{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03627906976744186, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011162790697674419, 'mean_word_length': 5.148571428571429, '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}}
Western journalism’s ‘Other’: The legacy of the Cold War in the comparative study of journalism

In 1995, when discussing the critiques of the New York Times made by academics and pundits, Michael Schudson stated that the newspaper has never been anything ‘like the late, unlamented Pravda’. This comparison, utilized in a variety of ways over time, originated in the canonical Four Theories of the Press (Siebert et al., 1963[1956]). This juxtaposition, more broadly, uses the Cold War ‘Other’ to define what western journalism is, or should be, by what it is not. Building on the theoretical insights of Fredrik Barth and Edward Said, this article traces the construction of this ‘Other’ in the study of western journalism. Ultimately, the author argues that the use of this ‘Other’ in the construction of a coherent, meaningful definition of western journalism, and in the explication and justification of journalistic practice therein, constitutes a problematic guide in thinking about the development of journalism in nations that were historically part of this ‘Other’.