Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Here is the Declaration of Independence, taken directly from the website for the Assembly of Kosovo. Click here to learn more. I will respond to the press coverage of this in the next couple of days. It's not every day that a territory posts its declaration on the internet, or is it?

Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Convened in an extraordinary meeting on February 17, 2008, in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo,

Answering the call of the people to build a society that honours human dignity and affirms the pride and purpose of its citizens,

Committed to confront the painful legacy of the recent past in a spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness,

Dedicated to protecting, promoting and honoring the diversity of our people,

Reaffirming our wish to become fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic family of democracies,

Observing that Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia's non-consensual breakup and is not a precedent for any other situation,

Recalling the years of strife and violence in Kosovo, that disturbed the conscience of all civilised people,

Grateful that in 1999 the world intervened, thereby removing Belgrade's governance over Kosovo and placing Kosovo under United Nations interim administration,

Proud that Kosovo has since developed functional, multi-ethnic institutions of democracy that express freely the will of our citizens,

Recalling the years of internationally-sponsored negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina over the question of our future political status,

Regretting that no mutually-acceptable status outcome was possible, in spite of the good-faith engagement of our leaders,

Confirming that the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari provide Kosovo with a comprehensive framework for its future development and are in line with the highest European standards of human rights and good governance,

Determined to see our status resolved in order to give our people clarity about their future, move beyond the conflicts of the past and realise the full democratic potential of our society,

Honouring all the men and women who made great sacrifices to build a better future for Kosovo,

1. We, the democratically-elected leaders of our people, hereby declare Kosovo to be an independent and sovereign state. This declaration reflects the will of our people and it is in full accordance with the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement.

2. We declare Kosovo to be a democratic, secular and multi-ethnic republic, guided by the principles of non-discrimination and equal protection under the law. We shall protect and promote the rights of all communities in Kosovo and create the conditions necessary for their effective participation in political and decision-making processes.

3. We accept fully the obligations for Kosovo contained in the Ahtisaari Plan, and welcome the framework it proposes to guide Kosovo in the years ahead. We shall implement in full those obligations including through priority adoption of the legislation included in its Annex XII, particularly those that protect and promote the rights of communities and their members.

4. We shall adopt as soon as possible a Constitution that enshrines our commitment to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all our citizens, particularly as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Constitution shall incorporate all relevant principles of the Ahtisaari Plan and be adopted through a democratic and deliberative process.

5. We welcome the international community's continued support of our democratic development through international presences established in Kosovo on the basis of UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). We invite and welcome an international civilian presence to supervise our implementation of the Ahtisaari Plan, and a European Union-led rule of law mission. We also invite and welcome the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to retain the leadership role of the international military presence in Kosovo and to implement responsibilities assigned to it under UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the Ahtisaari Plan, until such time as Kosovo institutions are capable of assuming these responsibilities. We shall cooperate fully with these presences to ensure Kosovo's future peace, prosperity and stability.

6. For reasons of culture, geography and history, we believe our future lies with the European family. We therefore declare our intention to take all steps necessary to facilitate full membership in the European Union as soon as feasible and implement the reforms required for European and Euro-Atlantic integration.

7. We express our deep gratitude to the United Nations for the work it has done to help us recover and rebuild from war and build institutions of democracy. We are committed to working constructively with the United Nations as it continues its work in the period ahead.

8. With independence comes the duty of responsible membership in the international community. We accept fully this duty and shall abide by the principles of the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, other acts of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the international legal obligations and principles of international comity that mark the relations among states. Kosovo shall have its international borders as set forth in Annex VIII of the Ahtisaari Plan, and shall fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all our neighbors. Kosovo shall also refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

9. We hereby undertake the international obligations of Kosovo, including those concluded on our behalf by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and treaty and other obligations of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to which we are bound as a former constituent part, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. We shall cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We intend to seek membership in international organisations, in which Kosovo shall seek to contribute to the pursuit of international peace and stability.

10. Kosovo declares its commitment to peace and stability in our region of southeast Europe. Our independence brings to an end the process of Yugoslavia's violent dissolution. While this process has been a painful one, we shall work tirelessly to contribute to a reconciliation that would allow southeast Europe to move beyond the conflicts of our past and forge new links of regional cooperation. We shall therefore work together with our neighbours to advance a common European future.

11. We express, in particular, our desire to establish good relations with all our neighbours, including the Republic of Serbia with whom we have deep historical, commercial and social ties that we seek to develop further in the near future. We shall continue our efforts to contribute to relations of friendship and cooperation with the Republic of Serbia, while promoting reconciliation among our people.

12. We hereby affirm, clearly, specifically, and irrevocably, that Kosovo shall be legally bound to comply with the provisions contained in this Declaration, including, especially, the obligations for it under the Ahtisaari Plan. In all of these matters, we shall act consistent with principles of international law and resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, including resolution 1244 (1999). We declare publicly that all states are entitled to rely upon this declaration, and appeal to them to extend to us their support and friendship.

whew! what a semester!

it took me a while to blog. this past semester was difficult. i took nine hours and taught two classes. i will do the same thing in the spring. but busting butt now means finishing course work by next fall. i'm anxious to get to the PhD.

for those of you who have perused my blog, it should be evident that i've been interested in kosovo. it actually became the focal point of my fall semester projects. in my development communications class, i worked on what i hope is a good start to a case study exploring how the regulatory and legislative framework promulgated by the UN mission in kosovo facilitated what has become Kosovar Albanians' opportunity to create their own media. this exploration was remarkable for many reasons. first, many of these documents - at least created by Kosovo's provisional government - are available online. second, in flipping through each of the documents, spread out across my floor by date or by agency or some other descriptor that i used in my haphazard filing system, i saw the creation of what many in the tiny province hope will be a country. i make no predictions about what will happen, only to reiterate what i put forth when i spoke with my poli sci professor. i don't think serbia will let the province go easily. and i don't think kosovo will stay easily. this tiny patch of earth should be kept in mind because it signifies an even larger tension between the united states and russia. sometimes i think following some of these events and speculating on what could happen is actually much more fun than watching television.

speaking of television: i'm almost finished with neil postman's "amusing ourselves to death." i highly recommend it.

my second project - for my international relations class - also focused on kosovo. but i took a much different angle. some have indicated that the un took steps in kosovo and east timor that it hadn't taken previously. while it had helped governments rebuild - for instance in cambodia - it didn't actually take over governance as it had in kosovo and east timor. because i think that the american news media help us organize our understanding of the world, i felt a change in un action such as this should be studied, especially how it appeared in the american news media. i struggled with the project to a certain degree. i was in a political science class, and their research methods vary from those used in media research. in the end, i came up with a framing analysis. i would divulge more, but i plan to submit the project to a symposium. i will write more about how it turns out. i am excited about the project, as i really like framing as a theoretical tool. while it isn't all-encompassing, i challenge researchers to find a theoretical tool that is. but i think it offers ways of exploring phenomena that sometimes cannot be explored in other ways.

school is about a week away, and i'm still working diligently with preparing for the courses that i will teach. i hope to contact michael wesch who teaches at kansas state university. he has used some of these web 2.0 tools in remarkable ways, and i'm interested in using these tools not only in the classroom but in my research, as well. i would be interested to hear from journalists globally about different issues, especially information flows; i hope some of these tools could facilitate that. i know few probably consider information flows a viable research consideration any more but i think it's especially pertinent now.

this semester, i'm taking a geography course that will focus on development in the third world, an international news communications course, and media globalization course. i'm really excited about what i will learn and even more excited what research questions i will discover. is anybody else wondering about how we evaluate information now? a brief vignette to illustrate a point before i close down for the evening.

my aunt, whom i love dearly, came to visit twice while i was at home - my original home is oklahoma, my diasporal home is phl - and we gathered around the kitchen table as we talked. my father, mother, aunt, cousin, and i warmly talked about the world and its state of affairs. on her second visit, because each visit she came with different cousins, she made the comment that she didn't know what had happened to the world. the value of human life everywhere seemed to be in decline. and i'm not sure if i said this aloud or only thought this, but it occurred that when she grew up she didn't have the rapid flow of violent images that she probably sees today, nor was the symbolic environment of her youth shaped the way it is today. i made the point, though i think it was lost on my more conservative elders, that we now have access to other sources of information; when i say other sources, i mean of course sources of information from other nations. i wonder how we would evaluate this information. probably, given my company, with skepticism. many studies indicate the flow of images and news content into the united states show "the other" as an exotic place, a violent, unwieldy place that exists in stark contrast to our comfortable, american lives. in other studies, political content is often painted with a nationalistic brush despite which side of the political continuum the news media may reside. what happens when we have access to news sources from beyond our national borders? how do we evaluate that information? would my aunt's world seem so violent? maybe. maybe not. i've lived in philly for the better part of a year and a half, and i have yet to see a drive-by despite the persistent news items in local media about the violence that pervades the city.

Reshaping our view of the world

The gatekeeping theory has interested me for a while. I’m curious about where information comes from, where it’s going, who passes it along, and how it changes along the way. Originally the theory applied to food; Kurt Lewin examined how goods and services flowed through certain channels to eventually arrive in the home. But he drew a comparison between what he examined and news items. A short time later, David White applied the theory to a copy editor, and eventually Gaye Tuchman concluded that journalists have their own routines.

And perhaps that was the hook. As a journalist, I had my own routine; occasionally I would switch things up when I was short on time due to deadlines. What they say about lightening striking in the same place rarely applies to crime, and there was a high probability that I would cover two or more stories at once. I created a routine based on how long it took me to go from place to place, thumb through arrest reports and chew the fat (the best stories sometimes appear THAT way), and get back to the newsroom. My routine fit within the larger operation of the newspaper; my behavior usually worked within what the organization demanded of me.

There’s a logic that operates in the news media, and that logic varies from medium to medium. It is this logic that plays into the gatekeeping role, helping journalists determine the appropriate sources, types of information needed, and what is included or excluded. In this way journalists act as gatekeepers, but there are layers of gatekeeping. Think about the structure of a newsroom. Reporters go out and make contact with people, gathering news. The sources with whom journalists speak are gatekeepers; the editors are gatekeepers; even the readers are gatekeepers, choosing what they decide to read or skip over.

Additionally, the logic becomes apparent in how the information is included, how it is organized, and where the story is placed. While placement and organization are important, understanding which information is used as well as its source are at the top of my list. We often do not know the milieu in which the information was gathered. Is the reporter quoting a press release? Other news sources? Press conferences? Interviews? Archival material? All indicate how the information was gathered and packaged – and by whom. Recycled news scares me; if the information is inaccurate or incomplete, it becomes difficult to rectify that inaccuracy. And then how do we track the mistake back to its root?

Reused information renders news less poignant, less useful. It is the interaction with people (and sometimes documents and other artifacts) that creates the news; without them, you have robbed the news of its humanity. Journalists interact with a number of different people, and in doing this, help create an understanding (or misunderstanding) of people, places, and events. Each of us brings meaning to our interaction with one another and actively engages in consensus or disagreement about the world. Journalists use organizational values to shape their news product, and then send it down the editorial chain, where other people interact with the copy. Realizing this, it becomes important to understand the nature of information that we receive and the nature in which we receive it.

I wondered about this as I perused Google news Monday night. Look at the Kosovo stories that initially appeared in the Google search, knowing full well there are algorithms and other “techie” complexities that decide which stories come up. Typically the major parts of a story include the headline, a deck if present, the byline, the dateline, the lead, the nutgraph, the sources, the style, and ultimately the information that makes its way into the story. The order of information is also important, as often it indicates level of importance. Determining that all of the stories derived from news agencies, I sought to know if these stories changed from their original form and how.

Gatekeeping and Symbolic Interaction
Lewin (1947) said in order to change people’s food habits, it is necessary to find the “key positions” along the channel that carries the food, as items travel through these channels, proceeding through “definitive steps” (144). Often, this key position would include a person in a household who determines the necessary items needed and then sends them along the channel to the table. In my house, I would ultimately be the key position at the end of the chain, a definitive step for goods and services. But Lewin contended this concept also applies to other goods and services, especially the diffusion of news. David Manning White took Lewin’s concept and applied it to a wire copy editor, affectionately known at Mr. Gates. He found Gates used the type of news, or category, as a factor in his decision to include wire copy; Gates also made decisions based on how well written the story was and how well the story matched his readership. Finally Tuchman (1973) studied the routinization in lieu of unexpected events. Because variability poses problems for journalists in processing raw material, they ultimately devise methods for efficiently sorting through and labeling types of stories and bits of information. Many researchers have examined gatekeeping throughout the years, and use of the word "gatekeeper" has become as ubiquitous as the use of the word "framing"; many people use the words but rarely understand their theoretical underpinnings.

I imagine these channels to be more of a matrix, with several different possible sources of information and several different gatekeepers. As the information flows through these channels, they flow from and through different gates. For example, news is ultimately guided by an organization’s “common understanding of news values and imperatives” (Meyers, 1997, p. 21). But here’s the question: what happens to the information when it flows through each gate? While we might not be in a position to know pre-press, we can figure it out post-press. The question of gatekeeping becomes clearer when you begin to realize the journalist and each source are interacting with one another, and in turn the reporter’s product and the audience are interacting. They are creating meaning by exchanging symbols, through which a view of the world emerges.

Conceptualizing communication as symbolic interaction has a history. Blumer (1972) and Schutz (1967) both talked about how human beings exchange meaning. Goffman (1974) also talks about this interaction, and how it plays into human understanding and the organization of human experience. Both framing and media formats grew out of Goffman’s theory. But no matter which way you head – framing or formats – what emerges is the idea that the media help shape our view of the world. Ultimately, if you hold a gatekeeping position, you are charged with a responsibility that involves shaping how people see the world, not only the arena in which action occurs but their place within that arena.

In building a research project to study crime coverage in Philadelphia – affectionately called Killadelphia – I came across interesting tidbits about crime coverage. For example, Doris Graber (1980) concluded that many crime stories would include stock information; they tend to be cookie cutter stories, consistently employing specific pieces of information. Name and age of the suspect, address, and type of crime committed are typical in crime stories. Erickson, Baranek, and Chan (1991) contended that these stories would use the same sources; more often than not, many of the sources are official sources. Journalists and these sources engage in a symbiotic relationship. The sources provide information, which is needed by the journalists, and the journalists assure the sources have a place in the media food chain, which is often needed by those who want to disseminate important information. I have wanted to examine how this would play out in stories that didn’t deal with crime; thus, the Kosovo situation and the precipitating online news stories granted me an opportunity.

Kosovo
Late Monday evening and early Tuesday morning, news of the meeting between Kosovar leaders and U.S. officials went out over the wire. Kosovo is a province in Serbia that has long sought independence, and Serbia is attached to Kosovo; it does not want to let go. A majority of those living in Kosovo are Albanian, with a minority of Serbs. Both the United Nations and NATO have controlled and protected the province since 1999, when NATO led an air war against the Serbian military that sought to control Albanian separatists. This area has been a hotbed of contention; you might remember that an assassination in Serbia helped precipitate the war to end all wars in 1914. Of the four stories that appeared in Google news search, three originated from Reuters. When I say originated, I mean that Reuters put the copy over the wire, and other news agencies picked it up. The final story was an Associated Press article that Fox chose to pick up.

Reuters and AP both disseminate news; Reuters is a British news agency, and Associated Press is an not-for-profit cooperative owned by its 1,500 American daily members. This means if a news organization doesn’t have the resources to send its own reporter but has a newshole and thinks the content fits its readership, it can use the story. I wanted to see how news agencies portrayed the situation and how that story changed from news organization to news organization. I looked at five things: headline, lead, the nutgraph, the sources, and the context. I realize there are many ways to write a news story, but I’m from the Missouri school of journalism, so I reverted back to my education. Placed at the top of the story, the headline gives you the whole story in one sentence or less; absent of visuals, the headline grabs the readers’ attention. The lead tells you the news. The nutgraph, or as George Kennedy affectionately called the “rat’s ass” graph, tells you why you should care. “Why should I give a rat’s ass?” The sources tell you where the information came from, and the context gives you an idea of why the news is occurring and what is expected in the future.

The story that ran on Stuff.co.nz was nearly identical to the original Reuters’s story, so I will skip it. Fox ran an Associated Press story, rather than a story from Reuters, so I went to find the original AP story. I was unsuccessful on the Internet; I turned to LexisNexis, a database for news/legal nerds. There were a number of other news agencies that filed stories on the same subject, but since I’m not conducting a full-fledged research project, I decided to take a much easier route. Below is what I found when I looked at four stories. The links are included for all but the original AP story, as I only offer a summation of the articles. I encourage you to examine the stories.

Original Reuters Story
Written by Sue Pleming, this story describes the meeting between Kosovar leaders and U.S. officials.

The Headline: “Kosovo tells U.S. it will not declare independence”

The lead: “Kosovo told Washington on Monday that it did not plan to unilaterally declare independence from Serbia in November, senior officials from the United States and Kosovo said.”

The nutgraph: A paraphrase of a spokesman from the Kosovo delegation Skender Hyseni explaining that Kosovo's leaders assured U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice no unilateral action would be taken, and U.S. officials confirmed cooperation, not unilateral action.

The story provides context throughout, explaining Serbia’s opposition to independence, U.S. officials’ fear that unilateral claim to independence could lead to violence, and discussions within the UN Contact Group. Also, it provides the reason for the meeting: the U.N. resolution for independence was pushed aside by Russia. The story also provides an explanation for the fear of unilateral action: “Kosovo’s Prime Minister Agim Ceku, who met with Rice along with other senior Kosovo officials, had suggested on Friday he could ask the province’s parliament to declare independence from Serbia on November 28.” One additional tidbit to mention is the use of the word guerillas in the explanation of the war with Serbians.

The sources include Hyseni as well as two unnamed U.S. officials.

ABC’s version
Again, Sue Pleming’s name appears in the byline.

The headline: “U.S. urges Kosovo leaders to be patient”

The lead: “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Kosovo’s leaders on Monday to be patient in their push for independence after the United Nations put aside a resolution that Russia had threatened to veto.”

Nutgraph: The nutgraph in this story is the reason some fear unilateral action: “Kosovo’s Prime Minister Agim Ceku, who met Rice...urged the parliament last week to declare independence from Russian ally Serbia on November 28.”

While some of the context is the same material, it appears differently. In addition, some new information is also provided about the U.N. Security Council as well as the draft resolution that was removed after Russia opposed. Another sentence, which is without attribution, appears as well. “Last week Rice said Kosovo would get its independence 'one way or another,' but the Kosovo delegation was expected to make clear to her that patience was running out over the pace of international diplomacy that will decide their future.”

The sources include State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, an unnamed official traveling with the Kosovo delegation, and Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin. The official traveling with the Kosovo delegation had no comment, but the non-statement included a tidbit about talks including National Security adviser Stephen Hadley. It is unclear in what context Churkin made his statements - are they archival? From an interview?

After seeing the differences in the two stories, it becomes apparent that if you read one and not the other, your view of the situation might be different. It should be noted that I recognize a need to know about the editorial processes of both these organizations; information that appears in one story and not the other comes from somewhere. I think it is common practice of many journalists to take information from archive stories to add context, but sometimes the readers might not realize this unless they have followed the story. So what about the Associated Press stories?

Original AP story (Retrieved from LexisNexis, July 25, 2007)
Desmond Butler wrote this story, and like Sue Pleming’s story, it describes the Washington meeting.

The headline: “Kosovo officials assure US they will consult allies before declaring independence”

The lead: “U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reassured officials from Kosovo that the United States would push for recognition of the breakaway province’s independence from Serbia within months.”

Nutgraph: Both the Kosovar prime minister and president told Rice they would not declare negotiations unilaterally; any action would be coordinated with the United States.

The context of the story includes the same information as the Reuters story, with additional information. The story cites U.S. President Bush "hinting" that the United States “could recognize Kosovo without Security Council consent” during his trip to Albania in June. It also adds Martti Ahtisaari, the U.N.’s special envoy to Kosovo, recommended the province gain supervised independence in April. The story also includes that Kosovo’s population is majority ethnic Albanian, while the Fox story does not.

The sources include Kosovo’s president Fatmir Sejdiu from an interview with AP on Monday. The story also includes information from senior U.S. officials “speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for attribution.”

Fox’s version
Again, Desmond Butler has the byline.

The headline: “Kosovo head assures Rice on independence”

The lead: “Kosovo’s leaders told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday that the breakaway province would not declare independence from Serbia without coordinating the move with the United States.”

Nutgraph: Rice gave Kosovo’s officials assurance of the U.S.’s commitment to recognition of Kosovo’s independence within months, “even without a United Nations Security Council resolution.”

The information provided for context is the same as the previous story, though the order of information is different. Some of the information has also been reworked: “The meetings in Washington come days after the Security Council set aside a resolution that Russia called a hidden route to independence.”

The sources include Kosovo’s president, Fatmir Sejdiu, as well as State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

What did I learn from this?
The point here is not to criticize these news organizations but explore how these stories might morph as they travel through different gates, and as they change, to understand the meaning presented to readers about these events. Of course news organizations will organize stories in a manner that fits their styles, their readers, and their organizational missions. But the perspective of the stories from organization to organization seems dramatically different, which warrants a closer look.

Obviously ABC completely revamped the Reuters story, changing the perspective from the Kosovar leaders to the perspective of U.S. officials. The change in perspective is evident in the headline and the lead. The ABC story also includes information that was not included in the original story; where did it come from? Fox, on the other hand, stayed more true to the original AP story, rearranging some of the information. Both its lead and nutgraph are different, but not quite as much as th ABC story. The sources also varied, but this seems indicative of news organizations making the content their own. To me, as long as I understand the context in which the interview took place or the information was gathered, I'm happy.

What is not mentioned in these stories? The Serbian reaction. The Serbian parliament passed a resolution, stating the government would act if Kosovo declared its independence; it also warned those who aided Kosovo. What is worrisome is that each of these stories provide only a two-dimensional view of this situation, where there seems to be many dimensions. While this does not surprise me, splitting the larger picture into separate stories skews the brevity of the situation and provides reality piecemeal. I also noticed none of these online stories provides a link to stories about the Serbian reaction, though a couple of them provide online forums for readers.

While it might not be possible to read every story, it is possible to be more mindful of where information comes from, keeping tabs not only on news organizations but on sources, as well. Technology has helped create a more open society, but it has also galvanized competition within the news media. One evil produced by the current media environment is news recycling; it is difficult to tell the difference between fresh information and recycled information used for context. It is also increasingly difficult to understand the context in which information is gathered. Given these reasons, examining the news media is more important than ever, especially when the world presented might fit into the narrow perspective of one news organization or another. Even from within this narrow perspective, we as active participants have the ability to break free and search for a more complete picture, understanding that while the news media might shape our initial comprehension, we have the ability to reshape our view of the world.

References
Blumer, H. (1972). Symbolic interaction: An approach to human communication. In R. W. Budd and B. D. Ruben (Eds.), Approaches to Human Communication. New York: Spartan. pp. 401-419.

Erickson, R. V., Baranek, P. M., & Chan, J. B. L. (1991). Representing Order: Crime, Law, and Justice in the News Media. University of Toronto Press.

Graber, D. A. (1980). Crime News and The Public. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper Colophon Books.

Myers, M. (1997). News Coverage of Violence Against Women: Engendering Blame. London: Sage.

Schutz, A. (1967). Some basic problems of interpretive sociology. In The Phenomenology of the Social world, (Original work published in 1932). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. pp. 215-220.

Tuchman, G. (1973). Making News by Doing Work: Routinizing the Unexpected. American Journal of Sociology. 79(1). pp. 110-131.

White, D. M. (1950). The Gatekeeper: A Case Study in the Selection of News. Journalism Quarterly. (27). Reprinted In Social Meanings of News (1997), Dan Berkowitz, (Ed.). California: Sage.