Journalistic Roles through AI, Digital Journalism, DOI:
10.1080/21670811.2023.2229883

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2229883

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 07 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2333

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rdij20
Digital Journalism
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2229883

Research Article

What Does a Journalist Look like? Visualizing

Journalistic Roles through AI
Ryan J. Thomasa and T. J. Thomsonb*
a
Washington State University, Pullman, USA; bSchool of Communication and Digital Media Research
Centre, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The question of “who is a journalist?” has animated much discus- Journalistic representation;
sion in journalism scholarship. Such discussions generally stem metajournalistic discourse;
from the intersecting technological, economic, and social transfor- artificial intelligence; AI;
mations journalism has faced in the twenty-first century. An equally visual representation;
generative art; algorithmic
relevant aspect, albeit one that has hitherto been less studied, is
art; synthetic media
what a journalist looks like. Some studies have tackled this through,
for example, examining depictions of journalists in popular culture,
but artificial intelligence understandings of what a journalist is and
what they look like have yet to receive research attention. While
AI-enabled generative art has existed since the late 1990s, the ease
and accessibility of these processes has greatly been boosted by
providers like Midjourney which emerged since the 2020s and
allow those without programming skills to easily create algorithmic
images from text prompts. This study analyzes 84 images gener-
ated by AI from four “generic” keywords (“journalist,” “reporter,” “cor-
respondent,” and “the press”) and three “specialized” ones (“news
analyst,” “news commentator,” and “fact-checker”) over a six-month
period. The results reveal an uneven distribution of gender and
digital technology between the generic and specialized roles and
prompt reflection on how AI perpetuates extant biases in the
social world.

An oft-discussed topic in the digital journalism age is “Who is a journalist?” (see, e.g.,
Johnston and Wallace 2017; Ugland and Henderson 2007). Discussions within jour-
nalism studies on this matter have tended to focus around the “democratization of
media production” that has been the purported consequence of the diffusion to mass
publics of content creation technologies once restricted to journalists (Lewis, Kaufhold,
and Lasorsa 2010, 164). However, there is a visual aspect to this question that is
frequently overlooked. We know relatively little, for example, of the images that people
(or technologies) recall (and create) when prompted to visualize a journalist. This is
despite the persuasive power of images both generally (Coleman 2010) and in shaping
understandings about journalism and how it ought to be practiced (Peters 2015).

CONTACT T. J. Thomson [email protected]

*Additional affiliation: School of Media and Communication, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which
this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

This study explores how innovations in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine
learning – defined here as “the training of a machine to learn from data, recognize
patterns, and make subsequent judgments, with little to no human intervention”
(Broussard et al. 2019, 673) – can reveal subconscious understandings of what it
means to be a journalist. Specifically, we do this through examining browser-based,
algorithmic image-generating platforms to explore how four seemingly “generic”
keywords (journalist, reporter, correspondent, and the press) and three “specialized” ones
(news analyst, news commentator, and fact-checker) are depicted across image sets
and, thus, how collective consciousness “sees” these words and visualizes their prop-
erties and relationships.

Literature Review
The literature review that follows introduces the study’s theoretical framework of
metajournalistic discourse, discusses scholarship on visual representations of journalists,
and provides an overview of AI, generative art and synthetic media. Context about
the visual social semiotics elements that inform this study’s analysis are presented in
the methods section.

Metajournalistic Discourse and the Social Construction of Journalism

The label metajournalistic discourse pertains to “public expressions evaluating news
texts, the practices that produce them, or the conditions of their reception” (Carlson
2016, 353). Broadly, metajournalistic discourse can mean any discourse about or
pertaining to journalism. Metajournalistic discourse matters because it shapes what
journalism means to those who practice and consume it. It consequently not only
reflects but constructs journalism’s authority and legitimacy, which do not simply
“emerge” but must be discursively formalized and buttressed (Carlson 2016, Vos and
Thomas 2018).
As a theoretical and methodological strategy, the analysis of metajournalistic
discourse is premised on an understanding of discourse as organized language
(visual or verbal) in service of meaning or, more simply, as active and “doing”
something. As Carlson (2016) puts it, “it is through metajournalistic discourse that
the meanings of journalism are formed and transformed by actors inside and out-
side of journalism” (350). It follows that different actors use metajournalistic dis-
course for different purposes. It can be a discourse of insiders for insiders, such as
can be found in trade publications like Columbia Journalism Review (see, e.g., Vos
and Thomas 2018) or a discourse of insiders for outsiders, such as can be found in
public-facing editorials and opinion columns when journalism is confronted with
ethical crises and challenges to its legitimacy (see, e.g., Hindman and Thomas
2013). Such discourses tend to demonstrate how journalists police the boundaries
and practices of their own field. However, it can also occur as a discourse of out-
siders for insiders, such as in audience members’ evaluative online comments on
journalistic practice (see, e.g., Craft, Vos, and Wolfgang 2016), or a discourse of
outsiders for outsiders - that is, produced by people generally with no ties to
 Digital Journalism 3

journalism for an audience of people generally with no ties to journalism, as can

be found in depictions of journalism in popular culture (see, e.g., Ehrlich and
Saltzman 2015).

Visualizing Journalism and Journalists

In a visual context, we understand discourse to include both the site for social action
and interaction as well as “a social construction of reality, a form of knowledge”
(Fairclough 1995, 17-18). It can include a wide array of representations, such as pho-
tographs, title sequences in television, graphics for social causes, and, in this case,
synthetic media. The investigation of these discourses ought to go beyond “identifying
certain features or characteristics” to explore why these features exist, how they are
produced, and what ideologies they advance (Aiello and Parry 2020, 11).
Much of the literature on metajournalistic discourse has focused on the construc-
tion of journalism and journalists via the written or spoken word, as found in news
reporting, opinion columns, and the like. Journalism can also be visually constructed,
of course. A particularly important body of work in this vein has been scholarship
looking at the representation of journalists in popular culture. Scholars in this area
emphasize the persuasive power of visual representations as “powerful tool[s] for
thinking about what journalism is and should be” (Ehrlich and Saltzman 2015, 1).
Popular culture portrayals of both journalistic virtue and journalistic vice reinforce
notions of how journalism ought to be practiced, serving as teaching tools that
encourage reflection on journalism’s role in society and on the efficacy and ethics
of its practices (Ehrlich 2006, 2010; Ehrlich and Saltzman 2015; Feng 2022; Ferrucci
2018; McNair 2009).
Evaluations of popular culture depictions of journalism ought to attend to matters
of professionalism, difference, power, and visuality itself (Ehrlich and Saltzman 2015).
Regarding professionalism, scholars should examine the degree to which journalists
are shown as seedy peddlers of sensationalized gossip or shown as more respectable
professionals with training, credentials, and adherence to accepted ethical norms.
Regarding the second consideration, difference, scholars should concern themselves
with whether journalists are shown as aloof, elite, and disconnected from ordinary
citizens or whether they are seen as blending into the crowd and being no different
to anyone else. Regarding the third consideration, power, scholars should be attentive
to journalists’ relationship to power and whether they are shown as holding power
to account for the public good or are instead using power for personal gain.
Regarding the fourth and final consideration, visuality itself, scholars should note
the degree to which visual media (such as television news) focuses on infotainment
and diversion at the expense of information and civic journalism. Here, the aspects
of authenticity or accuracy, trivialization, and dehumanization are most salient
(Thomson et al. 2022b).
The literature on depictions of journalists in popular culture skews significantly
toward the study of visual media. The majority of this work has focused on how
journalists have been rendered in movies (see, e.g., Ehrlich 2006, 2010; Feng 2022;
McNair 2009) and on television shows (see, e.g., Ferrucci 2018; Ferrucci and Painter
2016, 2017; Painter 2017; Painter and Ferrucci 2017; Peters 2015), for example, with
4 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

other visual forms such as comic books, cartoons, and advertisements attracting far
less attention. AI-generated images provide an alternative and conceptually innovative
way of studying the visual representation of journalists, not least because of how
they complicate the notion of authorship in terms of who (or what) is doing the
work of representing.

AI, Authorship, and Agency

A central assumption of metajournalistic discourse analysis, that discourse is active,
draws our attention to the different actors involved and the motivations that drive
their discourse. For example, a news organization’s ombudsman investigating reader
complaints, an audience member commenting on a social media post of a news story,
and a movie director making a film about journalistic malpractice will all, clearly, have
different motivations and goals.
In this regard, the existing research on metajournalistic discourse can be said to
represent the “key theoretical constant” in journalism studies (and communication
studies generally) that “scholars have primarily defined communication as an activity
between and among humans” (Lewis, Guzman, and Schmidt 2019, 411). Artificial
intelligence questions this understanding of communication because it removes the
human-as-messenger framework that has been the foundation of communication
research, complicating notions of agency and authorship (Guzman 2018; Lewis,
Guzman, and Schmidt 2019).
How, then, do we situate AI-generated images (or AI-generated content, broadly,
for that matter) within the framework of metajournalistic discourse? One approach to
this question is to note the human hand, so to speak, behind AI processes. This
approach emphasizes how AI processes “are built through choices” (Culver and Minocher
2021, 328) as the algorithms that drive AI are, after all, “designed by people, and
people embed their unconscious biases in algorithms” (Broussard 2018, 150). Overall,
this perspective queries the notion that AI-generated images are truly without an
“author.” A second approach would be to hold that the question of authorship is of
less relevance than the question of how meaning is created in the interaction among
humans and machines (Guzman 2018; Lewis, Guzman, and Schmidt 2019). Scholars in
this vein have argued that communication ought to be conceptualized holistically as
the creation of meaning rather than being seen as synonymous with actor-centric
human communication (Guzman 2018; Lewis, Guzman, and Schmidt 2019). Without
disagreeing with the first view, we believe the second provides the impetus for the
investigation of interesting empirical questions. This is to say that taking the perspec-
tive of communication as the creation of meaning trains our attention on what mean-
ings are made in AI-generated images, making them ripe for being read as “texts.”

Generative Art
Many people associate AI with “thinking” robots or computers capable of mimicking
human reasoning and behavior, but this understanding is not entirely accurate. AI is
a term that is often “haphazardly” invoked (Broussard et al. 2019, 673) but narrowly
refers to a subfield of computer science that itself contains other subfields such as
 Digital Journalism 5

machine learning, expert systems, and natural language processing. AI is not capable
of sentience but is “merely complex and beautiful mathematics” (Broussard et al. 2019,
677). Lewis defines machine learning within the AI field as “the training of a machine
to learn from data, recognize patterns, and make subsequent judgments, with little
to no human intervention” (in Broussard et al. 2019, 673).
Generative art refers to art “created when an artist cedes some degree of control
to an autonomous system that creates, or is, the art” (Galanter 2019, 112). The history
of generative and computer art began in the mid-1960s in Germany (Boden and
Edmonds 2009). The evolution of computers in the subsequent decades and their
increased processing power contributed to the development of generative art and
the possibilities for what could be created and how. These forces were further
enhanced through networked computers and Internet-connected devices which broad-
ened the scope of what computers could do and how they function. Generative art,
however, does not necessarily have to include a computer or digital technology, even
though such features are common in today’s landscape. In this study, we operation-
alize “generative” art as images that are produced at least partly automatically by a
piece of computer software. Boden and Edmonds (2009) note that many terms such
as generative art, computer art, digital art, computational art, and electronic art are
used interchangeably and synonymously. However, others have tried to draw distinc-
tions around these terms. For example, some scholars distinguish among interaction
art, generative art, and robotic art though they also admit that these definitions are
not fixed (see, e.g., Leggett 2000; Popper 2007). Notably, the above-mentioned prob-
lems of authorship and intent that span discussions about artificial intelligence are
also germane concerns within debates about generative art (Galanter 2019).
We use generative art and synthetic media in this study to denote the partly
automatic process of creation coupled with the acknowledgement that the creation
is informed by a combination of components or elements (in this case, often-online
image databases and corpora that the software draws on to respond to a text prompt).
This study is concerned with Midjourney, one type of text-to-image software that is
based on deep learning generative models (Oppenlaender 2022). Technical expertise
is not a requirement to use this software and, as a result, this democratization of
usage has led to an increase of users and outputs from Midjourney and similar plat-
forms in recent years.
Making “art” or generating synthetic images in this case, is an iterative process.
The user can tweak the command - known as “prompt engineering,” “prompt pro-
gramming,” or “prompting” (Liu and Chilton 2022) and receive a subtly or markedly
different result. The Midjourney interface itself also supports and enables this iterative
process through providing users with an option to “upscale” the result in greater
fidelity or to “remix” it and return additional variations without adjusting the
text prompt.

Synthesis and Research Questions

The above research leads us to an understanding of metajournalistic discourse as
spaces where meanings about journalism are constructed. One aspect of meta-
journalistic discourse analysis entails the examination of discourse that constructs
6 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

the boundaries of who a journalist is, and what they do. Such boundaries can be
shaped visually, as in the case of images of journalists in popular culture. Generative
art – a form of art that draws on an algorithm to create images in response to
user prompting – is an arena of discourse where meanings about what a journalist
looks like may circulate, and is a hitherto unstudied area of metajournalistic
discourse.
Understandings of journalism are typically examined in narrow and discrete ways,
such as how specific types of journalists see themselves (Moon 2021; Willis 2009),
how audience members perceive journalists (Rauch 2019), or how journalists are
represented in a specific medium, such as film or television (Feng 2022; Ferrucci
2018). Exploring how AI “sees” journalism provides a unique perspective by com-
bining genres, media, and conventions to present a composite view. This unique
perspective is informed by a variety of sources, from movie frame grabs and car-
toons to photojournalism and stock photography. By broadening the parameters
we use to examine what is journalism and what a journalist looks like, we are
treated to a rich thought experiment about who journalists are, how they work,
and what relationships they have to others and to their environment. Doing so
allows an examination of the convergence or divergence between AI vision and
other social actors’ perceptions about journalism. Musing about how journalists and
journalism are represented through AI can also provide insight on the blindspots
and biases that journalists will encounter and potentially reproduce without aware-
ness and conscientious control. This is increasingly important as news organizations
and journalists begin integrating AI-generated images into their reporting processes
(Grut 2022).
Our preliminary investigation into these images began with an examination of
broad, “generic” terms that capture generic journalistic labels. Accordingly, we ask:

RQ1:How does the AI-enabled image generator Midjourney, as a proxy for broader collec-
tive consciousness, “see” the “generic” terms journalist, reporter, correspondent, and the
press?

We wanted to go beyond generic labels to investigate a few more “specialized”

journalistic roles. Accordingly, we ask:

RQ2:How does the AI-enabled image generator Midjourney, as a proxy for broader collec-
tive consciousness, “see” the “specialized” terms news analyst, news commentator, and
fact-checker?

Additionally, we are curious to explore how constant or variable these AI-generated

results are over time. As such, we propose a third, longitudinal question that allows
us to begin to explore this aspect. We therefore ask:

RQ3:How stable or variable are the results (both in terms of what is represented and how)
for the same keywords from RQs 1 and 2 when the generation process is repeated six
months later?
 Digital Journalism 7

Method
On August 14, 2022, we created a Midjourney account and began developing text
prompts to create generative images through the software’s capabilities. To do this,
the user joins a Discord server and enters a slash command in a bot channel (e.g.,/
imagine prompt [text here]). For each text prompt, Midjourney, over the span of
roughly 30-60 seconds, generates a series of four images in a 2 × 2 grid based on that
prompt. Users then have the option of upscaling the image (increasing its resolution)
or creating additional variations (that are “similar in overall style and composition to
the image you selected”). Each generative prompt (including upscaling or creating
variations) uses one of 25 free “jobs” for new accounts that, as of June 2023, do not
expire but also do not renew. Midjourney also offers paid plans for those wishing
additional features (such as renders that are privately rather than publicly visible) or
additional “jobs” (that are used to create new renders, upscale them, or iterate on
them through variations).
Midjourney allows users much flexibility in their commands, which then influences
the resulting visual output. For example, a user could enter a generic and simple,
one-word prompt like “flower” or a highly detailed and specific, multi-word prompt,
like “a sunflower atop a hill in London amidst blowing snow at night with a dragon
in the background.” However, this study is interested in seeing how AI “sees” a jour-
nalist and represents what they look like. As such, the text prompts for RQ1 were
kept as generic as possible. We decided on four prompts: journalist, reporter, corre-
spondent, and the press.
The text prompts for RQ2 were developed with an intent to study the changing
nature of specialized journalistic roles in the digital age. To identify the key words
for this research question, we referred to five journalistic roles proposed by Weaver,
Willnat, and Wilhoit (2019). These include:

• “Provide analysis of complex problems”

• “Avoid stories with unverified content”
• “Discuss national policy”
• “Let people express their views”
• “Provide entertainment”

We distilled each of these into a single keyword. For example, “Provide analysis of
complex problems” became news analyst; “avoid stories with unverified content”
became fact-checker; and “discuss national policy,” “let people express their views,” and
“provide entertainment” became news commentator.
In order to study the stability or variability of results over time (for RQ3), as sug-
gested by a peer reviewer, we generated in Midjourney an additional two rounds of
image sets for the same seven keywords six months after generating the first. During
this time, without warning and while the original study was under peer review,
Midjourney released an upgrade to its algorithm (from v 3.0 to v 4.0).
8 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

Visual Social Semiotics

Visual social semiotics is a theoretical and analytical framework for “examining how
images convey meaning” (Harrison 2003, 47). Its proponents argue that an image is
a social process where meaning is negotiated between the creator and the viewer,
and where social, cultural, political beliefs, values, and attitudes can influence the
meaning that is made. Indeed, semiotic modes are shaped both by intrinsic qualities
of the medium, the nature of machine learning and algorithmic vision, in this case,
as well as by “histories and values of societies and their cultures” (Kress and van
Leeuwen 2021, 20).
Kress and van Leeuwen (2021) argue that an image performs three meta-semiotic
tasks to create meaning. These include the representational metafunction, interpersonal
metafunction, and compositional metafunction. They describe the interpersonal meta-
function as about the actions among all the participants involved in creating and
viewing an image. This includes the creator, those depicted, and the viewer. This
metafunction answers the overall question, “How does the picture engage the viewer?”.
It operates specifically through four features and processes, including image act and
gaze; social distance and intimacy; and horizontal and vertical perspective.
Image act and gaze refers to the gaze of the person(s) depicted in relation to the
viewer. A “demand” image act and gaze occurs when the person(s) depicted look
directly at the viewer. Conversely, an “offer” image act and gaze occurs when the
person(s) depicted look outside the frame or at someone or something within the
image. The person(s) are shown more passively with this image act and are presented
as an object of contemplation, leading to less engagement than with a “demand”
image act.
Social distance and intimacy refers to how close the person(s) depicted are to the
viewer, which connotes feelings of intimacy or distance. Harrison (2003) defines six
potential social distances, including intimate (where the head and face only are seen),
close personal (where the head and shoulders are seen), far personal (where the
figure[s] are seen from the waist up), close social (where the whole figure is seen),
far social (where the whole figure with space around it is seen), and public (where
torsos of several people are seen).
Horizontal perspective refers to the parallel or non-parallel positioning of the sub-
ject(s) in the frame relative to the viewer. When those who are observed are shown
frontally to the viewer, this angle creates stronger engagement with the viewer and
implies that the person(s) depicted are “one of us.” Conversely, when an oblique angle
is used, this creates a sense of detachment and implies that the person(s) depicted
are “one of them.”
Vertical perspective refers to either the vertical relationship between the person(s)
depicted and the viewer or between or among the people depicted in the frame.
The consideration here is of the meaning of angles, such as high viewing angles
where the depicted person(s) are “looking up” which tend to show the person(s)
depicted with less power. Medium-angle perspectives where the person(s) depicted
are looking “horizontally” tend to show them with equal power to the viewer. Low-angle
perspectives, where the person(s) depicted are looking down, tend to show them
with greater power.
 Digital Journalism 9

Process of Analysis
Analysis for the images generated in August 2022 (for RQ1 and 2) began in an induc-
tive fashion through an open coding process (Parmeggiani 2009) where both members
of the research team viewed the images generated from the defined prompts and
noted salient aspects. Analysis continued in a deductive fashion informed by visual
social semiotics (specifically the semiotic resources of image act/gaze, distance, and
vertical and horizontal points of view) and previous literature about representations of
journalists/journalism (specifically the sites of professionalism, difference, power, and
visuality that Ehrlich and Saltzman [2015] suggested). Each set of four images was
analyzed individually and then all four image sets were also analyzed as a composite.
In instances where potential ambiguity existed, the research team re-rendered specific
prompts by “upscaling” them (which added both resolution and additional detail/
clarity) so this ambiguity could be resolved1.
Analysis for the images generated in February 2023 (for RQ3) began by placing
the images (84) from all three generations onto a single screen, divided into columns
by keyword, so that an appreciation could be achieved for how similar or dissimilar
the results were over time. The images were then assessed column-by-column for
what was depicted and then for how they were depicted to assess the stability or
variability of algorithmic vision related to these terms.

Findings
Our analysis of the 16 images visualizing the four “generic” terms (journalist, reporter,
correspondent, and the press) identified certain consistent attributes. In nearly all of
the images, the algorithm associated these terms with being a light-skinned, conser-
vatively attired woman. Traces of digital technology were remarkably absent through-
out these images. By contrast, the 12 images visualizing the three “specialized” terms
(news analyst, news commentator, and fact-checker) highlighted digital technologies
much more prevalently and featured (older, light-skinned) men to a much greater
degree. Overall, these images provide a rich foundation for analyzing and reflecting
on who gets to be (or should be) a journalist doing which role(s), where, for whom,
and with which tools. The sections that follow report our findings for the two research
questions in turn.

Visualizing the Generic Journalist: Isolated, Female, and Urban

Our first research question probed how AI visualizes four seemingly generic terms:
journalist, reporter, correspondent, and the press. These are each analyzed and critically
interpreted separately using a mix of visual social semiotic attributes and literature
from the journalism studies canon.

Algorithmically Seeing the “Journalist”

The first prompt, “journalist,” portrays the profession as an independent and isolating
one (see Figure 1). The journalist is shown alone in each of the four renderings the
10 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

Figure 1. The “Journalist”.

AI process produced. Nowhere to be seen are the colleagues, such as camera oper-
ators, editors, or fixers, that are essential to the journalistic production process across
outlets, contexts, and markets. Nowhere to be seen, either, are the sources on whom
journalists rely for quotes, commentary, and expertise. In this view, the idea of the
journalist as a one-person band is highlighted. The three head-on and tight head-and-
shoulder shots (with even and flattering light against a plain background) in this grid
are reminiscent of social media profile pictures and speak to how digital platforms
have become essential to journalistic identity and to reporting practices (see Lough,
Molyneux, and Holton 2018).
The journalist is shown as what appears to be a woman in all four images. When
her face can be seen, she appears to be wearing lipstick and other makeup and to
have medium-length, brushed hair. She is conventionally attractive and largely con-
servative in appearance. For example, there are no visible tattoos or piercings on
what little of her (fair) skin can be seen. She wears full-length sleeves and a high-fitting
(often collared) shirt that is sometimes accompanied by a necktie. While a woman
wearing a necktie is not conventional - neckties are stereotypically and heteronor-
matively associated with a particular kind of conservative, conformist, white-collar
masculinity (see Harris 2002) - it perhaps speaks to a vision of a professionalized
journalist and as a white-collar worker who is comfortable in the echelons of power
and comfortable interacting with elite sources that many Western news outlets (over)
rely on (see Carlson 2009). The lighting in 1C suggests early morning or late evening
and nods to the 24-hour nature of the job. What is most striking and perhaps dis-
turbing is frame 1D, which appears to show the journalist without a mouth. The
journalist’s nose is replaced with a beak-like point and, below this, a gaping black
void. In this frame, the journalist appears to be looking down somewhat menacingly
or at least in a determined fashion, at whatever lies in front of her.

Algorithmically Seeing the “Reporter”

The second prompt, reporter, portrays the profession in a more collectivist and situ-
ated manner. The reporter figure, who still appears, as in Figure 1, as a conventionally
attractive, fair-skinned, and conservatively dressed woman, for the first time is shown
interacting with people, or, at least, observing them (see Figure 2). In 2A, the reporter
watches two other indistinct figures in the distance (the figures are in too great
proximity to one another to have a conversation unless it was being shouted) and
 Digital Journalism 11

Figure 2. The “Reporter”.

Figure 3. The “Correspondent”.

it appears that she has some sort of notebook in her hands she is using to document
her observations.
The reporter appears to be outside or at least situated in proximity to an outdoor
(urban) environment in three of the four renderings. In each of these three renderings,
tall buildings with spires indicate that the reporter is based in an urban core within
easy access to sources and sites of power. Indeed, the final rendering (2D) with its
grand stature and stories of columned facades suggests a government building, such
as a parliament or state house. The reporter is oriented toward this building, sug-
gesting that she is engaging in the watchdog function of journalism and, by her
presence, proactively keeping government (and power, more broadly) to account. Her
business clothes in these renderings are typical in an urban environment; however,
she is wearing a distinctive shade of orange underneath her jacket, which is visible
in the two frames (2B and 2C) where she is facing the viewer. This shade of orange
is reminiscent of safety vests that are worn in highly regulated professions such as
law enforcement and construction. Visually invoking a safety vest using this color
invites multiple interpretations. On one hand, it could be that the reporter - by virtue
of their accountability function - is a symbol and personification of safety and good
governance. Conversely, needing to wear highly visible colors associated with safety
can speak to the vulnerabilities that journalists face as targets for harassment, abuse,
and violence, a problem that is particularly chronic for women journalists (see Chen
et al. 2020; Miller and Lewis 2022).
12 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

In contrast to Figure 1 (of the journalist), the audience only sees the reporter’s
face in one of the four frames. AI showed the journalist as being more public-facing
in the bulk of the renderings, while it rendered the reporter as being oriented away
from the viewer and toward power more often.

Algorithmically Seeing the “Correspondent”

The third prompt, correspondent, continues the trend started in Figure 2 of showing
the figure, who throughout all the renders so far, appears to be wearing the same
blue jacket and to have the same dark and wavy hair, situated in an urban location
(see Figure 3). She is once again shown in the bulk of the renders amidst towering
skyscrapers and appears in frame 3A to once again hold either some sort of notebook
or book. The beak-like facial feature from 1D (of the journalist) returns in frame 3D
but this time, and across all four renders, the figure’s facial features are completely
obscured. She appears to be facing away from the viewer in two frames, facing to
the side in one frame, and, in the one frame where she is facing the viewer, appears
to be wearing an orange covering that shields her facial features. This mask or visor
suggests protection from a harsh environment or a nod to a post-human future where
some sort of stylized virtual or augmented mask can enhance the wearer’s vision and
abilities. If this latter interpretation is correct, it would be the first instance of digital
technology represented in the sample so far. Reflecting upon all four frames, the
figure is largely shown as isolated in the perhaps foreign environment. In only one
frame is the correspondent shown with others and, even then, they are shown at a
distance rather than being engaged in conversation at close proximity. The figure’s
horizontal positioning in the bulk of these frames suggests the correspondent is “one
of them” rather than “one of us,” further reinforcing the notion of difference and
otherness.

Algorithmically Seeing “the Press”

The fourth and final of the prompts analyzed for RQ1, “the press,” bucks previous
trends as these are the first renders to, in some instances, not show people, or to
show them in mediated fashion only (see Figure 4). In the first frame (4A), the jour-
nalist is either shown as being hyper-visible in a striking red dress surrounded by a
sea of drably attired figures or the sea of shadowy figures is instead the press and

Figure 4. “The Press”.

 Digital Journalism 13

the hyper-visible character in the center is some high-status individual that contrasts
markedly with those around her. In either case, this frame is the first to show a more
dynamic interaction between the press and those it covers. In contrast to earlier
renderings that showed the journalist primarily observing others from the periphery,
it appears in this frame that a verbal exchange is taking place, perhaps through the
form of a press conference. In the second frame (4B), large letters appear that spell
out “the press” but the letters aren’t rendered crisply. They are somewhat hazy and
appear in places to be duplicated and overlaid on top of one another, similar to how
someone who is intoxicated might see the letterforms. The letterforms themselves
are nearly all uniformly pure cream-colored except for the letter “R” which appears
to be discolored with streaks of red. This marked shift in color hints at the “If it
bleeds, it leads” mantra that is frequently associated with the “conflict” news value in
journalism (see Miller and Albert 2015).
The subtle reference to alcohol that is present in 4B is repeated more explicitly in
4C. In this frame, bottles (presumably of alcohol) sit in rows on shelves next to two
figures. This might again be an attempt to associate journalists with alcoholism or,
more generously, as a nod to the public spaces, such as cafes and pubs, at which
journalists frequently meet their sources or find story ideas. In the final frame of this
render, we see presumably the same woman’s face as from previous renders but here
she appears to be mediated by some digital technology. It appears that the woman’s
face appears on the rear viewfinder of a digital camera or on some other digital
interface, such as a screen within a television control room. In contrast to other
renders where the figure’s facial features are identifiable (1A, 1B, 1D, and 2C), the
woman’s features here appear dark, and the lighting makes her features look
foreboding.

Visualizing the Specialized Journalist: Older, Male, and Digital

The second research question probed how AI visualizes three “specialized” journalistic
roles: news analyst, news commentator, and fact-checker. Like with the first research
question, these terms, too, are each analyzed and critically interpreted separately
using a mix of visual social semiotic attributes and literature from the journalism
studies canon.

Figure 5. The “News analyst”.

14 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

Algorithmically Seeing the “News Analyst”

The first prompt of the specialized roles, news analyst, uniformly shows this as a
white-collar profession (see Figure 5). Indeed, each of the four people who are shown
as news analysts wear a white-collared shirt, three with accompanying necktie, and
all four also wear a sports jacket or blazer. We are treated in the final frame (5D) to
the first image of a man in the sample. Interestingly, the AI algorithm rendered all
the non-specialised roles as being occupied by women, but the first of the specialized
roles is shown being occupied by both women and men. In contrast to the early
renderings which also featured a jacket but one that was more military style, the
sports jackets here are all more business in style and reflect a perhaps more affluent
and professional vibe. Two of the four figures in this render are either missing their
head entirely or are shown with a smooth orb for a head that lacks identifying fea-
tures or common landmarks, such as eyes, a nose, or a mouth. This perhaps speaks
to the impersonal and behind-the-scenes nature of analysis. The people here are not
necessarily the presenters and broadcasters who are reporting the news directly to
audiences; rather, they are tucked away in offices crunching data and trying to make
sense of it. For these reasons, the facial features of the figures are perhaps not as
prominent as they represent often-invisible labor.

Algorithmically Seeing the “News Commentator”

The second prompt of the specialized roles, news commentator, continues the trend
started with the news analyst role in depicting this occupation as white collar and
sports jacket-wearing (see Figure 6). With this specialized role, there is finally some
digital technology more overtly present in the form of two microphones that the
figures in frames 6C and 6D wear or sit in front of. The idea of spectacle is present
across all four renders. In the first frame (6A), the figure appears grotesque and sur-
realist with oversized ears, deep-set eyes, and impossibly high eyebrows. The eyes,
the so-called windows into the soul, appear shut indicating that the person is of
questionable character and is not making a direct connection with the audience
through gaze. In the second frame (6B), the figure has bug eyes that seem to indicate
a thirst for sensational content and for the infotainment that has come to be asso-
ciated with television (see Brants 2008). Indeed, the figure here appears to be seen
through a grainy screen (grain being an indication of the fuzziness of truth or the
blending of truth and fiction) and shown in black and white as a nod to a distant

Figure 6. The “news commentator”.

 Digital Journalism 15

past. This perhaps indicates that news commentary is better seen as a relic from a
far-gone time than a practice that should be continued in the digital era.
In frames 6C and 6D, we see a silver-haired man in studio lighting with lower-thirds
on the bottom of the frame to indicate personal or organizational branding and
context. It is interesting to reflect that the news commentator appears wrinkled in
all four renders and to ponder the implicit assumption that only older (white) men
have thoughts worth sharing in public. Interesting, too, is that only the men are
“allowed” to have wrinkles and be in front of cameras. None of the previous render-
ings of women show them with wrinkles, which speaks to the double standard related
to gender and age that exists in the real world (see Harrison 2019) and is replicated
through algorithmic vision.

Algorithmically Seeing the “Fact-Checker”

The third and final prompt of the specialized roles, fact-checker, is interesting for its
almost complete lack of human presence (see Figure 7). Much of real-time content
moderation is performed by algorithms and computer vision (Gorwa, Binns, and
Katzenbach 2020) but it is interesting to see this interpretation carried through to
fact-checking, as well. Journalism has been described as a discipline of verification
(Kovach and Rosenstiel 2014) and while computers can assist with these efforts, the
way this concept is algorithmically portrayed is striking. In the first frame (7A), the
viewer is treated to a grayscale image which shows the sole human element of these
renders, indicating perhaps that human fact-checking is in the minority or at least is
incomplete without tools and (digital) technologies. Here, the person’s identity is less
important than their role in the process. They often represent some organization
which takes center stage in arbitrating whether a claim is “true” or “false.” Indeed, in
the second frame (7B), the viewer appears to be presented with some sort of
fact-checking display which presumably will flash red when a false claim is detected
and blue-green when a true claim is detected. The underlying logic that truth is a
binary true-false dichotomy is, however, disrupted in the adjacent frame (7 C) where
black and white are shown next to a gradient from light to dark. As Wardle (2018)
and others have argued, truth exists on a continuum where misleading or false claims
can exist alongside truthful or accurate elements. This render appears to represent
that reality. The final rendering (7D) seems to represent, with hundreds or thousands
of boxes, the number of truth claims that one encounters every day. The rendering

Figure 7. The “fact-checker”.

16 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

Figure 8. Similarities and differences over time.

appears to be a stylized data visualization showing some kind of bar chart represent-
ing volume and time, which are two key contributing factors to mis- and disinforma-
tion’s spread (Thomson et al. 2022a).

Visualizing Similarities and Differences over Time

The study’s third research question explored how enduring or variable is algorithmic
vision over a six-month period of time. As can be seen in Figure 8, the visual style
of the second and third round of image generations for these seven keywords is
markedly different to the style employed in the first generations. This difference is
likely due to the algorithmic upgrade that occurred between version 3.0 that was
used in August 2022 to generate the initial images and version 4.0 that was used in
February 2023 to generate the second and third sets of images.
Despite the differences in visual style for the same keywords without any additional
“prompt engineering” (Liu and Chilton 2022), several content features and attributes
remain constant. For example, all the images across the three iterations exclusively
feature light-skinned people. Gender disparities persisted, too, across the renderings
for the more specialised terms (news analyst, news commentator, and fact-checker),
which featured men in 89% of all cases. Gender diversity, however, was more equal
for the generic terms across the three iterations. Here, men accounted for 57.5% of
the main subjects represented. The figures throughout the sample remain conserva-
tively attired, wear and color their hair in conventional ways, and display no sign of
tattoos or piercings. The gender-age disparity also persists. No older women are
shown and only men are shown with wrinkles and other signs of age (such as graying,
receding, or white hair). The figures shown are also nearly uniformly serious or neutral
in their expressions. Only three journalists (two women and one man, out of more
than 60 individuals) are shown smiling.
Despite the above persistent features and attributes, the newer iterations also
display interesting differences. For example, the generations from February 2023 are
the first in the sample to depict youth. These two youths (both boys) are depicted
 Digital Journalism 17

in the fact-checker column and interestingly, both appear to have bruised and or
bloodied faces. This may suggest a conflict or war over truth and that the effects of
mis/disinformation can be physically harmful. It interestingly also shows the recipients
of this harm as being the next generation in the form of two young males. Visual
depictions of legacy print media are also more pronounced in the newer images from
the generic keywords (journalist, reporter, correspondent, and the press). Figures
holding printed newspapers abound and there are no fewer than five printing presses
shown in addition to a typewriter.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study looks at a novel site of visual metajournalistic discourse: AI-generated images
of a variety of different journalistic roles. Following others (see Guzman 2018; Lewis,
Guzman, and Schmidt 2019), we see AI content as an important and burgeoning source
of meaning-making ripe for scholarly analysis, thus connecting this area of literature
to two others, namely the study of metajournalistic discourse generally and the liter-
ature on visual depictions of journalism, hitherto dominated by studies looking at how
journalists have been represented in movies and on television shows. AI-generated
images provide insight into questions around the sociocultural construction of jour-
nalism because of the unique way they reveal biases and implicit assumptions of and
by those who capture or commission images and those who decide which images and
processes inform machine learning and machine vision, thereby influencing the resulting
generative images that AI produces. Our study focused on the analysis of two distinct
groups of terms: (1) A set of “generic” terms, namely journalist, reporter, correspondent,
and the press; and (2) A set of “specialized” terms of growing interest to journalism
studies scholars, namely news analyst, news commentator, and fact-checker.

Agency, Awareness, and Encoding

Many images in popular culture are the result of conscientious decisions. Some decisions
are made through intuition or without advanced planning but others, especially by pro-
fessionals, are strategically made for aesthetic, storytelling, or ideological reasons (Kobré
2017). With AI-generated imagery, however, the user is partly removed from this encoding
process when generic terms are used and AI is left to fill in the blanks. For example,
when a user inputs a generic command like “imagine/person on a hill,” AI is left to deter-
mine the person’s age, ethnic background, gender, class, attire, and other attributes. This
can perpetuate or disrupt stereotypes and can do so in confounding ways due to the
lack of transparency around how the algorithms regulating text-to-image generators work.

Reproducing and Disrupting Biases

In some ways, AI reinforces existing biases and inequities present in journalism and
its representation in popular culture: for example, in the double standards applied
to women that are not applied to men in newsrooms (Harrison 2019) and in the lack
of racial diversity and the ageism reflected in who AI suggests is fit to be a journalist.
In other ways, AI provides food for thought in reflecting on the social construction
18 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

of journalism. For example, the extreme ages shown in the fact-checker prompt
provide fascinating provocations about the realities of fact-checking in the digital
environment. Two older men with pure white hair are seen here engaged in the act
of fact-checking, which suggests that one could spend a lifetime trying to evaluate
and counter the myriad claims, half-truths, and downright lies one encounters online.
It also, by showing the opposite end of this age spectrum, makes us aware of how
susceptible youth are to the influence of truth claims online and how these claims
have the potential to inflict real and lasting damage.

Implications and Directions for Further Study

These AI-generated visions of journalism, and others like them, risk perpetuating
existing inequalities related to gender, ethnic background, and age. Across global
contexts, women are overrepresented in university journalism courses and in rank-and-
file journalism positions but are under-represented in management and senior roles
(see, e.g., Boateng 2017; Steiner 2020). They are also more likely to have their emo-
tional displays policed compared to men (Thomson 2021). Likewise, journalists tend
to under-represent, trivialize, or condemn older people in their coverage and are also
at-risk of incorporating racial biases into their reporting (Marotta, Howard, and
Sommers 2019; Thomson et al. 2022b). These same disparities and biases seem to
sadly be reflected in AI visualizations of journalism. It is particularly interesting to
note the lack of older women compared to older men and to compare the gender
distribution between the “generic” and “specialized” roles. The uneven representation
of women in the ranks of more specialized and tech-driven areas of journalism (see
Usher 2019), as illustrated (literally) here, warrants further analysis.
Relatedly, the dominance of men in the AI renders of “analysts” and “commentators”
should cause some reflection. The algorithmic visions studied here suggest that men
have the status that comes with a license to “analyze” and “comment” (in other words,
to opine), while distinctly analog women are relegated to more routine forms of
journalism. The role of opinion in journalism, and opinion journalism roles (e.g., ana-
lyst, commentator, columnist) particularly, remain under-studied in journalism schol-
arship (Kelling and Thomas 2018) so the gendered dimensions of these roles and the
apparent dominance of “mansplainers” in this subfield (see Koc-Michalska et al. 2021)
warrant further study.
This study analyzed four “generic” terms and three “specialized” ones but there are
obviously more ways to describe journalism and journalists that aren’t captured by
these terms. Future research could expand on these initial terms by comparing and
contrasting them with other ones. Alternatively, this analysis could be done longitu-
dinally to see how AI understandings of these terms change or evolve over longer
periods of time. Another approach that should be investigated is the degree to which
the same terms produce similar or dissimilar results from different AI generation sites,
like DALL-E 2 or NightCafe Creator. Additional attributes beyond the nouns used in
this study could also be used to see how AI visualizes journalists and journalism in
different national-global contexts (e.g., Chinese journalists compared to American
journalists). Subsequent studies should continue to explore the role of AI and other
automatic decision-making processes in helping to shape the discourse around
 Digital Journalism 19

journalism and journalists so that a robust and evolving conversation around this
important institution can continue into the future.
It is worth pondering what happens to AI-generated image sets after being
generated and what implications this has for journalism practice and scholarship.
Midjourney defines itself as an “open-by-default” community. This means that, for
most users, the images they generate—including those using private Discord servers
or via direct messages—are visible at midjourney.com (Midjourney does, however,
offer a “stealth mode” for the highest subscription tier ($60/month, as at March
2023, which provides privacy for generated images). This open-by-default approach,
however, means that the vast majority of the images generated are publicly view-
able (and also able to be remixed and adapted by others). Images generated during
the Midjourney free trial bear a CC BY-NC 4.0 license, which allows the images to
be freely shared and transformed. All of Midjourney’s paid options allow for com-
mercial use of the resulting generations. Thus the images generated on sites like
Midjourney have high visibility within the site-specific community and also can
enjoy greater visibility when they are circulated in the public sphere. This is the
case for news organizations and journalists who are already using services like
Midjourney to illustrate their news products and articles (The Economist 2022; Warzel
2022). Along with this greater visibility is the necessity for scholarly study and
industry guidance to ensure that these practices are appropriately used. Indeed,
The Nieman Journalism Lab, funded by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at
Harvard, identified in 2023 a “pressing need” for both “rules and guidelines for
creating or using AI-generated content” and “a broader review of how images are
treated by the news media” (Grut 2022). Newsrooms would do well to consider and
provide guidance on the use of AI-generated images in their news products.
Likewise, researchers would be wise to study existing practices, attitudes, and effects
related to AI imagery in news.

Limitations
At face value, selecting 84 “texts” for analysis might seem like a small sample size.
However, visuals are incredibly rich sites for analysis and entire journal articles and
books (see, e.g., Albee and Freeman 1995; Hariman and Lucaites 2002) have been
written on single images. We therefore argue that, for a nascent topic like under-
standing journalistic roles through AI-generated imagery, the sample is more than
sufficient. Our shared theoretical and epistemological orientation is interpretivist and
thus, inherently subjective. However, despite the subjectivity of our positioning, the
systematic method of coding and analysis we deployed, informed by a deep engage-
ment with the relevant literature, makes a contribution to understanding how visual
discourse can contribute to our understanding of what journalism is and who is (or
should be) a journalist, as well as to how metajournalistic discourse can operate with
varying degrees of agency. There is an inherent opaqueness to many digital processes
and platforms (Suzor 2019) and Midjourney is no exception. It lacks published doc-
umentation about the source of the image libraries its software uses to create images
and without it, a sense of how national or international these sources are, as well as
context about their other attributes.
20 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

Note
1. For example, 3A was upscaled to provide clarity on what the figure was holding, 3D was
upscaled to provide more clarity on the face area and whether this was, in fact, a mask
or visor, and 4C was upscaled to provide more clarity on whether the objects on the
shelves were books or bottles.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Ryan J. Thomas http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5228-631X
T. J. Thomson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3913-3030

References
Aiello, G., and K. Parry. 2020. Visual Communication: Understanding Images in Media Culture.
London: Sage.
Albee, P. B., and K. C. Freeman. 1995. Shadow of Suribachi: Raising the Flags on Iwo Jima. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Boateng, K. J. 2017. “Reversal of Gender Disparity in Journalism Education-Study of Ghana
Institute of Journalism.” Observatorio (OBS*) 11 (2): 118–135. https://doi.org/10.15847/ob-
sOBS11220171019
Boden, M. A., and E. A. Edmonds. 2009. “What is Generative Art?” Digital Creativity 20 (1-2):
21–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626260902867915
Brants, K. 2008. “Infotainment.” In Encyclopedia of Political Communication, edited by L. L. Kaid
and C. Holtz-Bacha, 336). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Sage.
Broussard, M. 2018. Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Broussard, M., N. Diakopoulos, A. L. Guzman, R. Abebe, M. Dupagne, and C. H. Chuan. 2019.
“Artificial Intelligence and Journalism.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96 (3):
673–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019859901
Carlson, M. 2009. “Dueling, Dancing, or Dominating? Journalists and Their Sources.” Sociology
Compass 3 (4): 526–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00219.x
Carlson, M. 2016. “Metajournalistic Discourse and the Meanings of Journalism: Definitional
Control, Boundary Work, and Legitimation.” Communication Theory 26 (4): 349–368. https://
doi.org/10.1111/comt.12088
Chen, G. M., P. Pain, V. Y. Chen, M. Mekelburg, N. Springer, and F. Troger. 2020. “You Really Have
to Have a Thick Skin”: a Cross-Cultural Perspective on How Online Harassment Influences
Female Journalists.” Journalism 21 (7): 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918768500
Coleman, R. 2010. “Framing the Pictures in Our Heads: Exploring the Framing and Agenda-Setting
Effects of Visual Images.” In Doing Frame Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives,
edited by P. D’Angelo and J. A. Kuypers, 233–261. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
Craft, S., T. P. Vos, and J. D. Wolfgang. 2016. “Reader Comments as Press Criticism: Implications
for the Journalistic Field.” Journalism 17 (6): 677–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915579332
Culver, K. B., and X. Minocher. 2021. “Algorithmic News: Ethical Implications of Bias in Artificial
Intelligence in Journalism.” In The Routledge Companion to Journalism Ethics, edited by L. T.
Price, K. Sanders, and W. N. Wyatt, 328–336. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
The Economist. 2022. How a computer designed this week’s cover. https://www.economist.com/
news/2022/06/11/how-a-computer-designed-this-weeks-cover
 Digital Journalism 21

Ehrlich, M. C. 2006. “Facts, Truth, and Bad Journalists in the Movies.” Journalism 7 (4): 501–519.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884906068364
Ehrlich, M. C. 2010. Journalism in the Movies. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Ehrlich, M. C., and J. Saltzman. 2015. Heroes and Scoundrels: The Image of the Journalist in Popular
Culture. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Arnold.
Feng, Y. 2022. “Spotlight”: Virtuous Journalism in Practice.” Journal of Media Ethics 37 (2): 93–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2022.2057996
Ferrucci, P. 2018. “Mo “Meta” Blues: How Popular Culture Can Act as Metajournalistic Discourse.”
International Journal of Communication 12: 4821–4838. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/
view/8550.
Ferrucci, P., and C. Painter. 2016. “Market Matters: How Market Driven is the Newsroom?” Critical
Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies 11 (1): 41–58. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1749602015618633
Ferrucci, P., and C. Painter. 2017. “Print versus Digital: How Medium Matters on House of Cards.”
Journal of Communication Inquiry 41 (2): 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859917690533
Galanter, P. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence and Problems in Generative Art Theory.” Proceedings of
EVA London 2019. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2019.22
Gorwa, R., R. Binns, and C. Katzenbach. 2020. “Algorithmic Content Moderation: Technical and
Political Challenges in the Automation of Platform Governance.” Big Data & Society 7 (1):
205395171989794. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
Grut, S. 2022. “Your Newsroom Experiences a Midjourney-Gate, Too.” NeimanLab niemanlab.
org/2022/12/your-newsroom-experiences-a-midjourney-gate-too/.
Guzman, A. L. 2018. “What is Human-Machine Communication, Anyway?.” In Human-Machine
Communication: Rethinking Communication, Technology, and Ourselves, edited by A. L. Guzman,
1–28. New York, USA: Peter Lang.
Hariman, R., and J. L. Lucaites. 2002. “Performing Civic Identity: The Iconic Photograph of the
Flag Raising on Iwo Jima.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (4): 363–392. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00335630209384385
Harris, D. 2002. “Neckties.” The American Scholar 71 (2): 79–84. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/41213296.
Harrison, C. 2003. “Visual Social Semiotics: Understanding How Still Images Make Meaning.”
Technical Communication 50 (1): 46–60. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/stc/
tc/2003/00000050/00000001/art00007.
Harrison, G. 2019. “We Want to See You Sex It up and Be Slutty:” Post-Feminism and Sports
Media’s Appearance Double Standard.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 36 (2): 140–155.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2019.1566628
Hindman, E. B., and R. J. Thomas. 2013. “Journalism’s “Crazy Old Aunt”: Helen Thomas and
Paradigm Repair.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 90 (2): 267–286. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077699013482909
Johnston, J., and A. Wallace. 2017. “Who is a Journalist? Changing Legal Definitions in a
Deterritorialized Media Space.” Digital Journalism 5 (7): 850–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/216
70811.2016.1196592
Kelling, K., and R. J. Thomas. 2018. “The Roles and Functions of Opinion Journalists.” Newspaper
Research Journal 39 (4): 398–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532918806899
Kobré, K. 2017. Photojournalism: The Professionals’ Approach. 7th ed. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
Koc-Michalska, K., A. Schiffrin, A. Lopez, S. Boulianne, and B. Bimber. 2021. “From Online Political
Posting to Mansplaining: The Gender Gap and Social Media in Political Discussion.” Social
Science Computer Review 39 (2): 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319870259
Kovach, B., and T. Rosenstiel. 2014. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know
and the Public Should Expect. 3rd ed. New York, USA: Three Rivers Press.
Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 2021. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Milton Park,
UK: Routledge.
22 R. J. THOMAS AND T. J. THOMSON

Leggett, M. 2000. “Thinking Imaging Software.” Photofile 60: 26–29. https://search.informit.org/

doi/10.3316/ielapa.200100603.
Lewis, S. C., K. Kaufhold, and D. L. Lasorsa. 2010. “Thinking about Citizen Journalism: The
Philosophical and Practical Challenges of User-Generated Content for Community Newspapers.”
Journalism Practice 4 (2): 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700903156919
Lewis, S. C., A. L. Guzman, and T. R. Schmidt. 2019. “Automation, Journalism, and Human–Machine
Communication: Rethinking Roles and Relationships of Humans and Machines in News.”
Digital Journalism 7 (4): 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1577147
Liu, V., and L. B. Chilton. 2022. “Design Guidelines for Prompt Engineering Text-to-Image
Generative Models.” Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501825
Lough, K., L. Molyneux, and A. E. Holton. 2018. “A Clearer Picture: Journalistic Identity Practices
in Words and Images on Twitter.” Journalism Practice 12 (10): 1277–1291. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17512786.2017.1389292
Marotta, S. A., S. Howard, and S. R. Sommers. 2019. “Examining Implicit Racial Bias in Journalism.”
In Reporting Inequality: Tools and Methods for Covering Race and Ethnicity, edited by S. Lehrman
and V. Wagner, 66–81). Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
McNair, B. 2009. Journalists in Film: Heroes and Villains. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University
Press.
Miller, K. C., and S. C. Lewis. 2022. “Journalists, Harassment, and Emotional Labor: The Case of
Women in on-Air Roles at U.S. local Television Stations.” Journalism 23 (1): 79–97. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1464884919899016
Miller, R. A., and Albert, K. 2015. “If It Leads, It Bleeds (and If It Bleeds, It Leads): Media Coverage
and Fatalities in Militarized Interstate Disputes.” Political Communication 32 (1): 61–82. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.880976
Moon, R. 2021. “When Journalists See Themselves as Villains: The Power of Negative Discourse.”
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 98 (3): 790–807. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077699020985465
Oppenlaender, J. 2022. The creativity of text-to-image generation. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/
pdf/2206.02904.pdf https://doi.org/10.1145/3569219.3569352
Painter, C. 2017. “All in the Game: Communitarianism and the Wire.” Journalism Studies 18 (1):
11–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1215253
Painter, C., and P. Ferrucci. 2017. “Gender Games: The Portrayal of Female Journalists on House
of Cards.” Journalism Practice 11 (4): 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2015.1133251
Parmeggiani, P. 2009. “Going Digital: Using New Technologies in Visual Sociology.” Visual Studies
24 (1): 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860902732991
Peters, C. 2015. “Evaluating Journalism through Popular Culture: HBO’s the Newsroom and Public
Reflections on the State of the News Media.” Media, Culture, & Society 37 (4): 602–619. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0163443714566902
Popper, F. 2007. From Technological to Virtual Art. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rauch, J. 2019. “Comparing Progressive and Conservative Audiences for Alternative Media and
Their Attitudes towards Journalism.” In Alternative Media Meets Mainstream Politics: Activist
Nation Rising, edited by J. D. Atkinson and L. Kenix, 19–38. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Lexington.
Steiner, L. 2020. “Gender, Sex, and Newsroom Culture.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies,
edited by K. Wahl-Jorgensen and T. Hanitzsch, 2nd ed., 452–468). Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
Suzor, N. P. 2019. Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Thomson, T. J. 2021. “Mapping the Emotional Labor and Work of Visual Journalism.” Journalism
22 (4): 956–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918799227
Thomson, T. J., D. Angus, P. Dootson, E. Hurcombe, and A. Smith. 2022a. “Visual Mis/
Disinformation in Journalism and Public Communications: Current Verification Practices,
Challenges, and Future Opportunities.” Journalism Practice 16 (5): 938–962. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17512786.2020.1832139
 Digital Journalism 23

Thomson, T. J., E. Miller, S. Holland-Batt, J. Seevinck, and S. Regi. 2022b. “Visibility and Invisibility
in the Aged Care Sector: Visual Representation in Australian News from 2018–2021.” Media
International Australia. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/132987
8X221094374
Ugland, E., and J. Henderson. 2007. “Who is a Journalist and Why Does It Matter? Disentangling
the Legal and Ethical Arguments.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22 (4): 241–261. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08900520701583511
Usher, N. 2019. “Women and Technology in the Newsroom: Vision or Reality from Data Journalism
to the News Startup Era.” In Journalism, Gender, and Power, edited by C. Carter, L. Steiner,
and S. Allan, 18–32. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
Vos, T. P., and R. J. Thomas. 2018. “The Discursive Construction of Journalistic Authority in a
Post-Truth Age.” Journalism Studies 19 (13): 2001–2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/146167
0X.2018.1492879
Wardle, C. 2018. “The Need for Smarter Definitions and Practical, Timely Empirical Research on
Information Disorder.” Digital Journalism 6 (8): 951–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.20
18.1502047
Warzel, C. 2022. Where does Alex Jones go from here? The Atlantic. https://newsletters.theatlantic.
com/galaxy-brain/62f28a6bbcbd490021af2db4/where-does-alex-jones-go-from-here/
Weaver, D. H., L. Willnat, and G. C. Wilhoit. 2019. “The American Journalist in the Digital Age:
Another Look at U.S. news People.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96 (1): 101–
130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018778242
Willis, J. 2009. The Mind of a Journalist: How Reporters View Themselves, Their World, and Their
Craft. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Sage.