{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017376681614349777, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.283450704225352, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sociology and Journalism: A Comparative Analysis

Sociological researchers and journalists both study society and write or film reports about their findings, but they are not particularly fond of each other. Many sociologists disparage and even dismiss the work of journalists and, equally important, of fellow sociologists they consider to be journalists. Journalists are condemned mostly for dramatizing, oversimplifying, and sensationalizing their findings. They are also condemned for methodological shortcomings, such as using anecdotes and samples of one or two as evidence. In addition, sociologists criticize journalists for not understanding their work or oversimplifying their reports on it. They also look down on journalists for being only descriptive, and fellow sociologists who are deemed to be too descriptive may therefore be dismissed as journalists. Eschewing disciplinary concepts can result in the same put-down, and so will repeated appearances in the news media. As far as I know, no one has ever systematically studied sociology’s opinions of and behavior toward journalism. Nor do we know how widespread these opinions and behaviors are. My hunch: they are practiced most widely among sociologists who consider themselves social scientists devoted to empirical research that contributes to theorybuilding and the literature. Even if their research is publicly funded, they report their work by adding to the sociological literature rather than by informing the general public, and they may be reluctant to talk to journalists. Conversely, sociologists who see themselves as social scientists and seek mainly to understand American and other societies probably look more kindly on journalists. Public sociologists may admire them for their ability to reach the general public. To be sure, sociologists are not alone in dismissing journalists, for they are treated similarly by the other social sciences. I still remember when the late John Kenneth Galbraith, arguably the most influential American economist of the last century, was called a journalist, and I can think of several contemporary economists who are probably being put down the same way. Journalists are no more complimentary; they see sociologists as given to jargon and other forms of opaque writing. Instead of focusing on the important or interesting topics about which journalists report, sociologists produce too many boring writings on topics that journalists view as not newsworthy. The critiques that the two disciplines level at each other reflect their different disciplinary norms, but also those of the very different institutions in which they are embedded. Still, some criticisms are justified, particularly those that impair the usefulness of the two disciplines for their audiences, others in the general public, and the country. However, this essay is limited to a comparative analysis of journalism and sociology as two disciplines studying and reporting on the same society. It will argue that they do so for different purposes, that they report their findings to different audiences, and that they differ in many other ways. They are not even competing for scarce resources, power, or other institutional necessities or rewards. Consequently, they need not disparage each other. The essay also suggests that the two disciplines are similar in a few ways and sometimes use each other for their work. As a result, both would gain from greater mutual understanding and a more cooperative relationship. The essay concludes with some suggestions for advancing both.