## The face of the newspaper

## The positioning of Danish editors-in-chief in the public opinion space

## MIKKEL BÆKBY JOHANSEN

University of Copenhagen

## NETE NØRGAARD KRISTENSEN

University of Copenhagen

## Abstract

This article investigates how Nordic editors-in-chief position themselves and their news organisations in the crowded public opinion space of the early 21st century. In addition to being managers, editors-in-chief act as the face of the newspaper, immersed in public negotiations  over  the  authority  of  their  organisation.  Using  positioning theory to explain the performative dimensions of the role, we present two case studies of prominent Danish editors-in-chief: outlining  their  trajectories  in  the  opinion  space  and  conducting comparative close readings of their inaugural performances on national television. Our analysis shows how the editors-in-chief performatively personify their newspaper, constructing distinctiveness by actively merging individual and institutional levels of journalism. This highlights the editor-in-chief as a central node, or resource, in the process of positioning news organisations in society. Operationalising the notion of positioning in future studies of journalistic actors could enrich scholarly understanding of their activities, influence, and significance in opinion formation processes.

## KEYWORDS

editor-in-chief, editorials, newspapers, positioning, opinion journalism, intellectuals

## Introduction

In today's competitive information and news landscape, editors-inchief play a key role in positioning news organisations in the space of opinion (Drezner, 2017; Jacobs & Townsley, 2011). In times when the opinion-forming power of podcast hosts and social media influencers challenges that of established journalistic actors and institutions, the societal and cultural role of the editor-in-chief deserves renewed scholarly attention.

In simple terms, editors-in-chief are faced with two main tasks: managing the editorial staff on the one hand and deciding the editorial line and cultivating the public profile of their newspaper on the other. While much research has focused on the managerial dimension, few studies explicitly address editors' immersion in public discourse (Duffy, 2021), especially in a Nordic context.

Focusing distinctly on the public and performative dimension of the position, we approach editors-in-chief as opinion leaders engaged in perpetual competition for attention with other opinionators  in  a  shared  space  of  discourse.  Editors-in-chief  use  different rhetorical strategies and engage in performative actions to position themselves and their newspaper in the hybrid media landscape as well as the broader cultural and political public sphere. They leverage their institutional affiliation and use their leading position as a platform to influence public opinion (see Hernando & Baert, 2020). At the same time, they promote, defend, and expand the influence and visibility of their newspaper via their individual positioning performances across media.

So far, positioning theory has yet to be adapted to the field of journalism studies. Inspired by the notion of positioning as it originated in social psychology (see Baert & Morgan, 2018; Harré, 2015; Lawson, 2022), we propose an operationalizable analytical framework to study the public positioning and performances of editors-in-chief.

To illustrate the applicability of the framework and shed light on the  opinionated  and  performative  dimensions  of  the  editor-inchief, we analyse the positional profiles of two prominent Danish cases, Rune Lykkeberg of Information and Martin Krasnik of Weekendavisen , both of whom have shaped their newspapers for almost a decade . The analyses are guided by a twofold research question:

How can positioning theory explain the public and performative dimensions of  the  editor-in-chief,  and  how  can  it  be  operationalised  in  a  way  that recognises the editor-in-chief as a distinct actor in the opinion space?

The positioning framework, we suggest, enables the scholarly recognition of the distinctiveness of the editor-in-chief. By focusing on the  performative  dimensions of two contemporary examples, the article aims to advance the theoretical understanding of the editorin-chief as not only a key component in institutionalised journalism but also as a distinct actor in the wider opinion space (Duffy, 2021; Firmstone, 2019).

The Nordic media environment constitutes a unique context for studying this for two reasons. First, Nordic journalists, editors, and media owners of both public and private media typically possess a 'welfare state of mind' (Ahva et al., 2017), characterised by a strong public service ethos and prioritisation of democratic responsibility over commercial thinking. Second, compared to, e.g., the US, the Nordic region is characterised by a sustained dominance of legacy news media in shaping political opinion formation. The influence of institutionally embedded actors like editors-in-chief appears relatively stable; they are losing less ground to online influencers than is the case in other regions (Newman et al., 2024).

We  first  outline  the  research  context  in  which  editors-in-chief have traditionally been studied. Second, we present a performative framework for the study of mediated positioning dynamics and our methodological case study design (Baert & Morgan, 2018). Third, we outline the professional and public trajectories of the two cases, illustrating  how  different  positioning  strategies  and  reputational qualifications shape their public practice as editors-in-chief. This serves as a context for comparative close readings of two key performances by the selected editors-in-chief on Danish national television. Via these close readings (Micu, 2021), we demonstrate how the cases represent different ways of occupying the position as editorin-chief, merging public intellectualism and charismatic performativity with a journalistic ethos. The point of comparing the two is to show  that  different  circumstances  enable  different  positioning moves in practice, which bring about different performative profiles. In turn, the comparative approach serves to solidify the analytical framework by demonstrating its applicability beyond a single case (Yin, 2018).

In conclusion, we discuss how engagement with positioning theory in journalism studies may further develop the scholarly understanding of the relationship between news organisations and media personalities in the opinion spaces of the 21st century.

## Editors-in-chief in the opinion space

Legendary US newspaper editors such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Hearst have been the subject of numerous biographies, tracing their  lives,  professional  achievements,  and  influence  on  Western journalism.  Similarly,  several  biographies  have  been  published about or  by  influential  Danish  editors,  e.g.,  Viggo  Hørup,  Edvard Brandes,  Henrik  Cavling,  and  Børge  Outze.  Although  such  biographies belong to a contested genre in the writing of history (Sardica, 2013), including the history of news, they provide a bird's-eye view to the trajectories and positioning efforts of individual editorsin-chief and their contributions to past and present times' culture and society.

Sociological studies of journalism have examined editorial journalism as a distinct practice (Firmstone, 2019), but the editor-inchief  has  mostly  been  approached  as  just  another  journalist  or simply the newsroom manager (Duffy, 2021). In fact, the research literature often juxtaposes the role of the editor-in-chief as lead for 'an editorial, opinion-forming organ' (Djerf-Pierre & Weibull, 2011, p. 305) with the role of manager for a news business enterprise. In practice, these roles typically intertwine due to the hybrid nature of the modern newspaper as a professional métier and a commercial business,  or  an  institution  navigating  the  public  sphere  and  the market (Andersson & Wiik, 2013; Kvalheim & Barland, 2019).

The prominence of the opinion-forming role or the managerial role depends on the profile of the news brand, e.g., elite, niche, or tabloid  newspaper,  and  on  the  media  systemic  context  (Hallin  & Mancini,  2004).  Roughly  speaking,  news  institutions  leaning  towards a liberal media model, characterised by market domination, the ideology of objectivity, and a news gathering approach, would likely favour the editor-in-chief's role as newspaper manager, while news institutions leaning towards a polarised pluralist model, characterised  by  commentary-oriented  journalism,  would  favour  the opinion-forming role more. News institutions adhering to the democratic corporatist model, like the Nordics, historically characterised by a party press but shifting towards a more professionalised, business  leaning,  and  neutral  approach  during  the  20th  century (Hjarvard, 2010), typically mediate the two, necessitating a managerial perspective but also considering the freedom and expectations associated with an opinion-forming role.

Studies indicate that editors-in-chief are increasingly distanced from the publicist values of journalism due to an increased professionalisation  of  the  managerial  and  organisational  dimensions  of the position (Duffy, 2021). While this has, to some extent, also been the case within the Nordic context (Andersson & Wiik, 2013), Nordic news institutions still enjoy a high public trust (Newman et al., 2024) and are characterised by a strong 'welfare state of mind', i.e., a dedication to public service ideals first and commercial logics second (Ahva et al., 2017).

Tracing changes in editors' way of thinking in five Swedish provincial newspapers, Djerf-Pierre and Weibull (2011, p. 307) show, for example, that although the road to success of these newspapers differs, it partly lies in editors-in-chief performing as 'the face of the paper in the community', nurturing the distinct character of the newspaper, and being able to attract readers and advertisers as well as to modernise the outlets, i.e., in cultivating editorial and commercial interests in tandem over time. This highlights the mediating role and fundamental locus of the editor-in-chief at the intersection of several - sometimes conflicting - dimensions: the news organisation,  journalism as professional practice, audience demands, and society (Duffy, 2021).

So far,  there  has  been  a  main  research  interest  in  studying  the managerial and commercial sides of the editor-in-chief in view of increased commercialisation and struggles for audiences' attention in the news industry during the past decades, most recently amplified by digitalisation, platformisation, and audience metrics (FerrerConill & Tandoc, 2018).

To add a new perspective, moving beyond biographical accounts of noteworthy cases and beyond analyses of the balance between editorial-commercial dimensions, we study the editor-in-chief as a key contributor in the public space of opinion. We suggest positioning theory as a useful lens because it provides a spatial vocabulary for locating editors-in-chief in relation to other actors and entities in this dynamic space. Following Duffy (2021, p. 635), we perceive the editor as 'one of the most significant and defining characteristics of journalism that gives it legitimacy as a form of cultural production',  crucial  in  distinguishing  professional  journalism  from other forms of information and knowledge production, fashioned and distributed by the multiple agents populating the space of opinion today. Townsley (2016, p. 43) conceptualised the space of opinion as the 'part of the public communicative infrastructure in which the elites of our huge, complex societies debate matters of common concern'. The space of opinion involves overlapping fields such as journalism  and  media  more  broadly,  traditional  political  institutions and newer political actors and interest groups, but also the academic field and other cultural fields (e.g., publishing) (Townsley, 2016). The rise of social media and digital platforms have only amplified the range of voices that are today part of this opinion space influencers,  media  provocateurs,  media-made  arbiters  of  taste (Kristensen & From, 2015; Rønlev & Bengtsson, 2022), etc. - who speak from both within and outside of institutionalised news contexts and who challenge established notions of cultural authority. In this diverse space of opinion, the appointment of editors-in-chief with distinct profiles can be a useful strategy for elite news institutions to maintain their cultural authority and public status (Carlson, 2023).

## Positioning the editor-in-chief

While positioning theory is typically associated with social psychology and the work of Rom Harré, it is also used in several other disciplines (Kayı-Aydar, 2019). Sociologist Patrick Baert (2018) has developed a distinct performative perspective on public intellectual positioning, and Baert and Morgan's (2018) performative framework is useful to analyse not only social interaction on a micro-level but also the performances of a wide range of socio-political actors in a public space of discourse, including editors-in-chief.

We adopt a definition of positioning as the discursive process in which individuals, groups, institutions, concepts, and phenomena are  attributed  various  features  and  qualities,  effectively  locating them in relation to each other in the public opinion space (Baert, 2018).  A  position  is  a  cluster  of  attributions  which  represent  the identity of its occupant (Lawson, 2022). Accomplished through social and discursive practice, positions are relational, non-essential, and context dependent. Positions enable and constrain action, as they involve the verbalisation of internal and external expectations of their occupant in terms of ascribed capabilities and obligations (Kayı-Aydar, 2019).

In journalism, positioning efforts are mainly associated with the expression of views rather than news. In other words, objective news coverage does typically not bring about very efficient positioning in the space of opinion . The editorial has been one important opinion genre for editors-in-chief to intervene in sociopolitical issues, conveying the partisan views and collective identity of the news organisation,  and  potentially  influencing  public  opinion  (Firmstone, 2019). The editorial may shape public debates by swaying voters and political agendas, as well as steering the news agendas of other news outlets, thus constituting an important positioning tool of the news organisation in the broader public opinion space (Kahn & Kenney, 2002; McCombs, 1967).

Other opinionated genres, in which the individual voice, views, and positioning of the editor-in-chief become visible, in contrast to the collective voice of the editorial, include commentaries, analyses, and columns. Such genres have been foregrounded as part of turns towards subjectivity (Steensen, 2017) and interpretation (Barnhurst 2014) in journalism in recent decades. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish editors' own voice from that of the newspaper.

Opinionated genres have also migrated to first talk shows, debate programs, and magazines, and later podcasts and social media platforms, suggesting that the opinion making component of the editorin-chief is cross-mediated (Newman & Gallo, 2019). While the editor-in-chief typically still (re)presents the ideological positioning of the news institution when involved in such media formats, the personal and performative dimensions are significantly accentuated as part  of  the  broader  trend  of  media  personas  being  increasingly cross-mediated (Kristensen & From, 2015). This emphasises that in today's hybrid media system (Chadwick, 2017) the editor-in-chief serves not only as a manager and gatekeeper but also as the face of the newspaper, performatively immersed across platforms, genres, and formats.

Rooted in speech-act theory, positioning is defined as an effect of communicative action (Baert, 2018). Language, or communication more broadly, is inherently performative because it is used not only to  say  things,  but  to do things  (Martínez-Flor  &  Usó-Juan,  2010). When editors-in-chief construct narratives of the world in editorials, columns, or interviews, they locate various entities in the opinion space, including themselves and their news organisation, e.g., when aligning  themselves  with  certain  values,  juxtaposing  those  values with individuals and institutions (allies and adversaries), or diagnosing society by identifying pathological elements. Thus, positioning occurs as a mix of self-positioning and the positioning of others. Not all positioning is intentional, let alone within the control of editors-in-chief.  Communicative  contexts  and  the  shifting  involvement of peers, critics, and audiences afford different kinds of positioning (Baert, 2018). The editorial enables relatively unrestrained positioning moves due to its one-way communication. Conversely, talk show and podcast interviews and debates are inherently conversational and involve intermediaries such as interviewers and opponents, contributing with their positioning moves. In this context, the editor-in-chief is both an agent, doing the positioning, and a positioned party, being attributed various features (Baert, 2018).

As will become clear in the analysis, intellectual engagement beyond news and current affairs is one distinct way in which editorsin-chief can stand out. Through analytical and ideological interventions in public discourse, e.g., book publications, some editors-inchief  position  themselves  not  only  as  noticeable  individuals  with strong opinions about day-to-day events, but as intellectuals preoccupied  with  agenda-setting  on  the  level  of  ideas.  By  acting  as  a public intellectual via their embeddedness in the institution of journalism, such editors combine the institutional and the individual perspectives (Johansen, 2021). They utilise journalism's well-established democratic position in Western societies and benefit from a stable access to a large readership to offset the alternativeness and diffuse nature of being a free-floating intellectual (Davis, 2008).

This practice, of being an 'embedded intellectual' (Baert & Shipmann,  2013)  within  the  institution  of  journalism,  reflects  several parallels between journalism and democratic public intellectualism as the two domains have similar core values, centred on autonomy, 'speaking  truth  to  power',  and  defending  freedom  of  expression (see Collini, 2006; Deuze, 2019; Hawkins & Keren, 2015).

However, the relationship between journalism and intellectualism  is  not  entirely  without  problems.  In  a  US  context,  McDevitt (2020) describes the relationship as 'vexed', suggesting a distinct anti-intellectual underpinning of journalism. 'The trouble with antipathy toward intellect', McDevitt (2020, p. 2) writes, 'is that this sentiment is tangled up with democratic commitments, with journalism's egalitarian ethos, its identification with 'the public', ambivalence toward experts, and pleasure in holding up the haughty and highbrow  to  ridicule'.  Nonetheless,  precisely  because  this  is  the case - or at least corresponds with a certain image of journalism, not only in the US - editors-in-chief with distinct intellectual profiles have opportunities to construct authority in domains typically less acceptable or accessible to journalists. Intellectualism, i.e., the public engagement with ideas beyond the realm of news, constitutes a source of cultural authority, which may in turn provide certain editors-in-chief with distinct positioning tools (see Johansen, 2021).

Although both journalists and public intellectuals are men and women of letters (Heynders, 2016), a crucial difference is that journalists are professionals, while intellectuals are said to respond to a calling (Saïd, 1996), ideally operating in a more abstract domain of ideas and sometimes even prophecies (Young, 2014). Therefore, the main challenge for editors-in-chief with intellectual ambitions is to balance the hands-on approach of journalism with the philosophical gravity of intellectualism.

## Staging, rhetoric, and demeanour

To analyse how positioning takes place in practice, we expand Baert & Morgan's (2018) performative framework. Originally developed to conceptualise the dynamics of public intellectualism, we shift the contextual focus to editors-in-chief, while also making the framework analytically applicable through the qualitative method of close readings (Micu, 2021). By updating the framework in this way, we introduce a new heuristic tool to the field of journalism studies. The analytical framework for the close readings focuses on three dimensions: 1) staging, 2) rhetoric, and 3) demeanour.

Staging is  equivalent to Baert's (2018, p. 229) concept of 'framing',  which  denotes  the  setting  of  the  scene  of  any  given  performance. We use 'staging' to avoid conflation with framing theory. In relation to mediated performances and interventions, e.g., television interviews, social media posts, or books, staging components include the media brand (values, political orientation), the individual television program (title, genre, agenda), book titles, or publishers, which help to label the individual editor-in-chief's contribution. Additionally, as professional trajectories of editors-in-chief inform the staging of their performances, mapping their road to the position is crucial to understand the communicative context of their operations.

Rhetoric refers to the arguments used by (or to describe) the editor-in-chief, including the narratives which emerge from performative  (inter)actions. The analytical (re-)construction of argumentation patterns generates useful insights into the types of reasoning and  references  that  inform  rhetorical  positionings.  Focusing  on rhetoric also means studying editors-in-chief's use of logos, ethos, and pathos to persuade and resonate with their audiences (Baert, 2018). Some editors-in-chief appeal to logic and reason, avoid affect-driven  arguments,  and  downplay  their  personal  investment; others frequently refer to their own erudition and credentials, while still  others  appeal  to  the  emotions  and  indignation  of  their  audiences.

Finally, demeanour denotes  non-verbal  communication  and communicative  elements  'between  the  lines',  including  appearance and behaviour, tone of voice, gestures, facial expressions, display of emotions, and general composition. It also includes positioning elements outside the performance in question, e.g., the editor-in-chief's lifestyle and reputation. Although demeanour may appear superficial,  it  is  a  constituent  component  of  positioning  because it can influence media visibility and resonance through charismatic  (or  controversial)  appeal  (Baert  &  Morgan,  2018;  Weber, 1978).

In sum, analysing these three dimensions-and their interplayis  useful  to  understand  how  editors-in-chief  position  themselves and their surroundings, including their newspaper, often with the effect of constructing cultural authority and credibility in the opinion space.

## The Danish opinion space

Several Danish newspapers have over the years produced annual lists of the most influential people in Danish society. Examples include the business newspaper Børsen (ranking people from the financial sector), the center-right leaning weekly newspaper Weekendavisen (applying a satirical approach) and the center-left, culturally agenda-setting newspaper Politiken . Our case selection was informed by the annual ranking of the 50 most influential opinion makers  compiled  and  published  from  2010  to  2019  by Politiken (Politiken, 2010-2019). These lists, counting 500 names in total, indicated the visibility and perceived influence of certain actors in the Danish public opinion space of the 2010s, i.e., during a decade of significant technological and economic change in the news industry and  of  intensified  competition  among  diversified  public  opinion makers.  Compared  to Børsen 's  and Weekendavisen 's  lists, Politiken 's is most relevant for the present study due to its non-satirical, societal approach and due to Politiken 's significant position in the Danish public opinion space, being the most read newspaper.

When duplicate names were removed, Politiken 's lists included 164 individuals (111 men and 53 women), which we categorised in nine  main  groups,  inspired  by  Jacobs  and  Townsley's  mapping (2011) of the American opinion space (see Table 1). Politicians and media professionals, including editors-in-chief, were the two most dominant professional opinionator categories. The editors-in-chief featured on the lists were thus per definition active participants in public discourse, which makes them potential cases for closer analysis.  Conversely,  editors  with  mainly  administrative  profiles  were likely less active in the opinion space, i.e. less likely to appear on the lists.

| Profession                |   n |   % |
|---------------------------|-----|-----|
| Academic                  |   9 |   6 |
| Artist/cultural celebrity |  13 |   8 |
| Businessperson            |   3 |   2 |
| Career opinionator        |   9 |   5 |

Table 1: Actors in the Danish public opinion space 2010-2019 based on Politiken 's annual lists.

<!-- image -->

| Civil society representative   | 10      |   6 |
|--------------------------------|---------|-----|
| Commentator                    | 7       |   4 |
| Media professional             | 35      |  21 |
| Politician                     | 72      |  44 |
| Other                          | 6       |   4 |
| Total                          | 164 (N) | 100 |

The lists showed that two editors-in-chief were particularly prominent during the 2010s: Rune Lykkeberg from the niche newspaper Information , who appeared on the list every year, and Martin Krasnik from Weekendavisen , who appeared six times and topped the list in 2014 as 'Opinionator of the year'. We perceive the combination of several appearances and high ranking on the lists as a proxy for significant public visibility and resonance. Furthermore, Lykkeberg and Krasnik are strong cases in the sense that they represent both similarities  and  differences  in  the  role  performance  of  editor-inchief. Comparing such variations can help to refine the conceptual framework through a special attention to details and nuances (Yin, 2018).

In  terms  of  similarities,  both  were  born  in  the  early  1970s  and were not only highly active in the public opinion space of the 2010s but also represent leading newspapers with distinctly intellectual and opinionated profiles, and continue to do so, as both still serve as editors-in-chief of their respective newspapers. Both are engaged in intellectual debates beyond news coverage, such as publishing a range of influential books and hosting podcasts on complex topics, promoting slow-paced journalism. Neither has a strong presence on social media, thus maintaining an old-fashioned approach to public discourse, i.e., predominantly using established channels within an elite  space  of  institutional  media.  Both  are  academics,  neither  is trained in journalism. In that sense, they are not representatives of a  traditional,  professional  journalism  ethos  or  of  contemporary digital media culture. As will become clear, they represent an intellectual-opinionated  version  of  the  editor-in-chief,  which  makes them exemplary cases for illustrating our analytical approach.

The two cases differ in that their respective newspapers are located  on  opposite  sides  of  the  political  spectrum; Information is usually categorised as leftist/socialist-leaning, while Weekendavisen is conservative or right-wing-liberal. This is reflected in the editors' positioning in political debates; Lykkeberg adheres to left-wing values, Krasnik to a liberal-conservative tradition. Although both went to university, they studied different subjects and their professional trajectories in media and journalism differ.

To elaborate the comparison, we conducted comparative close readings (Micu, 2021) of two individual performances of each case in  the  same  public  service  television  talk  show,  produced  by  the Danish Broadcasting Company (DR), Vi ses hos Clement ( See you at Clement's )  (2016;  2017).  Both  appearances  were  occasioned  by Lykkeberg's and Krasnik's appointments as editors-in-chief, offering them an opportunity to state their vision and make an 'inaugural address'. As different communicative contexts produce different positional affordances and dynamics between the actors involved, we aimed to secure the basis of direct comparison by reducing manifest differences of genre, intermediaries, and institutional context. At the same time, individual interviews focusing on the practices of specific  editors-in-chief  are  rare  in  Danish  public  discourse  and constitute, as an isolated performance, a unique access to the positioning  dynamics  of  their  public  operations  beyond  activities  on their respective platforms. In that sense, their performances on this particular show at that particular point in their careers are a unique basis  for  comparison  of  their  positioning  strategies  as  editors-inchief.

Vi ses hos Clement (2014-2018) was a political talk show on current  events,  politics,  and  culture,  hosted  by  Clement  Kjersgaard, known for his provocative, eccentric, snappy, and persistent interview technique. Compared to other formats, television tend to afford more personal and confrontational interactions, which - in this context - serves to illustratively cover as many dimensions of the analytical framework as possible. The performances analysed are first and foremost contributions to the opinion space and does not include in-depth discussions of the day-to-day managerial work of editors-in-chief.  Consequently,  the  empirical  material  is  skewed  toward a conceptualisation of the editor-in-chief as opinionator. Nevertheless, since the public positioning of editors-in-chief and their different strategies of generating attention around their newspaper is an inherent part of the role, analysing the distinct ways in which editors perform this role is crucial to better understand the position in contemporary media culture.

## The performative dimensions of the editor-in-chief

The analyses consist of two steps. First, we outline the cases' professional trajectories within the Danish public opinion space, based on publicly available information, showcasing how positioning takes shape at institutional level over time and is grounded in a combination of education, expertise and reputation, publications, media institutional couplings, and public interventions. Second, we present close readings of their public performances on Vi ses hos Clement , focusing on staging, rhetoric, and demeanour to illustrate the positioning process in practice.

## Rune Lykkeberg: The diagnostician

According to Lykkeberg, his professional trajectory and journalistic approach is significantly shaped by his intellectual background and interests (Lykkeberg, 2018). He studied philosophy and literature at the university (without obtaining a degree) and has since the late 1990s been affiliated with prominent Danish newspapers. These include Politiken , where he served as culture editor (2013-2016), and Information, where he was a journalist, then culture editor (20012013), and, since 2016, editor-in-chief, situating him on the political left  of  the  Danish  media  spectrum.  Since  the  early  2000s,  he  has been a regular guest in elite, debate radio and television programs and  often  participates  in Information -produced  podcasts.  These media appearances have positioned him within an intellectualised public space of opinion. Importantly, he has published several monographs, presenting sociopolitical and cultural diagnoses (see Hammershøj, 2015). With his first book, Kampen om Sandhederne ( The Battle of the Truths ,  2008),  he  entered the Danish public space of opinion as an intellectual voice, evidenced by his appearance every year on Politiken 's list of public opinion makers from 2010 to 2019. His second book, Alle har Ret ( Everyone is right , 2012), earned him his highest ranking on Politiken 's list (number 12 in 2012). His biographical data thus presents him as performing more as an intellectual observer than as a journalist.

Lykkeberg's performance on Vi ses hos Clement (DR, 2016) is emblematic of this positioning as an intellectual editor-in-chief, operating in a discursive space beyond current affairs and politics. In his introduction, host Clement Kjersgaard highlights Lykkeberg's breakthrough book as a defining contribution to public discourse, citing  a  review  describing  Lykkeberg  as  a  'young,  clever,  and possibly leftist  writer'  (DR,  2016,  00:34:51).  This  corroborates  the centrality of said publication in Lykkeberg's positioning and illustrates the importance of the rhetorical engagement of intermediaries, such as critics and TV hosts, in the positional consolidation of actors on a political spectrum.

Kjersgaard immediately challenges Lykkeberg, asking what 'his main problem is'. Lykkeberg responds:

I believe the world to be progressive and that we must be progressive and observe the world moving forward. Therefore, there are certain things to which I cannot relate […] Some forms of power, I cannot understand and therefore do not consider.

(DR, 2016, 00:35:49)

Lykkeberg critically positions the concept of power as his central focal point, mirroring the watchdog ideal of journalism and the intellectual  tradition  of  speaking  truth  to  power  (Hawkins  &  Keren, 2015). In turn, the progress prism through which he claims to observe the world forefronts a basic progressive-liberal agenda.

Kjersgaard  states,  jokingly,  that  he  considers  Lykkeberg  'too happy to be editor-in-chief at Information ' and possibly the happiest man on the left (DR, 2016, 00:36:02). Lykkeberg objects to the premise that the left is inherently angry and pessimistic and moves beyond the host's entertainment-driven focus on personality (Harcup and O'Neill, 2017) by quickly shifting the focus from himself onto a more conceptual understanding of leftism. This logos-driven strategy of addressing the very grounds of the conversation is typical of intellectual rhetoric (Baert and Morgan, 2018). Instead of framing his  claims  as  opinions,  Lykkeberg's  discourse  appears  detached from personal biases.

Discussing Information 's  dedicated  coverage  of  the  existential threat of climate change, Kjersgaard asks if the progressive alarmism of the newspaper has effectively influenced the public. On a defensive note, Lykkeberg states, 'You cannot accuse us of lacking seriousness and pathos' (DR, 2016, 00:43:28) when addressing climate change,  which  illustrates  the  face  of  the  newspaper  in  practice: Lykkeberg's  explicit  emphasis  on  the  rhetorical  strategy  of Information shows reflexivity in terms of the positioning mechanisms of the  opinion  space,  while  the  pronoun  'us'  indicates  a  perceived identity between himself as an individual and the newspaper as organisation . This identification is not an uncommon rhetorical construct, but in the context of his performance, it illustrates a positioning by which certain values are attributed across different levels of agency  with  the  effect  of  Lykkeberg  ultimately  personifying  the newspaper.

Lykkeberg  directs another logos appeal at the premise  of Kjersgaard's question, which he deems to be based on a 'logic of dictatorship', the notion that elites ought to dictate the actions of the public (DR, 2016, 00:44:33). He elaborates:

Our task in this world is not to be a schoolmaster and tell people how to live. That  was  the  way  of  The  Frankfurt  School,  back  in  the  day,  who  said 'everyone has false consciousness' […] Our task is to provide people with arguments and practices to solve the problems on their own.

(DR, 2016, 00:46:05)

Lykkeberg positions Information as  a  stronghold of liberal democratic values with ties to the Enlightenment. He positions himself in opposition to the Marxist tradition of leftism by rejecting the Frankfurt  School.  Such  ethos  appeal,  incorporating  Marxist  tropes  and terminology, establishes credibility based on erudition, confirming Lykkeberg's intellectual rather than journalistic positioning efforts.

Lykkeberg's optimism is reflected in his smiling demeanour and at  times  humorous  tone,  which  is  slightly  mischievous  towards Kjersgaard's eccentric persona. To counter the lightness of his conversational strategy, Lykkeberg dresses in suit jacket and tie, which is not the standard aesthetic of Danish media personalities beyond news anchors. He conveys a level of seriousness through symbolic props typically associated with traditional authority (Lincoln, 1994). By contrasting the anti-establishment aesthetic of the cultural left, Lykkeberg's formal aesthetic reads as a performative statement, signalling maturity and seriousness to counter claims of the opposite, including  stereotypes  of Information as  a  newspaper  appealing mainly to nonconformist baby boomers. Combined with Lykkeberg's  rhetorical  recognition  of  the  substantial  overlap  between his own and typical right-wing criticisms of the welfare state (DR,  2016,  00:52:26),  this  indicates  an  anti-tribalist  positioning. Lykkeberg distances himself from a stereotypical leftism of the 20 th century, ideologically and aesthetically, while simultaneously rising above political tribalism into a realm of ideas and abstract thinking.

## Martin Krasnik: The Devotee

Krasnik is trained in political science, studying at top universities including University of Copenhagen, the Hebrew University, and London School of Economics (Weekendavisen, n.d.). He has worked in journalism since 1995 with main affiliations to national elite news media: the main public service broadcasting company, DR, anchoring a daily news program ( Deadline at DR2), known for its critical and  piercing  hosts,  and Weekendavisen ,  known  for  its  in-depth, analytical articles, and opinion-borne approach. At Weekendavisen Krasnik served as a journalist, correspondent, and foreign news editor, and since 2017 as editor-in-chief. In Danish public debate, he is known for his engagement in discussions about the Middle East (see Krasnik, 2014; 2023). He has published numerous books about socio-political,  cultural,  and  religious  topics,  often  addressing  his Jewish background. Landmark interventions, earning him the first place on Politiken 's opinion makers' ranking in 2014, connect to the intertwinement of his personal background and public profile as a journalist and news host: In summer 2014, he conducted two interviews as the host of Deadline related to rising conflicts in Gaza, leading to accusations of pro-Israel bias. The same year he published the autobiographic book Fucking jøde! (Fucking Jew!) , addressing some of the heat he took for his journalistic approach, including antisemitic hate speech. Krasnik's biographical track record presents him as  dedicated  to  journalism  as  a  democratic  institution  and  immersed in politicised topics, at times perceived more as an opinionator than a journalist.

In Kjergaard's introduction of Krasnik on Vi ses hos Clement (DR, 2017), several credentials are listed to emphasise his authoritative position in the Danish opinion space. His long affiliation with Weekendavisen and  former  position  as  anchor  of Deadline establish  a journalistic ethos, while his autobiography situates him as a personally engaged  opinionator.  Like his interview with Lykkeberg, Kjersgaard begins by focusing on Krasnik's personality, asking him how long he wanted the job as editor-in-chief at Weekendavisen before securing it in 2017 (DR, 2017, 00:06:52). Krasnik claims to have had the ambition since the age of 11, effectively positioning himself as highly ambitious and self-determined.

Kjersgaard asks if Krasnik was hired to promote certain opinions (DR, 2017, 00:07:54). Not only is the question directed at the expectations and responsibilities of the editor-in-chief; it also reads as an attempt to expose the link between Krasnik's personal opinions and his style as a professional journalist. Building on the mentioned criticisms  of  Krasnik's  persona  and  interview  style,  the  question  addresses  the  central  tension  in  journalism  between  advocacy  and critical inquiry. In response, Krasnik first stresses his managerial responsibilities: 'No, I am not. I am hired to run a newspaper where a whole lot of other people have opinions […] and, of course, to present my opinions occasionally. I am hired to be editor-in-chief and manage Weekendavisen ' (DR, 2017, 00:07:57).

Subsequently,  Krasnik  states  that  he  is also hired  to  share  his opinions in his editorials, effectively positioning his advocacy role as secondary to his managerial role (DR, 2017, 00:08:14). Kjersgaard seemingly  perceives  this  as  a  concession  on  Krasnik's  behalf, implying an ambiguous banter between former colleagues, presumably based on a (performed) rivalry. In contrast to Lykkeberg, Krasnik does not evade Kjersgaard's focus on personality, the persistent frame of the interview. In turn, Krasnik's demeanour is more serious as he appears more irritable and prone to provocation as Kjersgaard insistently circles on Krasnik's supposed stubbornness (DR, 2017, 00:22:10).  Like  Lykkeberg,  Krasnik  initially  smiles  at  Kjersgaard's confrontational style, but his general demeanour is more serious, although he appears to respectfully enjoy debating. Unlike Lykkeberg, who dresses formally to offset his left-wing optimism, Krasnik subtly signals professionalism; he is business casual with an academic touch, wearing glasses, a navy blazer, light blue shirt, and a pullover. Kjersgaard pinpoints a key tension of Krasnik's position as editor-in-chief:

There are two issues here […]: The former is to manage the company and provide others with a platform and ensure a sustainable economy so that [Weekendavisen]  does  not  go  bankrupt  too  soon  […].  The  latter  is  to promote  opinions. Regarding  the latter, how  much  responsibility is associated with that, how much power is associated with the role of editorin-chief?

(DR, 2017, 00:09:18)

Krasnik replies that the promotion of opinions must be taken seriously because it impacts society: 'We journalists sometimes forget that. It is just another job… and we are in the entertainment business,  as  well'  (DR,  2017,  00:09:51).  Bewildered,  Kjersgaard  asks  if forgetting one's responsibility as editor-in-chief is not paradoxically irresponsible, given Krasnik's track record as an influential opinion leader. Clearly frustrated, Krasnik responds:

It is really important to forget [the responsibility] once in a while. Otherwise, you end up taking yourself 100 percent seriously, and that does not hold up. Then  you  take  your  own  opinions  too  seriously,  you  take  your  job  too seriously, and you forget to look up and see the world.

(DR, 2017, 00:11:11)

Repeating Krasnik's long experience in the opinion space, Kjersgaard asks if the power and influence of journalists is in fact greater than that of shifting politicians, who rarely have stable careers  as  influencers  of  public  opinion  like  Krasnik.  Krasnik  disagrees, stating that politicians occasionally make similar disclaimers of responsibility (DR, 2017, 00:12:15).

Thus, Krasnik subscribes to a traditional understanding of power relations in society, invoking the watchdog ideal of journalism: 'I

was awarded 'Opinionator of the Year', which was ridiculous and absurd, the same year as Inger Støjberg was a minister and carried through several restrictions on immigration' (DR, 2017, 00:13:03). 1 Krasnik conveys a firm belief in the democratic function of journalism, necessitating a lesser focus on the supposed power of journalists and individual opinionators like himself.

In sum, Krasnik positions himself as a passionate editor-in-chief, dedicated to the democratic ideals of journalism. He constructs an image by which he personifies the watchdog epitome and the professional utility of opinion as a journalistic means to influence society. Although initially foregrounding the managerial responsibilities of the editor-in-chief, this narrative is quickly sidelined by the host's focus on personality, opinion, and power and Krasnik's evident devotion when discussing democracy and political influence.

## Discussion and conclusion

By introducing positioning theory and operationalising it through comparative  close  readings,  we  have  illustrated  how  editors-inchief can be approached as more than newspaper managers. The performance of the editor-in-chief in the Danish opinion space is, as shown by our analyses, characterised by different, personalised approaches  to  balancing  the  individual  and  institutional  dimensions of the position. While the close readings do not allow us to make generalisable claims about editors-in-chief across contexts, they do illustrate the usefulness of positioning theory in explaining how editors-in-chief navigate the opinion space - in this case - at the intersection of journalism and public intellectualism. We have conceptualised the editor-in-chief as someone operating simultaneously  as  individual  opinion-maker  and  representative  of  their news organisation. In this fused positioning practice, they contribute  with  personal  passions,  convictions,  and  analyses  to  position their newspaper in public discourse, while also leveraging their institutional affiliation to position themselves. In conclusion, our contribution to journalism studies and public opinion research may be summarised in four main points.

First, by (re)conceptualising the editor-in-chief as a key journalistic actor, embedded in the space of opinion, we have shifted the focus from day-to-day managerial work to a more performative domain of public opinion making. This acknowledges the editor-inchief, especially in a Nordic context, as the face of the newspaper to a broader public.

Second, to theoretically accommodate this shift, we propose positioning theory and a new  analytical framework by which journalism studies can approach the opinion space. The positioning framework adds new knowledge about the editor-in-chief as a key actor category in public opinion formation. In times when the opinion space is increasingly persona-driven (Rønlev & Bengtsson, 2022) and populated by media personalities engaging audiences and generating attention across media (Kristensen & From, 2015) in ways that the collective voice of a newspaper cannot, legacy news media and journalism face new demands of maintaining their cultural position and institutional authority (Reese, 2022). As exemplified by two Danish cases who performatively personify their organisation, editors-in-chief may function as vehicles for bringing news organisations into a domain of individualised opinion, governed by a distinct focus on personality. Conversely, by the performative positioning of editors-in-chief, the agency of their organisation is transferred to the individual editors, who, in turn, utilise their personal sensibilities and qualifications to construct authority and maintain the necessary relevance of their organisation in a democratic society.

Third, the comparative positioning analyses of two prominent editors-in-chief in the Danish opinion space of the 2010s, who continue to incarnate their newspapers well into the 2020s, exemplify the applicability of the positioning framework and show how the position  as  face  of  the  newspaper  may  be  performed  in  different ways to personify distinct publicist profiles. The diagnostician (Rune Lykkeberg)  positions  himself  as  an  intellectual  editor-in-chief through rhetorical references to The Frankfurt School, emotional restraint,  and  a  distinct  detachment  from  personal  opinions. The devotee (Martin Krasnik) positions himself as a passionate editor-inchief,  using  personal  conviction  to  serve  the  professional,  democratic ideals of journalism. The two cases mix public intellectual authority and journalistic authority (Johansen, 2021), illustrating Jacobs and Townsley's point (2011, p. 80) that different actors, even within the category of editor-in-chief, 'introduce alternative definitions of truth, competing claims of authority, different topics of discussion, and different rhetorical styles of argument' into the space of opinion. This may be explained by the cases' different personalities, but it is also cultivated by their different professional trajectories and the news organisations that have shaped their careers and which they represent as editors-in-chief (see Drezner, 2017). Both cases are affiliated with niche newspapers of sorts with different political leanings. Contrary to the wider appeal of mainstream broadsheets, niche newspapers depend on the distinctiveness of their position in the opinion space and, relatedly, their brand. Charismatic and  highly  visible  editors-in-chief  help  to  construct,  consolidate, and personify such distinctiveness.

Fourth, the Nordic opinion space is still strongly associated with newspapers, public service media, and a strong deliberative space of opinion, prioritising publicist values over commercial interests. Contrary to, e.g., the US context where legacy news institutions are losing ground to alternative media and platforms, Nordic editorsin-chief are not only newspaper managers overseeing staff and running daily business; they are also the face of the newspaper, performing their distinct position across media by rhetorical strategies and performative actions. Analytically explicating this dimension of the  editor-in-chief  beyond  the  Nordic  context  may  guide  future studies to advance the scholarly understanding of the complex interplay between actors and institutions in a dynamic and competitive news and information landscape.

Future research can possibly develop the positioning framework further  to  better  understand  the  dynamic  relationship  between news  organisations  and  media  personalities  in  a  public  opinion space that is constantly diversifying and intensifying. To substantiate the study of how  editors-in-chief distinguish themselves through performative, interventionist practices, future studies may integrate quantitative mappings of the cross-mediated presence of editors-in-chief with genre analyses and qualitative close readings of performative constructions of distinctiveness.

## NOTES

1 From 2015 to 2019, Inger Støjberg was the Danish Minister for Immigration and Integration, generating much controversy by introducing an illegal decree to separate asylum couples at refugee centers, leading to her impeachment and conviction in court in 2021.

## REFERENCES

- Ahva, L., van Dalen, A., Hovden J. F., et al. (2017). A Welfare State of Mind? Journalism Studies 18(5): 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1249005
- Andersson, U. and Wiik, J. (2013). Journalism Meets Management. Journalism Practice 7(6): 705-719. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.790612
- Baert, P. (2018). Reflections on the Use of Positioning Theory in the
- Sociology of Intellectuals. In: Buch A and Schatzki T (eds) Questions of Practice in Philosophy and Social Theory . New York: Routledge, pp. 225-35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351184854

- Baert, P. and Morgan, M. (2018). A performative framework for the study of intellectuals. European Journal of Social Theory, 21(3): 322-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431017690737
- Baert, P., & Shipmann, A. (2013). The Rise of the Embedded Intellectual: New Forms of Public Engagement and Critique. In P. Thijssen, W. Weyns, C. Timmerman, & S. Mels (Eds.), New Public Spheres: Recontextualizing the Intellectual . Ashgate Publishing Company, pp. 27-50.
- Barnhurst, K. G. (2014). The Interpretive Turn in News. In: M. Schreiber M and C. Zimmermann (Eds,), Journalism and Technological Change: Historical Perspectives, Contemporary Trends , pp. 111-141.
- Carlson, M. (2023). Sustaining journalistic continuity in the face of change: Announcing a new editor at the New York Times. Journalism, 25 (10), 2061-2078.

https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231207185

- Chadwick, A. (2017). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power . Oxford University Press.
- Collini, S. (2006). Absent Minds: Intellectuals in Britain . Oxford University Press.
- Davis, H. (2008). Conclusion: Revisiting the Concept of the Public Intellectual. In C. Fleck, A. Hess, & P. E. S. Lyon (Eds), Intellectuals and Their Publics: Perspectives from the Social Sciences . Taylor & Francis.
- Deuze, M. (2019). What Journalism Is (Not). Social Media + Society , 5 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119857202
- Djerf-Pierre M and Weibull L (2011) From Idealist-Entrepreneur to Corporate Executive. Journalism Studies 12(3): 294-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2010.490655
- DR (2016, September 19) Vi ses hos Clement [Television broadcast]. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/109.3.1/uuid:2fd492d7-0e33485a-a9c8-c6cae8522c21 (accessed 30 June 2023)
- DR (2017, February 5) Vi ses hos Clement [Television broadcast]. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/109.3.1/uuid:756d545e-f34c4115-8ed4-556e6c270bf2 (accessed 30 June 2023)
- Drezner, D. W. (2017). The Ideas Industry . New York: Oxford University Press.
- Duffy, A. (2021). Out of the Shadows: The Editor as a Defining Characteristic of Journalism. Journalism 22(3): 634-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919826818
- Ferrer-Conill, R., & Tandoc Jr., E.C. (2018). The Audience-Oriented Editor. Digital Journalism, 6 (4). 436-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1440972
- Firmstone, J. (2019). Editorial Journalism and Newspapers' Editorial Opinions. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication . Oxford University Press. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.803 (accessed 25 January 2023)
- Hallin, D. and Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems . Cambridge University Press

- Hammershøj, L. G. (2015). Diagnosis of the Times vs Description of Society. Current Sociology , 63 (2), 140-154.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114556577

- Harcup, T. and O'Neill, D. (2017). What is News?: News values revisited (again). Journalism Studies 18(12): 1470-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193
- Harré, R. (2015). Positioning Theory. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & K. L. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology: Methods, Approaches, and New Directions for Social Sciences . John Wiley & Sons.
- Hawkins, R. and Keren, M. (2015). Introduction: New Challenges to Knowledge in the Public Sphere. In Speaking Power to Truth: Digital Discourse and the Public Intellectual (pp. 1-16). AU Press.
- Hernando, M. G. and Baert, P. (2020). Collectives of intellectuals: Their cohesiveness, accountability, and who can speak on their behalf. The Sociological Review , 68 (5), 1143-1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026119900119
- Heynders, O. (2016). Writers as Public Intellectuals: Literature, Celebrity, Democracy . Palgrave Macmillan.
- Jacobs, R. N. and Townsley, E. R. (2011). The Space of Opinion: Media Intellectuals and the Public Sphere . Oxford University Press.
- Johansen, M. B. (2021). Public Intellectuals on New Platforms: Constructing Critical Authority in a Digital Media Culture. In Rethinking Cultural Criticism (pp. 17-42). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7474-0\_2
- Kahn, K. F. and Kenney, P. (2002). The slant of the news: How editorial endorsements influence campaign coverage and citizens' views of candidates. American Political Science Review 96(2): 381-394.
- Kayı-Aydar, H. (2019) Positioning Theory in Applied Linguistics Research Design and Applications . 1st ed. 2019. Springer International Publishing.
- Krasnik, M. (2014). Fucking jøde! [Fucking Jew!]. Lindhardt og Ringhof.
- Krasnik, M. (2023). En smal bro over afgrunden - Den 7. oktober, jøderne og palæstinenserne, krigen og håbet [ A narrow bridge over the abyss - October 7, the Jews and the Palestinians, the war and the hope ] . Gyldendal.
- Kristensen, N. N., & From, U. (2015). From Ivory Tower to CrossMedia Personas: The heterogeneous cultural critic in the media. Journalism Practice , 9 (6), 853-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2015.1051370
- Kvalheim, N., & Barland, J. (2019). Commercialization of Journalism. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Available at:
- https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/ 9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-788 (Accessed 26 August, 2025).

- Lawson, T. (2022). Social Positioning Theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics , 46 (1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beab040
- Lincoln, B. (1994). Authority: Construction and Corrosion . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Lykkeberg, R. (2008). Kampen om sandhederne - Om det kulturelle borgerskabs storhed og fald [ The battle of the truths - on the rise and fall of the cultural bourgeoisie ]. Gyldendal.
- Lykkeberg, R. (2012). Alle har ret - Demokrati som princip og problem [ Everyone is right - Democarcy as prinicple and problem ]. Gyldendal.
- Lykkeberg, R. (2018) En tænketank, et politisk projekt, et stykke åndshistorie og et kammeratskab [A think tank, a political project, an intellectual history, and a camaradie]. In H. S. Kjær (ed.), Hele verden forfra - Dagbladet Information 1993-2018 [ The whole world over ] (pp. 11-23). Informations Forlag.
- Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (2010). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- McCombs, M. (1967). Editorial Endorsements: A Study of Influence. Journalism Quarterly 44(3): 545-548.
- McDevitt, M. (2020). Where Ideas Go to Die: The Fate of Intellect in American Journalism . Oxford University Press.
- Micu, A. S. (2021). Performance Studies . Routledge.
- Munger, K. and Phillips, J. (2020). Right-Wing YouTube: A Supply and Demand Perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics 27(1): 186-219.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220964767

- Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Ross, A. and Nielsen, R. K. (2024). Reuters Digital News Report 2024 , Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://doi.org/10.60625/risj-vy6n-4v57
- Newman, N. and Gallo, N. (2019). News Podcasts and the Opportunities for Publishers . Reuters Institute Digital News Report. Available at https://www.digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2019/newspodcasts-opportunities-publishers/ (Accessed 7 March 2025).
- Politiken (2010-2019). Her er debattens superliga [ Here is the super league of public discourse ]. Politiken . Available at https://apps.infomedia.dk/mediearkiv (accessed 3 July 2023).
- Reese, S. D. (2022). The Institution of Journalism: Conceptualizing the Press in a Hybrid Media System. Digital Journalism 10(2): 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1977669
- Rønlev, R. and Bengtsson, M. (2022). The media provocateur: A rhetorical framework for studying an emerging persona in journalism. Journalism 23(6): 1233-1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920957166
- Saïd, E. W. (1996). Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures . Vintage Books.

- Sardica, J. M. (2013). The content and form of 'conventional' historical biography. Rethinking History 17(3): 383-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2013.774729
- Steensen, S. (2017). Subjectivity as a Journalistic Ideal. In B.K. Fonn, H. Hornmoen, N. Hyde-Clarke & Y.B Hågvar (Eds.), Putting a Face on it: Individual Exposure and Subjectivity in Journalism (pp. 25-47). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
- Townsley, E. (2016). Public Intellectuals, Media Intellectuals, and Academic Intellectuals: Comparing the Space of Opinion in Canada and the United States. In M. Keren & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Speaking Power to Truth: Digital Discourse and the Public Intellectual (pp. 41-67). Athabasca University Press.
- Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology . University of California Press.
- Weekendavisen (n.d.). Martin Krasnik. Weekendavisen. Available at: https://www.weekendavisen.dk/redaktionen/martinkrasnik (accessed 27 June 2023).
- Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (Sixth edition). SAGE.
- Young, A. M. (2014). Prophets, Gurus, and Pundits: Rhetorical Styles and Public Engagement . Southern Illinois University Press.

## MIKKEL BÆKBY JOHANSEN

Postdoctoral researcher Department of Communication University of Copenhagen mikkel.baekby@hum.ku.dk

## NETE NØRGAARD KRISTENSEN

Professor Department of Communication University of Copenhagen netenk@hum.ku.dk