Margaret Sullivan and metajournalistic discourse: A critic’s view within the journalistic field

This study concerns how Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan discursively protected journalistic autonomy, expelled deviant actors, and accepted expansion of journalistic boundaries if necessary to preserve the field. Attention to Sullivan’s columns is justified based on her position as an individual with substantial journalistic capital hired to critique news media by two newspapers that hold elite institutional-level roles within U.S. journalism. A discourse analysis of Sullivan’s 2021 columns—guided by field theory and the concept of metajournalistic discourse—indicated that Sullivan discursively protected journalistic autonomy with references to truth, accuracy, independence, and journalism’s watchdog role while contesting traditional conceptualizations of objectivity. Consistent with previous scholarship, she identified three threats to the field: disruption of journalism’s gatekeeping role by digital platforms, the challenge to press freedom of authoritarianism, and diminishment of local news by private investment firms. She positioned Fox News outside journalism’s boundaries and condemned a CNN anchor for violating journalistic values. She accepted public support for news media insofar as market actors challenged journalistic values. Perhaps consistent with her position within the journalistic field, her discourse largely adhered to the values and practices of elite U.S. journalism even as she criticized journalists and news media.