Journalism Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjos20

Journalists’ Perceptions of Precarity: Toward a

Theoretical Model

Jana Rick & Thomas Hanitzsch

To cite this article: Jana Rick & Thomas Hanitzsch (2024) Journalists’ Perceptions
of Precarity: Toward a Theoretical Model, Journalism Studies, 25:2, 199-217, DOI:
10.1080/1461670X.2023.2293827

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2293827

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 17 Dec 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1425

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjos20
JOURNALISM STUDIES
2024, VOL. 25, NO. 2, 199–217
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2293827

Journalists’ Perceptions of Precarity: Toward a Theoretical

Model
Jana Rick and Thomas Hanitzsch
Department of Media and Communication, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Journalistic work has become increasingly precarious. Labor Received 21 March 2023
conditions in the profession meet several criteria of precarity, as Accepted 5 December 2023
established in the sociology of work. Journalists, especially
KEYWORDS
freelancers, often have low and unstable incomes and only Precarity research;
limited access to social insurance. Thus far, precarity research in journalists; conceptual
journalism has primarily focused on empirical investigations of model; theory; perception;
precarious employment rather than on theorizing how journalists labor conditions
actually perceive these working conditions. This paper proposes a
theoretical model that determines the factors of security and
insecurity that can lead to a stronger or weaker perception of
precarity. Drawing on a review of the precarity literature, the
model allows for subjectivity within the precarious experience of
journalists. It shows that family responsibilities and personality
traits belong to the subjective factors influencing journalists’
perceptions of precarity. In addition, perceptions of insecure
employment conditions depend on the life stage of the worker.
We strongly recommend a multidimensional approach that
captures not only the objective conditions of work but also
journalists’ subjective sense of precarity.

Introduction
Several studies from various countries clearly show that journalism is increasingly becom-
ing a precarious profession (e.g., Gollmitzer 2014; Örnebring 2018; O’Donnell and Zion
2018). Journalists produce a growing proportion of news content in what is commonly
referred to as atypical work and insecure employment situations (Deuze 2007; Gollmitzer
2014). Part-time, temporary, short-time, piece, and casual work, as well as dependent self-
employment, have become more common in recent years (e.g., Singer 2011). Freelance
workers in the media sector tend to have low and unstable incomes and limited access
to social benefits, such as pension funds and unemployment insurance (Gollmitzer
2014). At the same time, recent studies show that employed journalists, too, can be
exposed to precarious working conditions characterized by high levels of insecurity
(Morini, Carls and Armano 2014; Patrick and Elks 2015). These developments have
raised public concerns about journalism becoming more vulnerable to economic

CONTACT Jana Rick jana.rick@ifkw.lmu.de

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which
this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
200 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

pressure as well as more fragile in itself, as expressed in a resolution passed by the

European Parliament in 2013 (European Parliament 2013).
Precarious working conditions not only have consequences for the labor market but also
come with perceived job insecurity (Kalleberg 2009). Therefore, as Hense (2018) and Hes-
mondhalgh and Baker (2011) pointed out, research on precarity and insecurity must be sup-
plemented by subjective indicators, which may open new avenues for research. Journalism
scholarship has already started to focus on the way journalists perceive their working con-
ditions; however, these studies rarely look at the phenomenon from a theoretical perspective
(see also Gollmitzer 2014). This is also true for other domains of work in which the subjective
interpretation of precarity is rarely theorized. Hense’s (2018) sociological work can probably
be considered the most significant approach in this direction; her work presents an explana-
tory model for the perception of precarity, which can be seen as an attempt to socially explain
perceptions of inequality. Another perspective on comprehending the subjectivity of precar-
ity emerges from Schultheis’ (2016) work on “experiencing precarity.” The author documen-
ted the subjective perceptions of those affected and recorded the changes experienced in the
working environment. Studies such as those by Hense (2018) and Schultheis (2016) show that
subjective precarity research has become increasingly relevant to the sociology of work.
There is a need for journalism researchers to understand and theorize about the subjective
side of precarity, as it is an essential parameter of journalists’ occupational job satisfaction.
Hense (2018) emphasized that research is still in need of an integrative explanatory model
that merges different levels and perspectives of analysis. This paper attempts to fill this
gap by offering a conceptual model of perceptions of precarity in the working environment
of journalism. We argue that such a model has the potential to contribute to a better and
more complex understanding of precarious working conditions in the media industry. By dis-
tinguishing between causes of precarity, distinct dimensions of objective precarity, and indi-
vidual dispositions driving or moderating subjective perceptions of precarity, the model also
helps contextualize the phenomenon. A better understanding of precarious labor may
encourage decision-makers to take concrete measures against precarization in journalism.
Empirical journalism research already indicates that not all journalists working under
precarious conditions feel insecure or perceive their situation as precarious (Dex et al.
2000; Morini, Carls, and Armano 2014; Patrick and Elks 2015; Schnedler 2017). Looking
at the empirical results from a new perspective, one might even see atypical work con-
ditions as offering opportunities rather than—or in addition to—risks. The question,
therefore, is which determinants influence the perception of precarity: What makes jour-
nalists feel safe, even if they work under precarious conditions?
This paper proposes a theoretical model that aims not only to analyze the objective
criteria of precarity in journalism but also to highlight the subjective dimension of precar-
ity. As we see a need to understand precarity from a multidisciplinary perspective, we
propose an approach that bridges the gap between journalism research and sociology.
The first part of the paper will establish the relevant terminology to serve as the basis
for the model; the second part of the paper will introduce the proposed model.

Defining Precarity, Precariousness, and Precarization

According to the sociological works of Bourdieu (1998) and Kalleberg (2009), precarity is a
state of uncertainty. Kraemer (2008) used the term to describe the erosion of socially
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 201

protected employment relationships. Various concepts of precarity are used in occu-

pational psychology and in the sociology of work, but all definitions agree on one
point: precarity is a relational category that depends on the definition of social standards
related to work (Brinkmann et al. 2006; Dörre 2014; Kraemer 2008). In other words,
employment is precarious because it is “evaluated as precarious” in relation to other
forms of employment (Kraemer 2008, 84, emphasis in original). We discuss the differences
between precarious work and standard employment in the following section.
In academic conversations about precarization, “precarity” and “precariousness” are
often used interchangeably to describe a state or condition of being vulnerable, uncer-
tain, or unstable. Both terms involve instability, vulnerability, and a lack of protection;
however, the two notions actually capture conceptually distinct aspects of social
reality. The philosopher Judith Butler (2006, 2009) proposed separate definitions of “pre-
carity” and “precariousness.” She established precariousness as a generalized human con-
dition—the overall vulnerability of embodied existence. In the socio-ontological
dimension of society, life is inevitably endangered, making precariousness a condition
to which every human being is exposed to some (higher or lower) degree. An inevitable
and defining characteristic of life, precariousness is a common experience for everyone.
Precarity, by contrast, can be seen as the uneven distribution of precariousness; it
depends heavily on power relations and social hierarchies. In this sense, precarity is inher-
ently political (Butler 2009).
The term “precarization” describes a process of gradual erosion of formerly stable
employment conditions (Kraemer 2008). Riesinger (2016) emphasized the processual
nature of the term, in contrast to precarity, and sees precarization as situational; Lorey
viewed precarization from a governmental perspective and describes it as a mode of gov-
erning (Lorey 2015). As precarious employees often work side by side with colleagues in
normal employment conditions, the latter act as constant “reminders” of insecure working
conditions (Dörre, Kraemer, and Speidel 2006, 85). Therefore, one can speak of the “dis-
ciplining force” of precarization, which demonstrates that fear of precarization has also
arrived in the upper strata of society, leading to an emerging class of what Standing
(2011) and others have called “the precariat.”
In any case, the definitions of “precarity” and “precariousness” can change over time, as
they are shaped by individual workers, the labor market, labor policies, and society as a
whole (Brinkmann et al. 2006). The distinction between precarity and precariousness
made by Butler (2009) enables us to advance a consistent terminology for this paper:
we prefer to work with the term “precarity,” in line with Butler’s view that individuals’ pre-
carious conditions and experiences are unevenly distributed.

Conceptualizing Atypical and Precarious Employment

Atypical work is defined by the characteristics of non-standard work (Rodgers 1989); it
refers to employment relationships that do not conform to the standard or “typical”
model of employment. In this context, “standard” or “normal” means permanent and
full-time employment (Hinterseer 2013); consequently, every employment situation
that deviates from this definition is considered atypical.
Standard employment is typically seen as the benchmark for “good work” (Brinkmann
et al. 2006). In the literature, full-time employment, permanent contracts, and full
202 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

integration into social security systems are primarily considered the criteria for standard
employment (Keller and Seifert 2013). Non-standard or atypical employment is usually set
against these criteria. The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions (2017) defines atypical employment as work that does not
conform to the standard or “typical” model of full-time, regular, open-ended employment
with a single employer over a long period of time.
In journalism, atypical work can primarily be found in short-term rolling contracts, sub-
contracted work, casual work, temporary work, and freelance work (Walters, Warren, and
Dobbie 2006). In view of this long list of types of atypical work in journalism, one could
argue that atypical employment has actually become “typical” in this sector, making for
a “new normality” (Örnebring 2018; Salamon 2020; Schnedler 2017). This is particularly
true for freelance work.
The definition of precarious employment seems identical to that of atypical employ-
ment, as it can be described as situations in which employees “fall significantly below a
level of income, protection and social integration due to their work, which is recognized
in contemporary society as the standard” (Brinkmann et al. 2006, 17). Since many atypical
employment relationships are simultaneously precarious employment relationships, the
terms are often used interchangeably, but despite the many overlaps between precarious
and atypical forms of employment, it is key to keep the two concepts distinct. Atypical
employment is not necessarily precarious; however, it is evident that atypical forms of
employment have a particularly high potential for precarity compared to normal employ-
ment (Brinkmann et al. 2006; Keller and Seifert 2013). We discuss the characteristics of pre-
carious employment in greater detail below. At this point, it suffices to note that the
literature primarily defines precarious employment on the basis of four essential charac-
teristics: an income too small to make a living, a lack of social security, a lack of employ-
ment stability, and missing employability (Keller and Seifert 2013). With these dimensions
taken as a guideline, it is atypical employment structures that present the potential for
precarity (Brinkmann et al. 2006; Keller and Seifert 2013). At the same time, standard
employment is not free of precarity risks. Ultimately, both forms of employment may
show elements of precarity.

The Proposed Model

Our model (see Figure 1) covers dimensions of precarity according to Dörre, Kraemer,
and Speidel (2006) and Brinkmann et al. (2006), as well as its causes and subjective
factors. Brinkmann et al.’s (2006) study is based on Castel and Dörre’s (2009) three-
zone model, which offers a typology of precarity perceptions. We apply these concepts
to journalism by reviewing the state of research on precarious work in the field. The
literature review primarily consists of qualitative studies exploring precarity (see
Alberti et al. 2018) and focusing on investigating journalists’ subjective views of precar-
ious working situations. In order to cover a broad spectrum of journalists and to reach
universal applicability for our model, we reviewed international studies and included
empirical data of employed (e.g., Morini, Carls, and Armano 2014; Patrick and Elks
2015) and freelance journalists (e.g., Edstrom and Ladendorf 2012; Marín-Sanchiz, Car-
vajal, and González-Esteban 2023; Norbäck 2022). The findings of these studies are
blended with our theoretical model.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 203

Figure 1. “Perceptions of precarity in journalism” model.

Causes of Precarity
With the left column of our model, we aim to capture possible reasons for the precarious
nature of the journalistic profession. We classified the causes of precarity into five cat-
egories: sociocultural, political, economic, technological, and organizational factors. All
of these categories influence the working environments of journalists; hence, the associ-
ated factors can be seen as triggers leading to precarious working conditions in
journalism.
The first series of determinants can be described as sociocultural factors. A major aspect
here is the declining public recognition afforded to journalism and journalistic content.
Even if studies showed an increased level of trust in the news during the pandemic,
they also provide evidence of an overall decline in trust in news media for many countries
around the world (Hanitzsch, Steindl, and van Dalen 2018; Newman et al. 2020). A lack of
appreciation is also expressed in the “content-for-free” mentality: for instance, three-quar-
ters of German online users believe that the basic idea of the Internet is to disseminate
information through free channels (Buschow and Wellbrock 2019). In other words, willing-
ness to pay for journalistic content is not widespread.
Furthermore, the aspect of gender should not be ignored in discussions of sociocul-
tural factors that influence precarity. The gender pay gap plays a role in modern
society and in journalism (Henninger and Gottschall 2007; IFJ 2021), as does the
unequal gender distribution of family duties and childcare. Such inequality is reflected
204 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

in the employment situation of journalists. The Worlds of Journalism Study, for instance,
indicates that female journalists are less likely to be in a full-time employment (Josephi
et al. 2019). Rodgers (1989) speaks of a feminization of atypical work, mainly due to
part-time work and homeworking by women.
Political factors include all forms of government policy that impact journalism. These
encompass media, market, and labor market regulations, which can all vary from
country to country. For example, media regulation could consist of censorship and
license fees, which could undermine journalism’s autonomy. Additionally, the state
often finances public media through broadcasting fees, while private media depend on
advertising revenues; therefore, the latter are more vulnerable to precarious working con-
ditions due to a continued shrinkage of advertisement expenditures, which means that
precarity is more frequent in private than in public media. The government also has
the power to check for media monopolies, and keep media concentration as moderate
as possible. This can be achieved, for example, through competition law or merger
control.
Some have argued that flexibilization is a central prerequisite for coping with structural
change and economic growth, along with reducing unemployment (Keller and Seifert
2013). In this context, the process of flexibilization is associated with a high degree of
freedom, as it gives workers more leeway to manage their time. The so-called “gig
economy” allows journalistic workers to schedule work around personal and family com-
mitments (O’Donnell and Zion 2018). Brinkmann et al. (2006, 9) believed that these forms
of work create new opportunities for getting “outsiders” into labor market employment.
Nevertheless, the authors cautioned against downplaying the loss of security in the
debate on flexible working models (Brinkmann et al. 2006). Relatedly, the literature dis-
tinguishes between “employer-driven flexibility” and “employee-driven flexibility”
(Henly, Shaefer, and Waxman 2006), which, again, points to the concepts’ complexity.
Flexibilization can be regarded as a core element of precarious work, as in the context
of “employer-driven flexibility,” offering more advantages to the employer than to the
employee (Higgins-Dobney 2022). It is difficult to draw a line between precarization
and flexibilization—especially in creative industries, where freelancing has always
played a big part. Nearly all precarious contracts are considered flexible forms of work,
but the big question is whether workers desire this or not.
All types of benefits derived from the welfare system (e.g., child benefits, maternity
benefits, retirement, unemployment pay, and health insurance) are subject to labor
market regulation. Workers can quickly sink even deeper into precarity if access to
these benefits is restricted. In journalism, freelancers primarily face difficulties regarding
legal security due to, for example, a lack of rules for maternity leave (Gollmitzer 2014).
Political factors also encompass the influence of trade unions. In theory, unions have
the power to influence the working environment of journalists; they can do so by, for
example, putting pressure on the government to change legislation to limit, prevent,
or even forbid certain forms of precarious employment. However, journalists’ union mem-
bership, and consequently their leverage over their working conditions, is generally
shrinking (e.g., Márquez-Ramírez, Amado, and Waisbord 2022; Norbäck 2022), as can be
observed in Australia (O’Donnell and Zion 2018). The structure of the journalism industry
presents challenges to representing and mobilizing workers, as it is an increasingly diffuse
and insecure industry (Cohen 2011; Josephi et al. 2019).
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 205

The economic factors of precarity represent the most prominent causes of journalistic
change. It is well known that the migration of traditional advertising revenues to the inter-
net destabilized the business models of media houses (e.g., Nielsen 2016; Picard 2014;
Steiner and Chadha 2022). Taking Germany as an example, statistics show that in the
past, two-thirds of daily newspapers in Germany were financed by advertising revenues
and only one-third by newspaper sales; today, the share of the former has fallen to less
than 50% (Novy 2013). Especially during the outbreak of the pandemic, the industry
suffered from a huge revenue drop (e.g., Posetti, Bell, and Brown 2020). Here, Steiner
and Chadha (2022, 1) establish a direct link to precarity, arguing that the collapse of jour-
nalism’s business model deepened existing forms of precarity in the industry. This crisis
has led to increased media competition (Chadha and Steiner 2022; Nielsen 2016), includ-
ing providers that are new to the industry, such as Google and Meta. Hanusch et al. (2019,
270) also demonstrated that journalists themselves perceive economic factors, such as
market pressures, as “increasingly influential.”
While speaking of new media shaping the journalistic market, Chadwick (2013) men-
tioned a “hybridization” of the media market, in which new communication technologies
have reshaped the media environment. The author argued that today’s media system is
based on conflict and competition between “older and newer media logics” (Chadwick
2013, 207). In our model, we assigned hybridization to technological factors. Hanusch
et al. (2019) showed that the impact of social media is the strongest influence journalists
perceive when reflecting on changes in news work. Undoubtedly, digitalization is an
essential technological factor in our model, influencing journalists’ working routines
and working conditions (see also Gollmitzer 2019). The process of moving from analog
to digital has already been discussed in the context of changing business models; the
digital revolution has radically changed the framework conditions for journalism and
requires new skills from editors (Örnebring 2018; Witschge and Nygren 2009). “Multime-
diality” and “participation” are recent related trends that influence the nature of journal-
istic work: first, journalism no longer focuses solely on one medium but produces and
performs multimedia-based content; second, new media allow interactive forms of invol-
vement, leading to recipients playing an active role in journalism. Consequently, journal-
istic know-how has expanded from the “traditional tools” to the digital skills necessary to
be competitive in the digital age.
Another technological factor is the automation of journalistic routines. Artificial intelli-
gence has arrived in the media sector: robots can write short news, and algorithms
change the way news is created, published, and shared (e.g., Carlson 2015; Thurman,
Dörr, and Kunert 2017). Of course, automation can be seen as an opportunity for faster
and cheaper production (e.g., Moran and Shaikh 2022), but at the same time, it can
also lead to “deskilling of journalists” (Gollmitzer 2019). The threat of artificial intelligence
to journalistic labor, more recently, is treated differently in the literature. While some
authors express concerns about the ability of these technologies to replace journalists
as human workers (Carlson 2015; Moran and Shaikh 2022), other studies show that jour-
nalists feel less threatened by the automation of news production (Thäsler-Kordonouri
and Barling 2023; Wu, Tandoc, and Salmon 2019).
At the same time, journalists are increasingly confronted with several organizational
factors, which refer to, for example, management routines within newsrooms or media
organizations (Hanitzsch et al. 2019). It is well known that media houses and publishers
206 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

take cost-cutting measures and merge editorial offices (Hollifield 2011). In terms of the flexi-
bilization of the media market, companies increasingly rely on freelancers because the costs
of social security are lower for them than for permanent employees. The increased reliance
on freelancers can be interpreted as an outsourcing practice within the news industry
(Cohen 2017; Örnebring and Ferrer Conill 2016). Of course, the defunding of newsrooms
and the “casualization of journalistic labor” (Örnebring and Ferrer Conill 2016, 211) harm
the remaining journalists in the newsrooms, as they have to take on more work than
before. In fact, in the Worlds of Journalism Study, organizational factors were perceived
to have the second-most potent influence on journalistic work (Hanitzsch et al. 2019).

Objective Precarity
Objective indicators of precarity can be seen as potential risk factors that are structurally
identifiable (Hense 2018). To describe the objective criteria of precarious employment in
our model, we integrated seven dimensions of precarity—adopted from Dörre, Kraemer,
and Speidel (2006), Brinkmann et al. (2006), and Rodgers (1989)—and applied them to the
working environment of journalism. These dimensions define different objective criteria
that help us draw a distinction between standard employment and atypical work and
allow us to describe precarity from several perspectives on different levels. Within the
model, we arranged all dimensions in an order that fits the model’s left column (i.e.,
the causes of precarity). For example, sociocultural factors (top left in the model) can
decrease journalism recognition (top middle). The following paragraphs present the
seven dimensions, proceeding from top to bottom.
First, Dörre et al.´s (2006) dimensional model includes the criterion of recognition when
work is associated with social disregard. As mentioned above, this dimension can also be
found in journalism due to the deterioration of journalistic prestige (e.g., Tong and Lo
2017). Second, the legal-institutional level describes precarity in terms of entitlement to
social benefits, such as pension insurance or protection against dismissal. Rodgers
(1989, 3) defined this dimension as the extent to which workers are protected “either
by law, or through a collective organization,” and also mentions access to social security
benefits. In Schnedler’s (2017) study, most respondents were in a state of precarity due to
a lack of legal and social security. Journalists permanently employed by public-service
media often take advantage of fringe benefits, such as a company pension, family allow-
ances, or extra holiday pay; freelancers, however, have to take care of these benefits at
their own expense (Gollmitzer 2019). The same applies to fixed-price staff, journalists
who regularly work for the same organization and receive a regular income but are not
insured by the employer. In Germany for example, the German Artists Social Fund
(KSK) is responsible for the social security of freelance journalists, and it can be seen as
the most important institution for freelancers (DJV 2009; Gollmitzer 2022), as its social
insurance scheme gives them protections similar to those provided by the statutory
social security system (Gollmitzer 2014). Nevertheless, freelancers globally face high
market risks with regard to security on a legal-institutional level (Gollmitzer 2014; Hennin-
ger and Gottschall 2007; Norbäck 2021; Norbäck and Styhre 2019).
The contractual level or dimension of “employment stability” involves all forms of
employment that have precarious potential because of their instability. Working only a
few hours a week or changing employers is often related to instability and insecurity.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 207

In a survey by the Reuters Institute, more than half of the participants predicted that jour-
nalistic employment would become increasingly precarious and uncertain in the future
(Picard 2015). Unstable employment is primarily related to atypical contracts which
include fixed-term contracts and part-time work, casual work, pseudo self-employment,
and, of course, freelancing. Naturally, numbers pertaining to employment conditions in
journalism vary from country to country; in the United States, full-time editorial employ-
ment experienced a drop of about 30% between 1992 and 2014 (Gollmitzer 2014), and in
2017, about 74% of German journalists were employed full-time, and about 8% worked
part-time (Steindl, Lauerer, and Hanitzsch 2017). These numbers resonate with the evi-
dence from the Worlds of Journalism Study (2019), which found that the percentage of
full-time employees varied between 41.7% in the Netherlands and 100% in Japan.
Given the intense public precarity debate, these statistics may come as a surprise.
However, after waves of mass layoffs, mostly those with a fixed contract and legal protec-
tion against dismissal remain in newsrooms. Layoffs first affect those who could be dis-
missed without any problems—that is freelancers and fixed-price staff. Still, all these
data provide only limited information about the employment situation of journalists,
since the statistics do not include whether journalists voluntarily or involuntarily find
themselves in atypical employment.
Most atypical work situations usually generate low and unstable incomes. The repro-
ductive-material dimension describes the threat of having difficulties surviving on a jour-
nalistic income (Brinkmann et al. 2006). It states that precarious employment means
having a low and unpredictable income, mostly too small to make a living. Of course,
the definition of “low salary” is somewhat arbitrary; in most surveys of journalists, “low-
wage earners” are defined as having an income of less than €1000 (DJV 2009) or €
1800 (Steindl, Lauerer, and Hanitzsch 2017). The uncertainty around making a living on
a given journalistic income also shines through in the studies of Deuze and Witschge
(2018, Netherlands), Schnedler (2017, Germany), Mathisen and Knudsen (2022, Norway),
and Gollmitzer (2022, Germany and Canada). If a worker cannot secure a livelihood, we
can surely speak of precarious employment at the material level.
In the social-communicative dimension, employment is precarious if the form of
employment prevents equal integration into social or professional networks (Brinkmann
et al. 2006). Journalism relies heavily on networking, especially freelance journalism (Goll-
mitzer 2014; Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal, and González-Esteban 2023; Norbäck 2022). Net-
works keep people informed about job opportunities and keep them in touch with
potential employers. Therefore, if access to those networks in journalism is limited, hin-
dered, or even prohibited, we can speak of precarious employment in the industry.
Another dimension of precarity in the model of Dörre, Kraemer, and Speidel (2006) is
“contents of work” which addresses whether an employee is satisfied (or not) with the job.
We renamed this dimension the nature of work to avoid confusion with the term “journal-
istic content.” In this case, not only an employment relationship but also the work itself
can be precarious (Kraemer 2008). Here, work is classified as precarious if it is associated
with a loss of meaning. News workers are exposed to a number of daily stressors, such as
time pressure and increased workload (e.g., Monteiro, Marques Pinto, and Roberto 2016;
Reinardy 2011), which could lead to a loss of passion. A loss of meaning may also happen
through overidentification with the job, which can even lead to self-exploitation—a well-
known phenomenon in creative industries (Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011). This type of
208 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

stress is not rare in journalism and has been proven in studies as workaholism (e.g., Burke
and Matthiesen 2004). Many journalists see their jobs not simply as work but as a calling.
One possible consequence of these various forms of loss of meaning in journalism can be
an erosion of quality, since journalists may put aside quality standards as a result of time
pressure and seemingly meaningless work (Márquez-Ramírez, Amado, and Waisbord
2022; Norbäck 2021; 2022; Schnedler 2017). Freelance journalists, for example, see them-
selves being forced to reduce the amount of time spent on a given news article, which can
shrink the number of sources used (Norbäck 2021). Although the scope of this paper does
not allow for an extended examination of the consequences of precarity on the quality of
news, we strongly advise that these be kept in mind in future studies.
The last dimension, life-planning, considers precarity on an individual level when the
employment relationship excludes the realization of life plans. This dimension can be
compared to Castel’s category “settling down in precarity,” where he asks, “How can
one settle in such situations and anchor a life plan?” (Castel 2000, 358). In the case of pre-
carity and fixed-term jobs, only short-term, reactive life planning is possible, which leads
to a loss of control and predictability (Dörre, Kraemer, and Speidel 2006). By contrast, stan-
dard employment allows long-term planning for one’s professional future and private life
(Dörre 2014). In addition, short-term planning is limited by the working hours of atypical
work: freelancers often work in the evenings or on weekends, and permanently employed
journalists may be spontaneously assigned to Sunday duty due to staff shortages. More-
over, the irregular income of freelancers complicates private life planning (Gollmitzer
2019; Norbäck 2021).

Individual Dispositions and Subjective Precarity

To understand how journalists deal with precarious situations and how they feel about
them, one must capture individual experiences. Examining the subjective side of precarity
allows us to answer questions about perceptions of precarious working situations. To
describe the factors that may influence the perception of precarity, we decided to use
the term dispositions, based on Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (1990). Schultheis (2016)
describes subjective dispositions in the context of precarization as essential social charac-
teristics that a person has or does not have.
Based on these dispositions and Castel’s zone model (2000), we developed six types of
precarity perceptions. Dörre, Kraemer, and Speidel (2006) inserted various typologies of
the (dis)integration potentials of precarious employment into the zone model, thus dis-
tinguishing nine types within the model categorized across the zone of integration, the
zone of precarity, and the zone of detachment. We decided to focus on the types
within the precarity zone, and we arranged them along the axis of perception. Table 1
presents the types of people who conceive precarity similarly due to similar security or
uncertainty factors (dispositions) in their lives. These groups can be arranged along a con-
tinuum of precarity perception, from a stronger perception down to a weaker one (see
Figure 1).
Perceptions of precarity are strongest among journalists who are exposed to few secur-
ity factors in their lives. We assign these to “the Suspended” group. We expect this cat-
egory to include primarily pseudo-self-employed journalists or, so-called fixed-price
journalists who are excluded from legal employment and usually have no access to
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 209

Table 1. Types of precarity perceivers.

Subjective
perception of
Type precarity Main factors of (in)security Examples
The Suspended Very strong Lack of social protection A journalist with a frame contract (Schnedler
perception No additional income 2017)
The Frustrated Strong High family responsibility A freelance journalist with
perception children (Gollmitzer 2022)
The Hopeful Moderately Younger age and no family A journalist in their twenties (Dex et al.
strong responsibility 2000)
perception
The Satisfied Weak perception/ Any source of additional income A journalist who gets financially supported
No perception (e.g., moonlighting or financial by their family (Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal,
support from a partner) and González-Esteban 2023)
A journalist with property
(Schnedler 2017)
The Self- Weak perception/ High skills and integration in A well-networked junior freelance journalist
manager No perception networks (Norbäck and Styhre 2019)
The Motivated Weak perception/ High need for flexibility A freelancer who loves their job (Schnedler
No perception High intrinsic motivation 2017)

social insurance, even though they work permanently for one employer (Schnedler 2017).
This lack of protection can be seen as the main reason why the Suspended perceive pre-
carity most strongly. Schnedler’s (2017) study presents several journalists to whom this
situation applies, for example, a reporter, who works for a broadcaster on a so-called
“frame contract” which is a temporary agreement. The seriousness of the situation is illus-
trated by a comment made by one affected journalist: “Well, there’s an official duty roster,
a duty roster that’s laying out openly in the office. But it’s only for the permanent employ-
ees. And the roster where also the freelancers are listed is always (laughs), well, hidden.”
(Schnedler 2017, 139. Authors’ translation).
How a journalist perceives precarity may also depend on their phase of life. Studies by
Dex et al. (2000), Gollmitzer (2014), and Schnedler (2017) show that being older can relate
to a stronger feeling of insecurity. As a person ages, their needs and fears change; older
workers may start caring about retirement pay; hence, their demand for security increases,
and they perceive freelance and fixed-term employment as more precarious. Therefore,
based on an argument by Kalleberg (2009), we believe that older age can be seen as a
factor of insecurity, while younger age as a factor of security (see Figure 1). For younger
journalists, several studies observe a more positive perception of insecure working con-
ditions as providing greater flexibility and mobility. Many young journalists accept such
working conditions because they see them as an inevitable aspect of their careers, and
they do not complain about their situation because they see it as a stepping-stone and
a temporary phase in their careers (Dex et al. 2000; Gollmitzer 2021; Henninger and
Gottschall 2007; Morini, Carls, and Armano 2014; Norbäck and Styhre 2019; Örnebring
2018). Consequently, precarity is seen as “normal,” and uncertainty has become an inte-
gral part of the profession (Örnebring 2018; Salamon 2020). We call those journalists “the
Hopeful,” following the concept of “hope labor” (Kuehn and Corrigan 2013). In this view,
workers may accept working conditions with the hope of future career options (also see
Gollmitzer 2021 and Norbäck 2022).
Related to age are also the family responsibilities a journalist may have. Parents in journal-
ism are burdened with much higher uncertainty pressure than their colleagues without
210 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

family duties (Gollmitzer 2014); exceptionally high precarity fears are expected from single
parents. However, younger journalists may appreciate freelance work and perceive the
employment situation as secure as long as they have no family obligations (Gollmitzer
2014, 2022; Norbäck and Styhre 2019). This may quickly change when a journalist starts
making family plans, as the need for safety—especially financial safety—increases with chil-
dren. As a result, Gollmitzer (2022) and Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal, and González-Esteban
(2023) reported that having children can be perceived as a private risk in freelance journal-
ism. A father and freelance journalist in Gollmitzer’s (2022) study pointed to insecurities
arising from freelance work in media, such as the lack of access to parental leave, propelling
him into “the Frustrated”: “My friends were like … we’re going to the baby and mommy
class and I was like … I have a column to write. When my babies napped, I worked.”
One compensating factor, or factor of security, can be any additional income a journal-
ist can rely on. This can be financial support from third parties, such as parents or partners;
in this case, the perception of precarity is reduced if the household has another source of
income (Hense 2018). This phenomenon of “dual-earner patterns” (Henninger and
Gottschall 2007, 50) can be particularly relevant to freelancers in journalism for coping
with insecurity (Gollmitzer 2022;Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal, and González-Esteban 2023)
and reflects a characteristic of creative labor (Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011). As a
young journalist quoted in Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal, and González-Esteban (2023)
reported, his “paid vacations are my parents.” He can be taken as an example of “the
Satisfied,” who can “afford” to be employed precariously, albeit only as long as the
additional financial source is “secured by the household or a stable partner relationship”
(Dörre, Kraemer, and Speidel 2006, 81). Norbäck and Styhre (2019) interpret partnerships
like these as a “dependency on spouses” that makes freelancing subjectively less precar-
ious but objectively latently precarious. Of course, this type of relationship can also lead to
financial dependencies and carry a high risk; a divorce could lead to a sudden loss of
financial support and could make journalists highly precarious.
Other sources of money or financial support for journalists can include inheritance or
possession of property. Schnedler (2017) reported one case of property ownership in his
sample, in which a journalist had inherited a house in a good location from his grandpar-
ents, thus living rent-free and earning a monthly rental income. The journalist appreciated
this financial privilege very much and admitted that he could consider himself a “stroke of
luck” (Schnedler 2017, 171).
However, additional revenues that compensate for precarity do not necessarily have
to come from third parties. It has been well established that many journalists sup-
plement their income with work in public relations or other fields of work, especially
freelance journalists (e.g., Gollmitzer 2014;Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal, and González-
Esteban 2023; Márquez-Ramírez, Amado, and Waisbord 2022; Norbäck and Styhre
2019). Deuze and Witschge (2020, 102) call these forms of moonlighting activities
“cross-subsidizing work” and “job-hopping” to earn a decent living. In the Worlds of
Journalism Study, nearly 40% of all part-time journalists had a paid job outside journal-
ism (Josephi et al. 2019). In this sense, moonlighting is also described as a dimension
of precarity, as it highlights the struggle to cope with job insecurity and financial con-
straints (Márquez-Ramírez, Amado, and Waisbord 2022). At the same time, having a job
outside journalism and an additional source of revenue can make journalists feel safe,
or at least safer.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 211

The compensating factor “financial support” in our model demonstrates that journal-
ism is becoming a job that one must be able to afford, a “luxury hobby” that one needs to
support through other work (Örnebring 2018; Patrick and Elks 2015). This trend should be
taken very seriously, as it could lead to the deprofessionalization of journalism (Schnedler
2017; Witschge and Nygren 2009).
Another determinant of the perception of precarity can be the curriculum vitae of a
journalist and their professional disposition. This assumption is supported by Hense
(2018, 96), who speaks of a lower probability of precarity perception among “higher-
skilled workers.” Under professional resources, therefore, we listed the skills, qualifica-
tions, and professional experiences of a journalist—referred to as “human capital” by
Dex et al. (2000, 292)—which influences their perception of precarity (see Dex et al.
2000; Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal, and González-Esteban 2023; Patrick and Elks 2015; Schne-
dler 2017). Empirical findings also demonstrate that having studied at a journalism school,
for example, can strengthen feelings of security as it gives journalists greater confidence
in their professional future (Gollmitzer 2014). Closely related to skills and educational
background are the networks on which a journalist can rely. Close contact with colleagues
can lead to a feeling of security, despite the precarious situation (Gollmitzer 2014). Thus,
good networks can serve as security guarantors (see also Márquez-Ramírez, Amado, and
Waisbord 2022). Norbäck and Styhre’s (2019, 7) work highlights a junior freelance journal-
ist who can be considered representative for “The Self-manager.” He emphasized the
importance of networking as follows: “I really believe having a network is the key to free-
lancing. I’ve thought about this a lot, freelancing is an entrepreneurial profession today.”
Another factor influencing subjective perception is personality. Drawing from our litera-
ture review, we argue that whether a person feels insecure or perceives insecurity as a
threat can also be a matter of mental dispositions. As the statement of a respondent in Hes-
mondhalgh and Baker’s (2011, 121) study makes clear, security-conscious individuals have
a hard time in the creative industries: “If you don´t mind a bit of risk in your life you do a
certain kind of job and if you like a very stable regular life, you do another kind of job.”
Feelings of autonomy might also compensate for precarity. Many studies report of jour-
nalists who appreciate the flexibility that freelance work provides and who enjoy a high
degree of self-determination (e.g., Edstrom and Ladendorf 2012; Gollmitzer 2014; Mathi-
sen and Knudsen 2022). Many of them, especially women, see freelance work as an oppor-
tunity to better align work with family obligations (Edstrom and Ladendorf 2012). They
value autonomy, rather than judging the working conditions as unfavorable. Character-
istics such as self-realization and autonomy can be crucial for autonomy-loving
persons, leading to a lower perception of precarity. From a critical viewpoint, however,
this compensation through and idealization of autonomy might disempower journalists,
effectively weakening their motivation to fight precarious work.
Personality traits also include a journalist’s motivation. If a worker’s motivation is
strongly intrinsic, the work comes with great passion. We argue that this attitude can com-
pensate precarity to some extent, in that many journalists “accept” precarious conditions
because they love journalism (Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal, and González-Esteban 2023). We
call these types of journalists “the Motivated” and added them to the bottom of the per-
ception scale. Journalists of this type are aware of precarity, but they try to emphasize the
positive sides, for example, by appreciating the flexibility of atypical employment or by
seeing their profession not just as a job but as a calling and “something they are”
212 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

(Van’t Hof and Deuze 2022, 196). This passion for work (see also Marín-Sanchiz, Carvajal,
and González-Esteban 2023; Morini, Carls, and Armano 2014) is typical of creative workers
and contributes to sense-making, undermining feelings of insecurity (Hesmondhalgh and
Baker 2011). Consequently, intrinsic motivation can be a compensating factor for precar-
ity. Deuze and Witschge (2020, 106, emphasis in original) said it best when they wrote:
“[…] journalism is as much a passion project as it is also a highly precarious project for
the professionals involved.”

Concluding Remarks
Neilson and Rossiter (2008) argued that precarity should be understood as an experience.
Our theoretical work supports this position by proposing an integrative conceptualization
of precarity to understand how journalists experience the working conditions to which
they are exposed. Dividing relevant parameters into “security” and “insecurity” factors,
the model shows that various dispositions influence perceptions of precarity, such as
sociodemographic determinants (such as age and gender) and economic factors (such
as additional incomes). Furthermore, skills can influence the perception of precarity, as
they make journalists feel more or less competitive. Personal characteristics may also
play an essential role in the perception of insecurity, as some people need more security
in their lives, while others seek more flexibility. An employment situation can be rated or
interpreted as precarious based on various security or insecurity factors in a journalist’s
life; these various determinants can also accumulate and thus lead to even stronger or
weaker perceptions of precarity.
Our comparison of the objective characteristics of precarity and the subjective percep-
tions of uncertainty has shown that objective precarians are not automatically subjective
precarians. For example, a female online journalist who is precariously employed, can
nonetheless feel secure due to her husband’s income. In particular, older journalists, jour-
nalists with family responsibilities, and journalists who have a higher need for security
may feel highly precarious. It is also important to clarify that subjective perceptions can
change over time. Castel (2000) stressed that his zone model is not static, since individuals
can experience a transition from one zone to another.
This paper further develops an understanding of precarity in journalism with regard to
its subjective dimension. We argue that future studies should consider both objective
conditions and subjective perceptions (see also Alberti et al. 2018; Kalleberg 2009).
However, this leads to the question of whether both dimensions must be fulfilled to
assign precarity. For example, one might argue that the label “precarity” is only true if
the person’s situation is also subjectively perceived as insecure. In this sense, the
nature of precarity results from the combination of objective characteristics and a subjec-
tive feeling of insecurity. The current model proposes a multidimensional conceptualiz-
ation of precarity, as it shows that objective characteristics may not be sufficient to
describe a situation as precarious. It is crucial to not (only) judge precarity based on
formal structures but also to collect data about subjective experiences of precarity. In
research, the objective and subjective characteristics of precarity must be investigated
together, as they complement each other; only in combination can they illuminate the
characteristics of precarious employment that entail more than one perspective. When
examining precarity in journalism from a subjective perspective, one will categorize
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 213

journalists who do not assess their situation as insecure because they value freedom,
autonomy, and flexibility or because they can rely on other compensating factors, such
as financial support. This shows that different precarities may be experienced in
different ways. Therefore, the compensating factors of the model may also help research-
ers understand why some journalists are satisfied with their job even if they work under
precarious conditions (see e.g., Mathisen and Knudsen 2022). In other words, even if
objective factors may indicate precarity, they are not necessarily perceived as insecurity.
This results in a “whitewashed” concept of precarity, which is not unusual in creative
industries (Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011) and should be seen as critical if journalists
underestimate the risks of precarious work. At the same time, it is true that many journal-
ists work under precarious conditions; a large share of journalistic employment consists of
atypical contracts with low and insecure incomes. Nevertheless, not all atypical employ-
ment has to be uncertain, and not all affected journalists automatically feel insecure or
want to change their jobs.
This paper was inspired by the call for a conceptualization of precarity that goes
beyond defining it in terms of employment relationships and contract types and which
also accounts for workers’ perceptions and experiences of precarity. Our proposal can
be seen as a first attempt in journalism research to conceptualize the subjective side of
precarity through the lens of a theoretical model. Systematic conceptualization stimulates
theoretical thinking about journalistic working conditions in a precarious employment era
and renders visible the heterogeneous experience of precarity. The model presented in
this paper may guide future research on precarity in journalism; it not only synthesizes
the state of research but also provides a framework for researchers to understand precar-
ity in its complexity. In addition, the model contributes to the literature by presenting
factors that intensify or moderate the experience of insecurity, which may also be relevant
to other professions in the creative industry.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by German Research Foundation (DFG).

ORCID
Jana Rick http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9310-2828
Thomas Hanitzsch http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7104-6300

References
Alberti, G., I. Bessa, K. Hardy, V. Trappmann, and C. Umney. 2018. “In, Against and Beyond Precarity:
Work in Insecure Times.” Work, Employment and Society 32 (3): 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0950017018762088.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. 1998. Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of our Time. Cambridge: Polity.
214 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

Brinkmann, U., K. Dörre, S. Röbenack, K. Kraemer, and F. Speidel. 2006. Prekäre Arbeit. Ursachen,
Ausmass, soziale Folgen und subjektive Verarbeitungsformen unsicherer Beschäftigungsverhältnisse.
Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Burke, R. J., and S. Matthiesen. 2004. “Workaholism among Norwegian Journalists: Antecedents and
Consequences.” Stress and Health 20 (5): 301–308.
Buschow, C., and C. Wellbrock. 2019. Money ForNothing and Content For Free? Zahlungsbereitschaft
für digitaljournalistische Inhalte (Landesanstalt für Medien NRW). https://www.medienanstalt-nrw.
de/fileadmin/user_upload/lfm-nrw/Foerderung/Forschung/Zahlunsbereitschaft/Money_For_Not
hing_And_Content_For_Free_Willingness_To_Pay_For_Digital_Journalism.pdf.
Butler, J. 2006. Precarious Life. The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso.
Butler, J. 2009. Frames of War. When Is Life Grievable? London: Verso.
Carlson, M. 2015. “The Robotic Reporter.” Digital Journalism 3 (3): 416–431.
Castel, R. 2000. Die Metamorphosen der sozialen Frage. Constance: UVK, Univ.-Verl. Konstanz.
Castel, R., and K. Dörre. 2009. Prekarität, Abstieg, Ausgrenzung. Die Soziale Frage am Beginn des 21.
Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt, New York: Campus.
Chadha, K., and L. Steiner. 2022. “Precarity: The Concept, Evolution, Forms and Applications.” In
Newswork and Precarity, edited by K. Chadha and L. Steiner, 15–31. London: Routledge.
Chadwick, A. 2013. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, N. 2011. “Negotiating Writers’ Rights: Freelance Cultural Labour and the Challenge of
Organizing.” Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society 17: 119–138.
Cohen, N. 2017. “Freelancing as the Good Life?” International Journal of Communication 11: Forum
2030–2032.
DeutscherJournalistenverband, DJV. 2009. Arbeitsbedingungen freier Journalisten. Bericht zu einer
Umfrage unter freien Journalisten. Bonn. https://bit.ly/2LVkLKc
Deuze, M. 2007. Media Work. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Deuze, M., and T. Witschge. 2018. “Beyond Journalism: Theorizing the Transformation of
Journalism.” Journalism 19 (2): 165–181.
Deuze, M., and T. Witschge. 2020. Beyond Journalism. Cambridge: Polity press.
Dex, S., J. Willis, R. Paterson, and E. Sheppard. 2000. “Freelance Workers and Contract Uncertainty:
The Effects of Contractual Changes in the Television Industry.” Work, Employment and Society
14 (2): 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170022118419.
Dörre, K. 2014. “Precarity and Social Disintegration: A Relational Concept.” Journal
fürEntwicklungspolitik 30 (4): 69–89.
Dörre, K., K. Kraemer, and F. Speidel. 2006. “Prekäre Beschäftigungsverhältnisse Ursache von sozialer
Desintegration und Rechtsextremismus?” In Desintegrationsprozesse – Stärkung von
Integrationspotenzialen einer modernen Gesellschaft. Abschlussbericht, edited by W. Heitmeyer
and P. Imbusch, 71–102. Bielefeld: Universität Bielefeld.
Edstrom, M., and M. Ladendorf. 2012. “Freelance journalists as a flexible workforcein Media
Industries.” Journalism Practice 6 (5–6): 711–721.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 2017. Atypical work.
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/industrial-relations-dictionary/atypica
l-work.
European Parliament. 2013. European Parliament Resolution of 21 May 2013 on the EU Charter:
Standard Settings for Media Freedom Across the EU, Document P7 TA(2013)0203. Brussels:
European Parliament.
Gollmitzer, M. 2014. “Precariously Employed Watchdogs?” Journalism Practice 8 (6): 826–841.
Gollmitzer, M. 2019. Employment Conditions in Journalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gollmitzer, M. 2021. “Laboring in Journalism’s Crowded, Precarious Entryway. Perceptions of
Journalism Interns.” Journalism Studies 22 (16): 2155–2173.
Gollmitzer, M. 2022. “Alleviating or Exacerbating Precarity? How Freelancers in Germany and Canada
Experience Policies Regulating Insecure Journalistic Labor.” In Newswork and Precarity, edited by
K. Chadha and L. Steiner, 170–186. London: Routledge.
Hanitzsch, T., J. Ramaprasad, J. Arroyave, R. Berganza, L. Hermans, J. Hovden, F. Láb, C. Lauerer,
A. Tejkalová, and T. Vos. 2019. “Perceived Influences: Journalists’ Awareness of Pressures on Their
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 215

Work.” In Worlds of Journalism: Journalistic Cultures around the Globe, edited by T. Hanitzsch,
F. Hanusch, J. Ramaprasad, and A. de Beer, 103–132. Chichester: Columbia University Press.
Hanitzsch, T., N. Steindl, and A. van Dalen. 2018. “Caught in the Nexus: A Comparative and
Longitudinal Analysis of Public Trust in the Press.” International Journal of Press/Politics 23 (1):
3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217740695.
Hanusch, F., E. Tandoc, D. Dimitrakopoulou, N. Muchtar, K. Rafter, M. Ramírez, V. Rupar, and V. Sacco.
2019. “Transformations: Journalists’ Reflections on Changes in News Work.” In Worlds of
Journalism: Journalistic Cultures Around the Globe, edited by T. Hanitzsch, F. Hanusch, J.
Ramaprasadand, and A. de Beer, 259–282. Chichester: Columbia University Press.
Henly, J. R., H. L. Shaefer, and E. Waxman. 2006. “Nonstandard Work Schedules: Employer- and
Employee-Driven Flexibility in Retail Jobs.” Social Service Review 80 (4): 609–634. https://doi.
org/10.1086/508478.
Henninger, A., and K. Gottschall. 2007. “Freelancers in Germany’s Old and New Media Industry:
Beyond Standard Patterns of Work and Life?” Critical Sociology 33 (1–2): 43–71.
Hense, A. 2018. Wahrnehmung der eigenen Prekarität (Sozialstrukturanalyse). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Hesmondhalgh, D., and S. Baker. 2011. Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries.
London: Routledge.
Higgins-Dobney, C. L. 2022. “Producing in Precarity. A Focus on Freelancing in US Local Television
Newsrooms.” In Newswork and Precarity, edited by K. Chadha and L. Steiner, 71–84. London:
Routledge.
Hinterseer, T. 2013. “Part-Time Work: Atypical? Precarious? Normal?” European Journal of Futures
Research 1 (18): 1–18.
Hollifield, A. 2011. “Changing Perceptions of Organizations.” In Changing the News. The Forces
Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times, edited by W. Lowreyand and J. Gade Peter, 193–212.
New York: Routledge.
IFJ, International Federation of Journalists. 2021. “Time to End the Gender Pay Gap in Journalism,”
says IFJ. https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/women-workers/article/time-to-
end-the-gender-pay-gap-in-journalism-says-ifj.
Josephi, B., F. Hanusch, M. Alonso, I. Shapiro, K. Andresen, A. Beer, A. Hoxha, et al. 2019. “Profiles of
Journalists: Demographic and Employment Patterns.” In Worlds of Journalism: Journalistic Cultures
Around the Globe, edited by T. Hanitzsch, F. Hanusch, J. Ramaprasadand, and A. de Beer, 67–102.
Chichester: Columbia University Press.
Kalleberg, A. L. 2009. “Precarious Work, Insecure Workers Employment Relations in Transition.”
American Sociological Review 74 (1): 1–22.
Keller, B., and H. Seifert. 2013. “Atypical Employment in Germany. Forms, Development, Patterns.”
Transfer 19 (4): 457–474.
Kraemer, K. 2008. “Prekarität – was ist das?” Zeitschrift für Arbeitsforschung. Arbeitsgestaltung und
Arbeitspolitik 17 (2): 77–90.
Kuehn, K., and T. Corrigan. 2013. “Hope Labor: The Role of Employment Prospects in Online Social
Production.” The Political Economy of Communication 1: 1. http://www.polecom.org/index.php/
polecom/article/view/9/64.
Lorey, I. 2015. State of Insecurity. Government of the Precarious. London: Verso.
Marín-Sanchiz, C., M. Carvajal, and J. L. González-Esteban. 2023. “Survival Strategies in Freelance
Journalism: An Empowering Toolkit to Improve Professionals’ Working Conditions.” Journalism
Practice 17 (3): 450–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.1929414.
Márquez-Ramírez, M., A. Amado, and S. Waisbord. 2022. “Labor Precarity and Gig Journalism in Latin
America.” In Newswork and Precarity, edited by K. Chadha and L. Steiner, 137–151. London: Routledge.
Mathisen, B. R., and A. G. Knudsen. 2022. “High Job Satisfaction and a Precarious Future. The Double-
Edged Nature of Freelancing.” In Journalism Between Disruption and Resilience. Reflections on the
Norwegian Experience, edited by B. R. Mathisen, 60–82. London: Routledge.
Monteiro, S., A. Marques Pinto, and M. Roberto. 2016. “Job Demands, Coping, and Impacts of
Occupational Stress Among Journalists: A Systematic Review.” European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 25 (5): 751–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1114470.
216 J. RICK AND T. HANITZSCH

Moran, R. E., and S. J. Shaikh. 2022. “Robots in the News and Newsrooms: Unpacking Meta-
Journalistic Discourse on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Journalism.” Digital Journalism 10
(10): 1756–1774. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2085129.
Morini, C., K. Carls, and E. Armano. 2014. “Precarious Passion or Passionate Precariousness?
Narratives from Co-Research in Journalism and Editing.” Recherchessociologiques et anthropologi-
ques 45: 61–83.
Neilson, B., and N. Rossiter. 2008. “Precarity as a Political Concept, or, Fordism as Exception.” Theory,
Culture & Society 25 (7–8): 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276408097796.
Newman, N., R. Fletcher, A. Schulz, S. Andı, and R. K. Nielsen. 2020. Reuters Institute Digital News
Report 2020. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Nielsen, R. 2016. “The Many Crises of Western Journalism: A Comparative Analysis of Economic
Crises, Professional Crises, and Crises of Confidence.” In The Crisis of Journalism Reconsidered:
Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital Future, edited by J. Alexander, E. Breese, and M.
Luengo, 77–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norbäck, M. 2021. “Glimpses of Resistance: Entrepreneurial Subjectivity and Freelance Journalist
Work.” Organization 28 (3): 426–448.
Norbäck, M. 2022. “Maintaining a Freelance Career: How Journalists Generate and Evaluate
Freelance Work.” Journalism Studies 23 (10): 1141–1159.
Norbäck, M., and A. Styhre. 2019. “Making it Work in Free Agent Work.” The Coping Practices of
Swedish Freelance Journalists.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 35 (4): 101076.
Novy, L. 2013. “Vorwärts (n)immer? Normalität, Normativität und die Krise des Journalismus.” In
Journalismus in der digitalen Moderne, edited by L. Kramp, L. Novy, D. Ballwieser, and K.
Wenzlaff, 17–32. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
O’Donnell, P., and L. Zion. 2018. “Precarity in Media Work.” In Making Media. Production, Practices,
and Professions, edited by M. Deuzeand and M. Prenger, 223–234. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Örnebring, H. 2018. “Journalists Thinking About Precarity: Making Sense of the ‘New Normal’.”
Official Research Journal of the International Symposium on the Online Journalism 8 (1): 109–123.
Örnebring, H., and R. F. Ferrer Conill. 2016. “Outsourcing Newswork.” In Handbook of Digital
Journalism, edited by D. Domingo, T. Witschge, A. Hermida, and C. Anderson, 207–221.
London: SAGE.
Patrick, H., and K. Elks. 2015. “From Battery Hens to Chicken Feed: The Perceived Precarity and
Identity of Australian Journalists.” Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 48 (12):
48–66.
Picard, R. G. 2014. “Twilight or New Dawn of Journalism?” Digital Journalism 2 (3): 273–283.
Picard, R. G. 2015. Journalists’ Perceptions of the Future of Journalistic Work. Reuters Institute for the
Study of Journalism.
Posetti, J., E. Bell, and P. Brown. 2020. “Journalism & the Pandemic: A Global Snapshots of Impacts.”
ICFJ. https://www.icfj.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/Journalism%20and%20the%20Pandemic%
20Project%20Report%201%202020_FINAL.pdf.
Reinardy, S. 2011. “Newspaper Journalism in Crisis: Burnout on the Rise, Eroding Young Journalists’
Career Commitment.” Journalism 12 (1): 33–50.
Riesinger, R. F. 2016. “Prekarisierung und Prekarität.” In Verunsicherte Gesellschaft. Prekarisierung und
soziale Entkopplung - transdisziplinäre Studien, edited by R. Hepp, R. Riesinger, and D. Kergel, 227–
238. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Rodgers, G. 1989. “Precarious Work in Western Europe: The State of the Debate.” In Precarious Jobs in
Labour Market Regulation. The Growth of Atypical Employment in Western Europe, edited by G.
Rodgers and J. Rodgers, 1–16. Brussels, Belgium: Geneva.
Salamon, E. 2020. “Digitizing Freelance Media Labor: A Class of Workers Negotiates
Entrepreneurialism and Activism.” New Media & Society 22 (1): 105–122.
Schnedler, T. 2017. Prekäre Arbeit im Journalismus. Dissertation. Hamburg: University Hamburg.
Schultheis, F. 2016. “Prekarisierung erfahren.” In Verunsicherte Gesellschaft. Prekarisierung und soziale
Entkopplung - transdisziplinäre Studien, edited by R. Hepp, R. Riesinger, and D. Kergel. Wiesbaden:
Springer VS.
 JOURNALISM STUDIES 217

Singer, J. B. 2011. “Journalism in a Network.” In Managing Media Work, edited by M. Deuze, 103–111.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Standing, G. 2011. The Precariat. The New Dangerous Class. London/New York: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Steindl, N., C. Lauerer, and T. Hanitzsch. 2017. “Journalismus in Deutschland.” Publizistik 62 (4):
401–423.
Steiner, L., and K. Chadha. 2022. “Introduction: Global Precarity’s Uneven Impacts on Journalism.” In
Newswork and Precarity, edited by K. Chadha and L. Steiner, 1–12. London: Routledge.
Thäsler-Kordonouri, S., and K. Barling. 2023. “Automated Journalism in UK Local Newsrooms:
Attitudes, Integration, Impact.” Journalism Practice, Online First.
Thurman, N., K. Dörr, and J. Kunert. 2017. “When Reporters Get Hands-on with Robo-Writing.” Digital
Journalism 5 (10): 1240–1259. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1289819.
Tong, J., and S. Lo. 2017. “Uncertainty, Tabloidisation, and the Loss of Prestige.” In Digital Technology
and Journalism, edited by J. Tong and S. Lo, 91–111. Basel: Springer International Publishing.
Van’t Hof, E., and M. Deuze. 2022. “Making Precarity Productive.” In Newswork and Precarity, edited
by K. Chadha and L. Steiner, 189–203. London: Routledge.
Walters, E., C. Warren, and M. Dobbie. 2006. “Changing Nature of Work: A Global Survey and Case
Study of Atypical Work in the Media Industry.” Research Report of theInternational Federation of
Journalists. https://www.ifj.org/fileadmin/images/General_Reports_-_moved_from_old_wesbite/
The_Changing_Nature_of_Work__A_Global_Survey_and_Case_Study_of_Atypical_Work_in_the
_Media_Industry_April_2006.pdf.
Witschge, T., and G. Nygren. 2009. “Journalistic Work: A Profession under Pressure?” Journal of Media
Business Studies 6 (1): 37–59.
Wu, S., E. C. Tandoc Jr., and C. T. Salmon. 2019. “When Journalism and Automation Intersect:
Assessing the Influence of the Technological Field on Contemporary Newsrooms.” Journalism
Practice 13 (10): 1238–1254. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1585198.