Perceptions of inner pressures were different between interviewed journalists and those in a decision-taking position as editor-in-chief or press director. Journalists stated they do not feel inner pressures from owners or management boards and testified to having no contact with them. They were aware of the view that owners have on current affairs and that if there were orders, these would reach them through their editor, on whom they recognise pressure being exerted. This is all understood as part of the job.
All the interviewed journalists considered that they could freely exercise their profession. Even when they had differences with their editors, their own ethical criteria in the reporting process was the most important ground to close the conversation or take decisions, without consequences to their professional development. Their answers were coherent with the data gathered by Mellado (2014), showing that 62.3 per cent of journalists considered they had a high level of freedom to make decisions about the news, 27 per cent considered they had moderate autonomy, and 10.6 per cent stated they had low levels of autonomy. “If there are differences, there is a margin to discuss this. The journalist has power to make decisions, because they are the ones on the ground reporting on the story”, said one of the interviewed reporters. This agrees with Greene González (2017), where journalistic ethics appeared as an important value for Chilean reporters.
Although the interviewed journalists said they had the possibility to dialogue with their editors, they also recognised that the editor had the final say for titles and content. A recent case setting a union against editors showed that this inner pressure can happen (El Dínamo, 2019), much in line with what research shows (Gronemeyer, 2002; Mellado, 2014; Otano Garde & Sunkel, 2003).
Journalists appeared to know that the director or editor-in-chief is a person trusted by the owners. They assumed that conversations between them impinged upon editorial directions for the journalists. This is in line with research by Sapiezynska, Lagos, and Cabalin (2013), who concluded that internal pressures are generated from these conversations. Although 76.9 per cent of Chilean journalists valued leadership inside their newsroom, this was centred on the person, not their company’s rules (Yez, 2011).
Among interviewees, the ones who experienced significantly more internal pressures were the editors-in-chief and directors. The tension levels varied also among the different media forms. In some cases, they mentioned having management boards being more open to dialogue, while in other interviews, press directors or editors-in-chief saw themselves defending the journalistic autonomy of their team. Therefore, the role of these groups is fundamental in dealing with such types of pressure. Here, the different levels of command within media must be considered, since Gronemeyer (2002) stated that editors felt more autonomy than journalists did. Within our interviews, we had some editors-in-chief and directors who had a direct relationship with management boards and corporate levels. Therefore, their differences with medium-level management, who only makes editorial decisions, must also be considered.
Such a view agrees with the results from Greene González (2017), who concluded that the main internal pressure faced by Chilean journalists comes from the corporate level, which corresponded with media company interests. In the study by Yez (2011), 38.1 per cent of journalists declared they were “encouraged” to cover a story by the owners or the director. Our interviews revealed the process is not direct, but with the editor as a mediator. Equally, this was not a decisive feature in daily routine, because 76.6 per cent of Chilean journalists reported not having received criticism or internal pressure from their editor after covering a story against the financial interest of the owners of the media company (Yez, 2011).
For the interviewees, direct pressure from commercial areas to reporters was absent, and they considered it as not affecting their autonomy (see Indicator F6 – Company rules against external influence). A most common aspect to these areas is their being in different physical spaces and functioning separately from the newsroom.
One form of tension appearing from the interviews was from editors-in-chief and directors, who, after the 2019 protests, in turn received more pressure from their management boards, resulting in that between journalists and editors. Most journalists received instructions: “Since the 2019 protests there is more preoccupation from above, from the editors. They have asked for facts, not opinions”, mentioned one journalist. Another interviewee explained:
When the protests started, we all received a message saying that we would only cover the facts, but we were not going to focus on the police repression. This decision made us uncomfortable as journalists, because we saw what was happening on the streets, and in the end, we did not respect it much.
In this regard, the collective experiences of journalists and editors represented the generational gap on how the protests could be covered. “For the first time in our medium’s history we had to exercise editorial control. Our journalists were from a younger generation, were on the streets, and felt effervescent for the historical moment, leaving other perspectives out”, commented an editor-in-chief. “Those of us from previous generations are more impartial, disciplined; younger people express themselves in social media”, said a journalist. This last aspect accounted for the discussion regarding the different ways of understanding the function of journalism in a politically tense context among different generations.
