Journalist? Influencer? Both—And Neither: How Wanghong Journalists Negotiate Professional Identity on Chinese Social Media

Abstract

As journalism intersects with influencer culture, how journalists negotiate their professional identity becomes crucial. This study examines how Chinese “Wanghong” (influencer) journalists—licensed journalists with large social media followings—navigate the tension between journalistic and influencer roles, focusing on their perceived professional identity and self-presentation on Weibo and TikTok. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with four Wanghong journalists (each with one million followers) and textual-visual thematic analysis of 351 social media posts, the study finds that, participants reconfigure their professional identity as “digital media journalists,” preserving journalistic legitimacy while distancing themselves from influencer commercialism. To manage the tension between professionalism—often downplays commercialization—and their platform practices, journalists use moral flexibility to justify commercial engagement as compatible with journalism. Building on Raemy’s conceptualization of professional identity, this study refines the framework by showing how platform logics and moral negotiation reshape journalistic professionalism in a hybrid, commercialized media environment.

1. Introduction

The digitization of media and journalism blurs the once-clear boundaries between professional journalists and other information brokers (Olausson, 2017), such as influencers. With the rise in social media monetization—through advertising, promotions, and influencer marketing—a booming industry emerges, providing new opportunities for professional and amateur media creators (Bossio et al., 2020). As a result, influencers and ordinary users drive discussion on news topics across social media platforms, making it difficult for journalists to retain audience attention (Newman et al., 2024). To stay competitive, journalists feel pressure to be more flexible and multi-skilled (Deuze, 2007), often adopting influencer-like strategies—building personal brands and engaging directly with audiences—to maintain visibility and trust (Molyneux & Holton, 2015). This shift comes with significant challenges. The influencer identity—rooted in personalized and monetized content—risks overshadowing journalists’ commitment to the public good and, potentially eroding their professional identity (Meyers & Davidson, 2016; Witschge & Nygren, 2009). Yet, some scholars argue that influencer practices may also strengthen audience trust in legacy media (Wasike, 2025) and enable the reinvention of professional identity (Olausson, 2017). Professional identity thus functions not only as a site of erosion but also as a resource for resistance, adaptation, and reinvention in response to industry change (Örnebring, 2010; O’Donnell et al., 2012; Grubenmann & Meckel, 2015).

Research on the overlap between journalists and influencers primarily followed two approaches. The first approach, grounded in boundary work and field theory, largely focuses on the differences and similarities between journalists and influencers. Scholars in this tradition often highlight how journalists position themselves as serving the public interest, while influencers are perceived as primarily motivated by commercial goals (Karhawi & de Camargo, 2023). Journalistic ethics—such as truth-telling, independence, and service to the public—continue to function as the central symbolic resource for maintaining this professional boundary in the social media environment (Steel et al., 2025). While interlopers may borrow and apply journalistic styles and language to gain media credibility, they cannot fully appropriate journalism’s ethical guidance, leading to ethical conflict (Hujanen et al., 2022). At the same time, some research within this approach acknowledges that while journalists may resist the full disruption of traditional journalism by interlopers (such as influencers), they are also open to adopting certain influencer practices, which contributes to a more fluid understanding of news and what being a journalist is or can be like (Deuze, 2008; Holton & Belair-Gagnon, 2018). For example, journalists use authentic and relational modes of communication to reach or strengthen audience engagement, while remaining mindful of the potential risks these practices pose to journalistic authority and objectivity (Negreira-Rey et al., 2022; Hurcombe, 2024).

The second approach focuses more directly on journalistic practice. Rather than centering on the distinction between journalists and influencers, this line of research examines how journalists incorporate influencer strategies into their everyday work, especially on social media. Studies in this area explore how practices like self-promotion, personal storytelling, and asymmetrical communication reshape how journalists present themselves and interact with audiences (Olausson, 2017; Mellado & Hermida, 2022; Peres-Neto, 2022). A systematic literature review by Marques-Martins and Sixto-García (2025) shows that journalists increasingly integrate marketing, branding, and advertising strategies, raising widespread ethical concerns. Because the line between editorial and promotional content is often blurred, practices such as monetization and lack of transparency can threaten public trust, journalistic reputation, and professional autonomy (Beckert, 2022). This research highlights how the hybridization of journalistic practice generates both opportunities for audience engagement and significant ethical tensions, extending the conversation beyond boundary maintenance to the lived realities of journalists’ work.

While both approaches offer valuable insights, they also reveal certain limitations. Although boundary work theory aims to examine how professionals continuously construct and negotiate boundaries, many studies on journalists and influencers apply it in ways that reinforce a binary distinction. Researchers often frame journalists as defending professional norms and position influencers as external challengers. Such a perspective fails to account for the complexity of the situation, particularly the experiences of individuals who move between—or fully embody—both identities in their professional lives. While a practice-oriented approach avoids this binary by focusing on what journalists do, it often overlooks how journalists make sense of these practices and the ethical dilemmas they create. Editorial decisions are increasingly shaped by web analytics, monetization pressures, and audience engagement strategies, producing tensions between commercial imperatives and traditional journalistic values (Tandoc, 2014). Yet, how journalists make sense of these tensions—and how this shapes their understanding of professional identity—remains underexplored. Key questions include whether journalists who engage in influencer-like strategies continue to identify as journalists, how they redefine what it means to be “a journalist” in this context, how they navigate and make sense of these professional and ethical changes, and whether such practices weaken journalistic identity or open new pathways for adaptation and self-definition.

To address this, I examine how journalists perceive their professional identity as they engage in influencer-like practices, how their perception aligns or diverges from their self-presentation, and how they reconcile these practices with traditional journalistic values. Understanding this dynamic is crucial because professional identity influences and shapes journalists’ work routines and practices (Raemy, 2021). As these practices evolve, so too may journalists’ sense of self and their definitions of journalistic value—shifts that are often invisible when viewed only through external performance.

Specifically, this research focuses on Wanghong journalists in China. Wanghong is a Chinese term for “internet celebrity,” literally translated as “internet red,” with “red” signifying popularity (Abidin, 2017; Tse et al., 2018). This term encompasses individuals who gain viral fame and converted it into cultural and commercial influence, often through “celebrification” practices (Craig et al., 2021). In this research, I use Duffy’s (2020) definition of influencers as content creators characterized by a substantial following, distinct brand persona, and consistent sponsorship relationships, underscoring the commercial and influential nature of their role. The term “Wanghong journalists” refers to licensed journalists employed by mainstream news organizations who gain fame mainly through social media platforms, and whose “influencer” status is utilized by their employer to further the goals of the news organization.

Unlike their Western counterparts, Chinese Wanghong journalists emerge not only from individual ambition, the creator economy (Peres et al., 2024), and newsroom policies, but also from state-driven promotion of influencer practices. The state encourages these practices to strengthen journalists’ role in shaping public opinion and to reclaim discursive power from non-institutional influencers (Chinese National Radio and Television Administration [CNRTA], 2020; Li & Fan, 2017). This institutionally and politically driven environment highlights the uniqueness of Wanghong journalists and emphasizes the need to explore how they perceive their professional identity.

RQ1: How do Wanghong journalists perceive their professional identity?

RQ2: How does their perception align or diverge from their self-presentation on Chinese TikTok (or Douyin) and Weibo?

To answer these questions, this research employs semi-structured interviews with four Wanghong journalists, each with at least one million followers on Weibo or TikTok (two interviewees engaged in commercial activities, and two who are not). I also employ textual-visual thematic analysis (Trombeta & Cox, 2022) to examine the congruence and discrepancy between the interview data (their perception of their identity and online presentation) and social media posts (how they present themselves) to understand both their perception and presentation of their identity.

Drawing on Raemy’s (2021) framework of professional identity in journalism, I argue that Wanghong journalists’ perception of their professional identity as “digital/new media journalists” reflects an active negotiation between the institutional ideology of Chinese journalism, organizational demand (from both news agency and platform), and individual experiences. Institutional and organizational pressures dominate identity formation, but their influence is uneven and contingent—sometimes the news agency exerts more power, while at other times the platform does. This variation depends on the type of news organization and the journalist’s level of social media visibility. Despite distancing themselves from commercialism in their self-perception, some journalists engage in monetized practices, justifying this contradiction through moral flexibility (Gino & Ariely, 2012). In this sense, journalists’ identity is not a fixed self-understanding, but an ongoing, adaptive process shaped primarily by external institutional and organizational forces and selectively stabilized by individual moral reasoning.

In what follows, I first introduce Raemy’s (2021) framework of professional identity in journalism, which includes three perspectives: individual experience, organizational context, and institutional ideology, and examine its connection to Chinese Wanghong journalists. Next, I discuss the unique context in which Chinese Wanghong journalists emerged, followed by an overview of the research methodology and key findings. Finally, I analyze how journalists negotiate their perception of identity across these three perspectives and how their self-presentation aligns (or not) with their identity perception.

2. Professional Identity in Chinese Journalism

Identity emerges from the dynamic interaction between individuals and society, shaped by ongoing social processes (Berger & Luckmann, 2023). It is both stable and fluid, continuously evolving in response to social and contextual influences (Day et al., 2006). Professional identity refers to how individuals define themselves through their profession, which in turn shapes both their personal and social identities (Heinzer & Reichenbach, 2013). Transferred to journalism, Raemy (2021) critiques the predominant focus on the macro level of professional identity, arguing that a more comprehensive understanding requires examining the interplay between three dimensions: “individual’s vocation, the work in their organizational context and the institutional ideology in relation to society” (p. 857). Furthermore, Raemy (2021) emphasizes that journalists’ professional identity is “affected by journalists’ resilience, socializations as a lifelong process of learning and adaptation, and discourse that institutionalizes journalist identities and ultimately journalism’s identity” (p. 857).

This framework is useful for examining the professional identity of Wanghong journalists in the age of social media, as they must continuously learn and adapt to platform logics while navigating tensions between emerging practices and traditional journalistic values and ethical norms. Thus, this research examines how these journalists reconcile the competing pressures of institutional ideologies, organizational influences, and personal aspirations, and how these negotiations shape, challenge, and redefine their professional identity, in the Chinese context.

Institutional ideology serves as the dominant discourse shaping journalists’ professional identity. It generally refers to a common set of ideals and values shared by journalists worldwide (Carpentier, 2005; Deuze, 2005; Hanitzsch, 2007). For instance, Deuze (2005) defines this ideology through five ideal-typical values: autonomy, immediacy, ethics, objectivity, and public service. These ideals, often referred to as “occupational ideology” (Deuze, 2005) or “professional culture” (Hanitzsch, 2007), reflect a common understanding of journalistic roles. However, it is important to recognize that while professional ideologies in journalism may be relatively stable (like public service), their interpretation and enactment can vary significantly across social systems, shaped by local journalistic cultures, institutional contexts, and individual subjectivities (Nygren & Stigbrand, 2014).

In China, the media system is distinct due to the close relationship between news organizations and political structures, making it far more complex than its Western counterparts (H. Wang et al., 2017). On the one hand, the government’s direct or indirect control over news organizations continually reinforces the media’s duty to serve national interests and shape public opinion (Yin et al., 2024). On the other hand, the decline in government subsidies and growing market competition drive news organizations to innovate and pursue new business opportunities (Tong, 2015). Over time, the institutional ideology in Chinese journalism has been contested and developed different strands of thought. Pan and Lu (2003) identified four key journalistic discourses in China during the 1990s: the party-press discourse, which views news media as a propaganda tool for the party; the Confucian intellectual discourse, which sees journalism as a means to enlighten the public and serve national interests; the professionalism discourse, which emphasizes objectivity, autonomy, and rationality; and the market economy discourse, which treats news as a product for consumption. With the rise in digital technology and shifting political dynamics, journalists embrace the constructive role of journalism, blending seemingly contradictory roles of watchdog and loyal facilitator in their practice (H. Wang & Li, 2024). This evolution suggests that the institutional ideology in Chinese journalism has become more multifaceted.

However, it could be argued that the normative perspective does not fully appreciate journalists’ identity and performance. Almost all studies reveal a weak connection between journalists’ role perceptions and their actual practice (e.g., Albæk et al., 2014; Mellado, 2019). In response, scholars like Waisbord (2013) and Carlson (2016) argue that the nature of journalists’ professional identity rests on the structure and logic of journalistic practices or work. Combining value-based and practice-based perspectives enables the research to capture both the perception of journalists’ identity and their self-presentation. This approach goes beyond a narrow focus on journalism’s public service function (Sherwood & O’Donnell, 2018) to consider the multiple factors that influence professional identity. This perspective is crucial for Wanghong journalists, whose adoption of influencer strategies challenges conventional assumptions about what constitutes journalistic work. By examining both journalists’ self-understanding and their observable social media practices, this research highlights how professional identity is actively constructed through the interplay between perception—often shaped by ideology—and practice.

Another key dimension of professional identity formation involves journalists’ work within their organizational context. Despite disruptions in the field, journalists are still largely defined by their publishing medium and affiliation with a news organization (Ferrucci & Vos, 2017). Within these contexts, they may develop an organizational identity shaped by organizational structure and constraints, their subjective input, and the blending of their own identity with that of the organization (Raemy, 2021). However, in the digital era, where individual branding and audience engagement are central, the extent to which news organizational identity still dominates professional identity formation is worth questioning.

Today, many journalists hold multiple organizational identities, often working across different roles within one or more organizations (Deuze & Lewis, 2014). This is particularly evident among Wanghong journalists, who work full-time at legacy news organizations while also building their personal brands and attracting over a million followers on social media platforms. As a result, they navigate two professional identities: journalist and content creator/influencer. This phenomenon challenges the traditional singular view of professional identity, emphasizing the need to consider both news organization affiliation and social media presence—not as separate roles, but as interconnected aspects of identity. Examining this from an identity perspective is crucial, particularly for Wanghong journalists, as their engagement with digital platforms is not merely an extension of traditional journalistic practice or an additional identity. Instead, it highlights how digital platforms might also shape the meaning of being a journalist.

The third key factor in shaping journalists’ professional identity is individual characteristics. As Raemy (2021) argues, a journalist’s knowledge, experience, personality, and motivations also shape their professional identity. Identity development is not simply a product of external pressures but a confluence of individuals’ biological characteristics, psychological needs, interests and defense, and their social culture context (Erikson, 1968, as cited in Raemy, 2021). For example, Wanghong journalists’ motivations—such as making money or sharing information—can influence how they present themselves and how they perceive their identity. Those motivated by income or visibility may craft more commercial content, while those focused on sharing information may prioritize factual or educational posts.

All these three perspectives are not equally shared, as Raemy (2021) pointed out, professional identity is a relational and hierarchical concept, how they negotiate among these elements depends on the situation and they might prioritize one over another in certain situations. In addition, while some elements of journalistic identity remain stable—such as institutional values and professional norms—others evolve in response to changes in the media environment (Raemy, 2021). Prior research highlights this dual nature, showing that professional identity is both flexible and resistant to change (Witschge & Nygren, 2009; Ekdale et al., 2015). For instance, studies on identity negotiation in newsrooms reveal that journalists adapt by finding new reference points in response to industry shifts while also maintaining certain traditional values as a form of resistance (Grubenmann & Meckel, 2015).

Building on these three levels of analysis—institutional ideology in Chinese journalism, journalists’ work within both legacy news organizations and social media platforms, and individual experiences—this framework provides a foundation for understanding how Wanghong journalists construct their professional identity as they navigate tensions between competing expectations.

3. Wanghong Journalists in the Social Media Era

Chinese Wanghong journalists emerge not only from individual ambition or news organizations’ requirements, but also from government encouragement, which later led to policies guiding news organizations in cultivating them. Technological advancements and shifting audience demand fuel a rapid increase in both the number and diversity of Wanghong in China. However, the rise in Wanghong raises concerns, as many prioritize engagement over accuracy, leading to the spread of misinformation and low-quality content that disrupt public order (Yuan, 2024). This trend weakens mainstream media’s role in shaping public discourse. Li and Fan (2017) argue that cultivating influencer journalists is a strategic necessity for news organizations to maintain influence in an evolving media landscape. Unlike typical influencers who often pursue quick fame, Wanghong journalists focus on producing original content and promoting positive values to the public (X. Wang, 2018).

Recognizing this shift, the Chinese National Radio and Television Administration (CNRTA) issued an official directive on 13 November 2020, titled “Opinions on Accelerating the Deep Media Convergence and Development of Radio and Television Media.” This policy explicitly encourages news organizations to develop Wanghong journalists, urging them to “create high-quality online content, cultivate Wanghong teams, and establish personalized media brands” to strengthen the reach and influence of traditional news outlets, thereby shaping public opinion (Chinese National Radio and Television Administration [CNRTA], 2020). Following this directive, several news organizations established their own Multi-Channel Network (MCN) agencies (like social media influencer management firms), to support journalists to be influencers.

Beyond state-driven efforts, Chinese social media platforms also help legacy media journalists build their online influencer identity. For example, TikTok’s “Dou Chuang Alliance” supports journalists from mainstream media by helping them increase their visibility and grow their follower base. The initiative also provides guidance on monetization strategies, including “live-streaming e-commerce” (Xu, 2022). These collaborations benefit both parties: platforms need high-quality content to attract and retain users, while media organizations rely on platforms to enhance their influence. This research focuses on two distinct platforms: Chinese TikTok and Weibo, each representing different types of social media. Chinese TikTok, launched in 2016, is China’s leading short-form video platform and the domestic counterpart of the international TikTok (Kaye et al., 2020). The platform gained immense popularity during the pandemic, attracting over 600 professional news outlets to join by 2022 (CTR, 2022). Individual journalists also joined Chinese TikTok, amassing significant followings. Weibo (Sina Weibo), launched in 2009, functions similarly to Twitter, allowing users to post text, music, videos, live streams, polls, hyperlinks, images, geographic locations, files, and articles. Weibo, known for its focus on current affairs and its ability to stimulate social discussions, encourages journalists to create accounts to enhance visibility and strengthen their reputation (Fu & Lee, 2014).

As a result, Wanghong journalists operate at the intersection of two organizational forces: one shaped by legacy news organizations urging them to balance journalistic integrity with influencer roles, and the other driven by the platform incentives of social media, such as engagement metrics, visibility, and monetization. As Wanghong journalists navigate between the values of traditional media organizations and the demands of social media platforms, their practices and identities are continuously shaped.

One of the tensions might be between commercial activities and journalistic integrity. Some scholars recognize that journalists may act as promoters of products or services, engaging in indirect monetization for personal financial gain (Mellado & Hermida, 2022; Marques-Martins & Sixto-García, 2025). Traditionally, news organizations separate commercial activities from editorial work to protect journalistic independence and prevent de-professionalization (Splichal & Dahlgren, 2016). However, Carlson (2016) argues that it is essential to examine how journalists engaged in influencer activities on social media develop and legitimize new normative frameworks to justify these practices—potentially redefining what constitutes journalism. Gino and Ariely (2012) call this kind of reasoning “moral flexibility,” where individuals “justify their immoral actions by generating multiple and diverse reasons that these actions can be judged as ethically appropriate” (447). Given this, studying Wanghong journalists with large followings offers valuable insights into how they negotiate their professional identity through commercialized, platform-driven practices, and whether these practices are individual strategies or signal a broader shift in journalistic professionalism.

4. Methodology

I explored Wanghong journalists’ professional identity and its alignment with their Weibo and Chinese TikTok self-presentation through semi-structured interviews and textual-visual thematic analysis (Trombeta & Cox, 2022). The interviews explored participants’ views on professional values, goals, and identity as both journalists and influencers, including the personas they aim to project online. Textual–visual analysis compared these self-perceptions with their social media content to identify alignments, discrepancies, or additional elements in their public self-presentation.

As a former journalist, I relied on my professional network to recruit four Wanghong journalists, each with over one million followers on either Weibo or Douyin. I initially contacted 20 potential participants directly through their social media accounts but received no responses. Interviews were secured through my journalism network, which may introduce selection and access bias. The threshold was chosen to capture individuals with a relatively high level of influence—large enough to shape public discourse—while excluding celebrity influencers operating at a much larger scale. Given the small sample and high follower threshold, the findings are not generalizable but offer in-depth insights into how Wanghong journalists negotiate their professional identities. The dual-platform presence reflects a broader engagement with China’s digital media landscape.

All four are licensed journalists verified by the platforms and typically post content every two weeks on at least one platform. Despite their public presence, all participants requested de-identification through anonymization of their names and images, ensuring that their information would not be linked to their news organizations. Detailed profiles of these participants are outlined in

Table 1. Profile of the Interviewees and Number of social media Posts Collected.

Wanghong Journalist	Gender	Weibo Followers/Million	TikTok Followers/Million	New Organization	Age	Characteristic	Number of Posts Collected
Wang	Female	1.1	0.03	National newspaper	30+	Public affair	100
Liu	Female	0.2	1.4	National news outlet	30+	Culture /public affair	71 (Posts less often)
Chen	Female	0.8	4.7	Provincial TV	35+	News commentator	100
Huang	Male	0.009	1.4	Provincial TV	35+	lifestyle	80 (No longer use Weibo)

Note: The aim was to collect approximately 50 posts per platform per participant (approximately 400 posts in total). However, due to limited activity from some participants, the final dataset includes 351 posts.

. The database was last updated on 22 April 2024. Due to geographic distance, the journalists provided oral permission for these interviews, which were conducted via WeChat voice calls between March 2024 and August 2024. In total, approximately 6 h of interviews were transcribed.

Before each interview, I collected the 30 most recent posts from each participant on both Weibo and Chinese TikTok, selected about a week prior to the interview. I used textual–visual thematic analysis (Trombeta & Cox, 2022) to identify character/persona types in their self-presentation through posts and screenshots of their profile pages. I analyzed the posts for recurring patterns, focusing on both visual cues (e.g., facial expressions, clothing, setting) and textual elements (e.g., tone, user engagement). Four key themes emerged across the sample: friendly (e.g., smiling expressions, casual tone, use of fan community features); professional/knowledgeable (e.g., news site appearances, critical commentary, formal attire); authentic (e.g., personal stories, direct engagement with followers); marketable (e.g., sponsored content, business contact details, livestream selling tools).

During the interview, I followed a semi-structured protocol approved by the Ethics Committee. Core questions addressed their identities as journalists and influencers, relationships with news agencies and platforms, motivations for using digital platforms, and the self-image they aim to project online. I then compared these narratives with the themes identified from their online content. It is important to acknowledge that participants’ self-presentation during interviews may be constrained, as they may try to create a particular impression for the interviewer and therefore present a more idealized image of themselves. Where discrepancies emerged—such as the presence of commercial practices in their posts that were not discussed during the interview—I asked targeted follow-up questions to explore those absences. I analyzed the transcripts using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework for thematic analysis. Through an inductive process, five thematic categories emerged: identity as journalists (in relation to news organizations), identity as influencers (in relation to platforms), tensions between professional values and influencer practices, self-presentation (relatable and professional self), and views on commercial practices.

After the interviews, I analyzed 20 recent posts per participant (September–December) to assess how their online self-presentation matched their described identities. Using deductive coding based on interview themes (professional and relatable selves) alongside inductive analysis to uncover new themes in their social media posts, this combined approach showed that marketable aspects of their online presence were consistent with earlier social media content analyses, despite not being discussed in interviews. I present findings with direct quotations, translating them as literally as possible to preserve the meaning in the participants’ original language.

5. Identity Enrichment: Journalistic Ideals and Social Media Work

Through the interview, I found that Wanghong journalists tend to see themselves more as “new media” or “digital media” journalists rather than simply combining the identities of influencers and journalists. They view themselves as journalists because of their shared journalistic ideology but do not fully identify with traditional journalism due to differences in practice. At the same time, they also acknowledge their influencer identity because of their success on social media (e.g., followers), but they do not fully align with the values of influencers, especially regarding prioritizing money over public service. Their identity perception is shaped by the tension between institutional ideology and their actual practices within their organizational context. While they often prioritize journalistic ideology over the practical realities of social media-driven work, they also recognize that influencer practices are not merely external constraints. Instead, these practices shape their approach to journalism, influencing how they produce content and redefining their understanding of what it means to be a journalist.

“Given my current number of followers, I could be considered a Wanghong journalist. However, I prefer to define myself as a new media journalist or multimedia news professional. We are part of the traditional journalism field. The only difference is that we now have the internet as a tool and learn new methods for content creation and dissemination. So, in my view, there is no such thing as a purely traditional or non-traditional concept. For media professionals to survive, we must keep up with the times and master new skills.”

—Huang

While participants believe journalists should not be confined to a traditional identity, they still reference it to highlight aspects of their identity that remain stable. As one interviewee explained:

“Our core mission and responsibility remain the same; only the expression differs. It has changed from traditional media, like TV, to the internet and social media. The content is key. My main mission is to tell compelling Chinese stories and deliver accurate, meaningful information.”

—Xu

This perspective demonstrates how journalists’ identity perception remains closely tied to institutional ideology, with certain aspects remaining stable over time (Raemy, 2021). In this case, participants continue to align with the dual institutional framework of Chinese journalism: the party-press discourse, which sees news media as a vehicle for promoting party policies, and the professionalism discourse, which upholds values such as objectivity and high-quality content (Pan & Lu, 2003).

These values also align with their self-presentation on social media, as all interviewees aim to project a professional self to their audience. For them, a professional self means producing high-quality, authoritative content, ensuring accuracy (or at least avoiding misinformation), and providing meaningful value to their audience. This commitment is also evident in their social media presence—for example, they often share the official press events in their posts, wear professional attire at formal occasions, showing the sources of their information. Beyond offering reliable information, some journalists emphasize content verification to demonstrate their professional identity. As one put it,

“My content goes through three levels of review. Although I work in social media, I still adhere to the review processes of traditional media, and in fact, I follow even stricter standards, as there is more information that needs to be verified on social media.”

—Chen

Such practices reinforce the idea that Wanghong journalists are not ready to abandon professional standards but continue to uphold core ethical principles even in the social media age (Witschge & Nygren, 2009; Steel et al., 2025). Their strong identification as journalists is also evident in their social media bios, where they explicitly state their occupation and news organization affiliation. These affiliations highlight the continued influence of institutional media in shaping professional identity within the Chinese context. As Raemy (2021) notes, news organizations interpret and enforce institutional ideology within their specific contexts, influencing how journalists define their professional identity. Wanghong journalists do not merely inherit this organizational identity; they strategically mobilize it to enhance the credibility and authority of their social media presence, reinforcing their parallel influencer identity. However, the degree of institutional influence varies by organizational level. Participants at national news organizations often feel a stronger obligation to act as mouthpieces for the party and government—expressed through narratives like “telling good Chinese stories”—compared to those at regional news organizations. Such distinction illustrates how professional affiliation not only shapes journalists’ roles but also determines the ideological expectations placed upon them.

Regarding their influencer identity, their attitudes toward this identification are ambivalent. Some reject the influencer label, arguing that they do not share the same values—while influencers prioritize monetization and traffic; journalism is rooted in public service. As one explained,

“We are different from Wanghong or we-media, journalism is the mouthpiece for the party and people. Wanghong might also work for the public to some extent, but essentially, they work for themselves or their organization. Their content doesn’t have a news value. We haven’t been ‘influencer-ized (网红化),’ but our work has been deeply shaped by the internet. Keeping up with societal changes is necessary.”

—Huang

Such framing carries the stigma that being an influencer is not serious, less credible, or even morally questionable, and they are the mainstream Wanghong, different from the normal Wanghong (X. Wang, 2018). In a way, it reflects the normalization of social media, treating influencer-type practices as an internet trend or exception rather than a legitimate shift.

At the same time, participants acknowledge their influencer status due to their large followings and visibility on social media. All Wanghong journalist participants want their audience to perceive them as real, down-to-earth individuals—just like the ordinary people they interact with daily. This “relatable self” is framed through qualities such as being caring, genuine, and approachable. After analyzing their social media posts, I found that they use strategies such as personalized news reporting and audience engagement to create a relatable, authentic, and approachable persona.

For example, Wang often reports news using her mobile phone, placing herself in the frame with the news site visible in the background. She walks through the scene, explaining what happened in a casual, conversational tone. Her relaxed manner, combined with smiling while discussing serious news topics in an engaging way, aligns with typical influencer strategies, where selfies, informal speech, and dialogical styles are key features of content (Abidin, 2017). On Weibo, Wang sometimes shares personal thoughts after her reports or posts beautiful pictures from her personal life, such as cycling in nature, having coffee with friends, or selfies after reporting. Similarly, Chen occasionally shares glimpses of her personal life on TikTok—such as short videos of herself dancing—interspersed with her news commentary posts, which makes her public image more relatable to followers. The high view counts of her dancing videos incentivize her to share more personal content, highlighting how platform algorithms and audience engagement encourage journalists to adopt relatable, influencer-like strategies.

Through personalized news reporting, engaging with followers, and sharing personal stories, their practices resemble those of influencers and gradually shape the way they see themselves and their profession. As one shared:

“I think with the development of new media in this era, the expectation for a journalist isn’t just about providing completely objective news. Now people have more demands from journalists—they want to see their opinions, and sometimes they even expect to feel emotions through their work. So, I believe that society’s perception of news, media, and journalists is constantly evolving. It’s not the same as what we learned in the past or how things used to be. I want to create and share content that is either interesting or useful.”

—Wang

This statement underscores the shifting media landscape, where the demands of modern audiences and the adoption of influencer-like practices reshape journalists’ self-perception. In Raemy’s (2021) terms, these socialization processes foster a more approachable, human-like journalist, emerging as a new professional norm in response to evolving media practices. This shift supports Waisbord’s (2013) and Carlson’s (2016) arguments, which contend that the structure and logic of journalists’ work practices shape their professional identity. As journalists engage in influencer activities on social media, they contribute to the development of new norms and frameworks that may eventually redefine what constitutes journalism (Carlson, 2016). This also suggests that the institutional identity of journalists is both flexible and inflexible. While journalists may hold onto some traditional ideologies, other aspects of their professional identity can shift based on evolving realities of their work (Raemy, 2021). One interviewee shared:

“I’m a Wanghong journalist, and all my colleagues call me Wanghong. I don’t reject; on the contrary, I embrace it and even pursue it. Being a Wanghong means success for me. You can also call me a new media journalist, but I have more followers and a higher influence than the average new media journalist. My influence can make a difference, for example, owing to my coverage of certain topics, related departments start to pay more attention and even solve these problems.”

—Chen

Such a response illustrates how some Wanghong journalists accept and even pursue their influencer identity, viewing it as a symbol of success and influence. All participants tie their influencer persona directly to audience size and impact. For Chen, her identification is even more pronounced—she has four million followers and witnesses tangible changes from her posts. The satisfaction she gains from influencing others on social media, combined with the financial benefits, makes her more inclined to embrace her influencer identity.

Her experience highlights the complex negotiation between her social media success and the constraints imposed by her news organization. She explains that having a large social media following does not increase her salary, as her monthly pay is not tied to her online visibility. Additionally, the editorial restrictions from her news organization, particularly regarding her commentary on public affairs, made her feel detached from the traditional journalist role.

Li and Fan’s (2017) argument—that Wanghong journalists receive support from both the government and their news organizations—does not fully account for cases like Chen’s. Such support tends to favor those who align with official narratives, rather than those who challenge them. Chen’s content, which often addresses public affairs, creates friction with both her news organization and the government. As a result, she experiences shadow banning, account suspensions from platforms, and additional restrictions on her content from her news organization. Although her work on public affairs aligns with traditional journalism, the censorship she faces pushes her further from that identity. Ultimately, the interaction between her journalistic values of serving the public, her social media practices, personal experiences, and the pressures from her news organization leads her to embrace her influencer identity. Unlike journalists who resist influencer identity, Chen’s personal experiences critically shape how she negotiates her professional identity, highlighting the central role of journalists’ knowledge and experience in this process (Raemy, 2021).

6. Identity Conflict: Negotiating Commercial Pressures and Journalistic Norms

This section examines whether Wanghong journalists’ self-perception aligns with their social media presentation, focusing on any discrepancies. While they present themselves as both relatable and professional—consistent with their perceived identity—I also identify a “marketable self” in some participants from their social media content. Unlike their professional and relatable identities, the commercial aspect is absent from their interviews. The discrepancy likely reflects the traditional divide between journalism and commerce, where journalists downplay financial incentives to uphold professional integrity. Such reluctance to acknowledge monetization underscores a deeper tension between their dual identities, as one explained.

“I cancelled my journalist certification on the social media platform and hid any information about my affiliated news organization because they were worried that I might cause trouble. Precisely because I have a journalist identity, there are many things I can no longer do. For example, I’m restricted from selling products, and I unconsciously end up placing limits on myself.”

—Chen

As Raemy (2021) argued, the socialization process can lead to identity enrichment or struggle. This narrative illustrates how journalists navigate tensions between two organizational identities, sometimes resulting in conflict.

The marketable self is visible in their bios and social media posts. Some Wanghong journalists explicitly present their marketable self by including business contact details in their profiles, particularly on platforms like Chinese TikTok. For instance, many include a link to “Find me on Xingtu,” which is TikTok’s creator marketplace, where firms can access a list of influencers, manage contracts, review marketing data, and process payments. Another key aspect of the marketable self is the posting of advertorial content and participation in e-commerce practices, particularly through live streaming. For example, the shopping window on Huang’s profiles typically showcases products like detergent, wine, or snacks, providing a curated selection for their audience.

Chinese TikTok’s commercial features, including the shopping window, Xingtu marketplace, product tags, and in-app payments, offer Wanghong journalists a streamlined path to monetize their content. Weibo also provides a social tipping feature that enables Wanghong journalists to monetize their content. These affordances demonstrate how platform logic creates new avenues for distributing and monetizing journalism (Hurcombe, 2024). Social media platforms function not just as spaces for expression but also encourage journalists to engage in monetization, highlighting the influence of the second organization—social media platforms—in shaping their practices.

“Around the time I surpassed 1 million followers on my account, my news organization established a new department dedicated to managing social media accounts, similar to MCNs. They began collaborating with my studio and TikTok account to explore commercial opportunities. Short video advertisements are the most common type. Typically, I explain a product’s features and highlights within 1 to 2 min, include shopping links, and post it on TikTok. I think my account has good commercial potential.”

—Huang

This example demonstrates how news organizations facilitate the transformation of journalists into influencers through MCN (Qing, 2021), which act as intermediaries bridging the editorial and commercial aspects of their roles. This process reflects both institutional compliance with government policy to develop Wanghong journalists (Chinese National Radio and Television Administration [CNRTA], 2020) and the growing legitimacy of commercial concerns amid a declining traditional business model (Beckert, 2022). Consequently, journalists’ engagement in monetization—whether supported by the organization or pursued independently—is increasingly normalized. In contrast to Mellado and Hermida’s (2022) view that monetization is mainly for personal gain, this research finds that it is a combination of individual practices and expectations from news organizations. The financial proceeds from such activities are shared with the organization, reflecting a mutual interest in monetizing the journalists’ social media presence. As Huang further explains:

“All income from online sales and other commercial activities will go directly to my news organization—they handle it. However, they will pay me based on the revenue I generate for them.”

—Huang

However, it is not just the organization; their individual motivations for using social media also play a role in shaping their commercial practices. As Wang put it:

“If we don’t make money, what else should we do? Everyone is selling products on social media. Currently, my main goal for my account is to monetize it while ensuring that the content I post is safe and avoids any backlash.”

—Wang

When social media platforms encourage commercial activities, news organizations also support and capitalize on this trend, viewing it as an opportunity to generate revenue. Yet, journalists navigate commercial expectations differently. Those with better financial backgrounds and working under strict editorial regulations—particularly in national news organizations—tend to avoid direct online monetization, though they remain aware of potential commercial opportunities. In contrast, journalists motivated by financial gain and operating under more permissive commercialization policies engage more actively in monetization practices and accept their influencer identity. This illustrates how experience, motivation, and social context shape professional identity (Raemy, 2021). However, when asked about potential contradictions with their journalistic identity—such as the notion that journalists should prioritize public service or the traditional boundary between news and commerce—two distinct narratives emerge.

“TikTok is a commercial platform, and you can’t say that I’m doing journalism—I’m just sharing an opinion. I’m not reporting news, nor am I a news creator. I’m simply sharing my thoughts on news phenomena or events, just like others. I’m monetizing my influence, not profiting directly from the news itself. Also getting money doesn’t mean my content will be compromised. Journalism is just an identity of my profession. I didn’t try to use this identity to make money.”

—Chen

The narrative argues that journalists should remain uninvolved in commercial practices, but view monetization as acceptable as influencers. The distinction reinforces a boundary between news and regular content, emphasizing that what they produce falls under the latter rather than traditional journalism. Conversely, another narrative argues that any journalist can engage in commercial work, especially given current financial pressures, but it should be limited. As Huang explained,

“I don’t think commercial activities threaten journalism, as ads is always a part of news broadcasting. Making money on social media is a side job for me; my main focus is still producing news. I don’t take on many ads because I carefully select businesses to ensure they’re trustworthy and keep my account from becoming too commercial. The key is balance: commerce is necessary, but it shouldn’t dominate.”

—Huang

Both narratives illustrate how Wanghong journalists use moral flexibility (Gino & Ariely, 2012) to navigate tensions between commercial practices and traditional journalistic ideologies. While prior research recognizes these ethical conflicts, few studies examine how journalists interpret or cope with them (Carlson, 2016; Marques-Martins & Sixto-García, 2025). Beckert (2022) identifies four patterns of relativizing ethical concerns in native advertising: third-person attribution, shifting responsibility to audiences, downplaying ethical implications, and emphasizing audience benefits. Huang, in contrast, adopts a utilitarian stance, framing monetization as necessary in response to declining traditional revenues (Mellado & Hermida, 2022), reflecting the market-oriented discourse in Chinese journalism (Pan & Lu, 2003). This highlights how moral flexibility operates differently within the Chinese institutional context, where commercial pressures and market logic strongly influence journalists’ ethical reasoning. Chen and Huang also emphasize competence and balance, asserting that monetization does not compromise content quality and demonstrates journalists’ confidence in managing editorial and commercial demands, though they rarely consider audience perception. Focusing on competence, they actively construct ethical boundaries—not abandon journalism—but reinterpret them in ways that accommodate commercial practices.

Through this flexibility, they negotiate a professional identity that balances integrity with monetization, framing commercial engagement not as a betrayal but as an evolution of journalistic practice. This aligns with previous research that suggests professional identity can be both flexible and inflexible (Witschge & Nygren, 2009; Ekdale et al., 2015; Grubenmann & Meckel, 2015). The flexibility allows Wanghong journalists to adapt and find new reference points in a changing media landscape, developing and legitimizing new norms to justify these practices. While moral flexibility might seem like an individual coping strategy, the institutional support observed in this research—where news organizations endorse and financially profit from journalists’ commercial activities—suggests a collective shift.

7. Conclusions

This study contributes to debates about journalists’ professional identity in the age of social media. It focuses on how Chinese Wanghong journalists perceive their identity while adapting to the demands of audiences, news organizations, and social media platforms, and how these adaptations affect the alignment between their self-perception and self-presentation on TikTok and Weibo. The data finds:

Wanghong journalists identify themselves as “new/digital media” journalists, rather than simply combining the identities of influencers and journalists. Their identification reflects an active negotiation between the institutional ideology of Chinese journalism, organizational demand from both news agency and platform, and individual experiences. While Raemy’s (2021) framework suggests a hierarchical relationship between these elements, my research highlights that institutional ideology and organizational expectations play a dominant role, though their influence varies by news organization type and journalists’ social media influence. Regional Wanghong journalists, dissatisfied with their employers, are more likely to embrace their influencer identity as their social media following grows.

The tension—stemming from the negotiation between institutional ideology and organizational expectations from both news agencies and platforms—manifests as a gap between Wanghong journalists’ self-perception and their public presentation, particularly around commercial practices. Although interviews show they do not explicitly present themselves as market-driven, their monetization efforts are evident in their social media content. To justify their actions, Wanghong journalists employ moral flexibility (Gino & Ariely, 2012), adopting two distinct narratives. Some journalists still uphold the traditional separation between editorial and commercial functions, framing commercial activities as part of their influencer identity. Others, driven by both news agency support and personal financial goals, consider commercial engagement a legitimate part of journalism, as long as it does not compromise content quality. Such moral flexibility may be seen as a compromise, but it also represents a strategic and creative response to their lived experiences, helping them navigate the boundaries of traditional journalism. Over time, their adaptive strategy may redefine the norms of journalism and expand the possibilities of what journalists can do in the social media era.

My project builds on studies that show journalists’ professional identity as both flexible and resistant to change, particularly in relation to tensions between core journalistic values and evolving news practices (Witschge & Nygren, 2009; Ekdale et al., 2015; Grubenmann & Meckel, 2015). Consistent with Raemy (2021), this study finds that some core aspects of professional journalism ideology—such as public service, autonomy, and delivering verified information—remain stable, while other elements are more fluid. The fluidity emerges through the negotiation between ideals and practices in shaping journalists’ professional identities. The tension between the two is not a simple conflict but a dynamic process. As influencer practices prove effective in expanding reach and shaping public opinion, they challenge and gradually redefine what is considered acceptable in journalism. For instance, interviewees highlighted practices like personalized storytelling, sharing personal emotions, and expressing personal opinions, which challenge conventional notions of objectivity and are accepted as part of their practice.

While prior studies noted that journalists may engage in indirect monetization or self-promotion for personal gain (Mellado & Hermida, 2022; Marques-Martins & Sixto-García, 2025), this research highlights a different dynamic: some Wanghong journalists integrate journalistic and commercial roles with the support of their news organizations, with both parties sharing in the financial returns. They regard commercial activity as a normalized aspect of professional practice, provided content integrity remains intact. This shift suggests that concepts like objectivity and the editorial–commercial divide are not fixed, but fluid and context-dependent (Hanitzsch, 2007). In this way, the negotiation between journalistic ideals and influencer practices thus deepens the complexity of identity formation, as journalists not only navigate but also reshape evolving professional norms.

By securing rare access to Wanghong journalists, this study generates unique empirical insights into their direct commercial work and the negotiation of journalistic identity. Although lifestyle journalists are typically more commercially active in the literature, the public affairs commentator in this study have also begun adopting monetization strategies. A key limitation is the small sample of Wanghong journalists and the high follower threshold. Journalists with fewer followers may face different pressures, like increasing visibility, which could give platforms more influence than news organizations. Future research should examine these dynamics across different follower tiers and content niches, while also including audience perspectives.