I. Introduction This master’s thesis represents study of female newspaper and magazine editors in Azerbaijan based on Western and Soviet definitions of journalism with explanation of local national features of this p

I.2.1. Journalism – profession or craftsmanship

Contemporary journalism scholars, as well as journalistic community itself, still debate whether it is possible to accept journalism as a profession. In Jaromir Volek and Jan Jirak’s (Volek, Jirák 2006: 22) words, “the debate whether the journalistic activity may be considered as a professional activity with stable and settled rules shared by an overwhelming majority of journalists has been going on intensively at least for over the past century, when the professionalism criterion became perceived as an institutional instrument of its social prestige⁹

Consolidation of the journalism as a profession started in the beginning of the twentieth century, most notably in the United States, when there was an effort to organize a basically disorganized group of writers into a consolidated group (Schudson 1978; Schiller 1981; Zelizer 2004) and resulted in completion of what McNair calls social construct named journalism (McNair 1998).
Over the years sociological science, most notably Anglo-American has generated a considerable amount of thought¹⁰ to come up with more or less precise set of conditions for a craft to be classified as a profession. The list of conditions is following: certain level of skill, autonomy, service orientation, licensing procedures, testing of competence, organization, codes of conduct, training and educational programs (e.g., Moore 1970). In other words, to qualify as a profession, a craft must possess body of specialized knowledge that will allow professional gain authority via specialized education and training. Furthermore, a professional will obtain a large degree of autonomy from an outside censure and will be controlled by an internal code of ethics and be sanctioned by fellow professionals through compulsory membership in a professional organization. On a service orientation level, a profession offers society an irreplaceable service that is associated only with this specific profession like such classic professions as law or medicine (Johnson 1972; 1981).
In essence, the process of professionalization displays two distinguishable levels – structural and attitude-related. The structural level embraces education and profession entry requirements while attitude-related level as is obvious from the name is defined by one’s attitude towards profession and its mission (Valiyev 2008). Yet, many critics point out that journalism meets these traits only conditionally and constitutes rather a semi-profession (Volek 2007). Journalism has no formal entry requirements for new members and does not posses fully systematic knowledge obtained in the process of education and required for conduct of professional activity. Journalists are adaptive and are expected to show expertise in different subjects and that illustrates their flexibility to choose their field of competence as well as choose what kind of public service ideal they serve. Moreover, it is a common theme that journalistic organizations have, with few exceptions, very little impact on day to day practice and serve journalists as a forum for exchange of ideas rather than a controlling regulatory body (Valiyev 2008).
While such scholars like Randal A. Beam (1990) with his analysis of the literature on the character of journalistic work state that journalists support most of the classical criteria of professionalism in the Wilensky’s definition scholars like Hallin and Mancini (2004) argue that degree of journalists’ professionalization “depends on the definition of professional and the indicators used. But a variety of possible measures of professionalism reviewed here suggest that there are still many differences among journalists from the 21 countries and territories represented in The Global Journalist book” (Weaver 1997 in press).

Weaver’s national differentiation idea is seconded and expanded upon by Norwegian scholars Svennik Hoyer and Epp Lauk warning that:

Theories of professionalization are too individualistically oriented to be applicable to a culturally sensitive and organisationally anchored occupation like journalism. European journalism was only to some extent a copy of the American «original». We

do not think that the profession of journalism develops independent of the various social and political systems to which it belongs. However, in many countries journalism has acquired similar elements of professionalism over time, as anticipated by sociological theories, but not in the succession prescribed. The overall impression from our overview, however, is that the self-perception and the professional values among journalists change with the national and cultural contexts (Hoyer, Lauk 2003).

That being said, it is necessary for the purpose of our research to review traits of professionalism in the Soviet Union and more notably, look at definition of the journalistic profession in the Soviet Union. To lighten up our discussion, we would like to mention the joke that Wilbur Schramm presents in the seminal work Four Theories of the Press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility and Soviet Communist Concepts of What the Press Should Be and Do coauthored with Siebert and Peterson.
The US journalist says to the Soviet:

“You are not free. The government tells you what to write!”

The Soviet journalist replies:

“You are not free. Corporate interests and big business tell you what to write!”

Both heroes of this joke represent different professional value systems that a research must take into consideration studying the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Union media workers. Journalism in the Soviet Union according to Arno’s definition “submitted to party discipline, leaving the definition of truth in news to those in a position to know, namely, ideologists and political leaders”(Arno 2009: 174)
However, this definition can be misleading, since majority of the studies done by Western scientists before the break up of the Soviet Union were based on accessible from the outside sources like official documents produced by the communist party and the USSR Journalist Union, some data collected by the Soviet universities and shared with the international community, journalists’ articles published in newspapers and magazines. One of the few attempts to study the USSR journalism from the inside was done by Rand Corporation in 1978-1981 with its comparative study of the Soviet and the Polish media (Dzirkals 1982).
That effort did not bring desired results since as the researchers pointed out:
…it has not been possible to have an inside look at the ways in which media material is initiated, processed, approved, and controlled. We could not look inside a Soviet editorial office to see what goes on there. Knowing only the output of the media, Western analysts inferred what they could about its meanings, but with only a vague idea about how its produced. (Dzirkals et al. 1982,4)
The truth is probably somewhere in between. In the book written during Gorbachev’s perestroika¹¹ The truth of authority: ideology and communication in the Soviet Union American scholar Thomas F. Remington (1988, 158) described professionalism of Soviet journalists bearing on four aspects: “the nature of journalism training in school, the lessons that early exposure to the journalistic practice teaches, the role of the Journalist’s Union, and finally, the social standing of journalism in Soviet society”.
Comparing Soviet journalist’s education and the practice Remington (1985:491) observes cleavage between the two:

The curriculum offers a smattering of knowledge in a wide range of subjects but leaves the students without firm claim to a single body of expertise that would define them as professionals. Even practical and technical skills they develop often have only limited application to the job they take after graduation.

Regarding influence and social standing of journalist in the Soviet society, Remington points out that beginner journalist receives modest salary of 120-140 rubles, while seasoned journalist earns 200 rubles per month and editor of central or republican newspaper receives 500 rubles. However, high salary is not the only bonus, to be an editor in the Soviet newspaper means to be “figure of political weight in the jurisdiction to which organization is attached. He enters the nomenklatura¹² of the corresponding or higher party organization, and in most cases he is a member of the bureau of the party committee on his level. (Remington 1985:494). Offered perspective of social status advancement was a good incentive for journalists to adhere political course of the party. However, this dependency on the Party’s favor in getting high social status deemed the professional organization – the Journalists’ Union powerless over political instrumentalization of media since journalists were willingly turning into “an extension of party bureaucracy” (Ibid. 499-503).