Why this now?
Identities and agenda at news meetings in a media organization.

Introduction
The British journalist Andrew Marr describes news room meetings like this:
“Most editors – not all – see the morning conference as a crucial moment because it is how the paper’s character is formed. Yet since they are partly about lists, even good news conferences can be a bit dull. I worked on one paper where they were virtually meaningless, being simply a monotone recital of typed lists, followed by everyone shuffling off again.” (Marr, 2004, 211)
In my experience as a business reporter, middle manager, and copy editor news room meetings or news conferences in media organizations can be an event of mixed feelings. Sometimes you walk away from the meeting feeling enlightened and motivated. At other times you experience disorientation and disenchantment. Often I have sought, but never found, examples of best practice about or just a helpful guide to news conferences as a concept. What works, and what doesn’t? Because of this personal longing for knowledge I decided to examine news room meetings in this dissertation.

Purpose
The dissertation aims to describe and analyze identities and agendas at news room meetings. The method used is conversation analysis, CA, as developed by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson. My data consists of audio and video recordings of three news room meetings at a Danish national paper. The meetings have been transcribed in accordance to Gail Jefferson’s recommendation of notation symbols.

Analysis
I have used Professor Don H. Zimmerman’s (1998) three levels of identity to discuss the identities, which come into play in the interactions in my data:
• “Discourse identities are integral to the moment-by-moment organization of the interaction.”
• “Situated identities come into play within the precincts of particular types of situation.”
• “Transportable identities travel with individuals across situations and are potentially relevant in and for any situation and in and for any spate of interaction.” (Zimmerman, 1998, p. 90)

For the discussion of agendas I have worked at defining the concept in the context of the dissertation. An example of a normal definition of agenda sounds like this:
“An agenda is a list of meeting activities in the order in which they are to be taken up, beginning with the call to order and ending with adjournment. It usually includes one or more specific items of business to be considered. It may, but is not required to, include specific times for one or more activities.” (wikipedia.org)
But in this dissertation agendas are more than a list of official meeting activities; I define agenda in this context as the agenda, the individual expresses in his or her TCU, turn construction unit, and which the other participants either support or oppose. This type of interaction I name ‘agenda work’ to create a parallel to ‘identity work’.

Agendas at news room meetings are diverse and are displayed at different levels. Inspired by Zimmerman I define three levels of agendas:
• Discourse agenda – is the agenda, which the individual displays in the proximal context of the interaction. It is the local agenda, which come into play during the discourse.
• Situated agenda – is the agenda, which comes into play within the precincts of particular types of situation. Here I interpret it as the agenda of the meeting as such. That is ‘messages’; ‘feed back’ and the ’round’, in which all participants in the meeting presents their ideas to the others.
• Overall agenda – is the agenda, which is part of the organization, and which is potentially relevant in and for any situation and in and for any spate of interaction. I regard this as an almost immanent agenda, which is connected to the job, the professionalism or even to the media organisation itself, but in contrast to Zimmermann not as something physically visible. (Source: own development of Zimmerman, 1998, p. 90)

Conclusion
The identities and agendas, which come into play at news conferences, are diverse.
First of all there is the official agenda of the meeting
• important messages
• feedback
• ‘the round’

But apart from those three items on the agenda my data documents a variety of other agendas such as:
• Private agendas (e.g. “Have you bought Easter eggs?”)
• Journalistic and work related agendas (e.g. “How do you write an advert for a part of the paper?”)
• Journalistic agendas of the journalist representing the fourth estate (e.g. indignation at organizations that act immorally according to the participants)
• Media/organizational agendas (e.g. prioritizing the resources available)
• Source agendas (e.g. “Is this source buying me lunch, thinking I will write about them?”)
• Readers’ agendas (e.g. “Is this article relevant for our core readers?”)

I have produced a matrix to explicate these different agendas presented in my data.

Andrew Matt states that: “Most editors – not all – see the morning conference as a crucial moment because it is how the paper’s character is formed.” My data shows how the papers character is formed by the people present at the morning conference. Via their identities and their agendas they shape the paper, and these participants write the paper which again shapes the character of the people who read it – though not directly. The readers are participants in the democracy, in which the media plays a significant role.

On the local level is also becomes evident in my data that the participants expect a certain personal outcome of the meeting. They expect guidance or help, so some of their problems are solved. But a lot of the problems presented at the meeting remain unresolved. And time is short. A simple calculation of the first news room meeting reveals that a participant in average has less than one minute to present his or hers ideas during the round. And thus the data presented explains why Andrew Marr writes: “...even good news conferences can be a bit dull. I worked on one paper where they were virtually meaningless...”
Personal frustration will be the result, if a participant wants attention for a certain time span or expects help and gets neither.

Reflections
In the dissertation I also present extensive reflections on my own role as on one side a scholar and on the other a member of the category I want to study.

I have the privilege of holding a member’s competence, but I also suffer from ‘member’s paranoia’. Member’s competence, because as an insider I have knowledge and insight that has proven a considerable plus point in my research. As a member I have gained access to an otherwise closed club, and I can draw on a wide range of personal experiences and relationships. But I suffer from ‘member’s paranoia’, because my membership can make me blind and incompetent as a researcher. In this context CA has proven to be a highly useful method. What the data shows is hard to deny, and what data doesn’t show is impossible to invent. My paranoia also stems from the fact that I have a strong wish to protect my sources, that is, the media organization which has let me collect data in their midst. I have sought to secure the anonymity of my sources and all other names in the material. But of course this leads to a loss of content to some extent.