A significant part of the interaction between journalists and their sources in political journalism is informal or not mentioned in the media content. Visibility/invisibility and formality/informality are tactical choices applied by journalists and sources. They influence agenda building in the short term and shared interpretations that dominate the public sphere in the long term.However, the extent to which informal and/or invisible sources participate, what their role is, and why have not been consistently measured. This paper offers a matrix model to map and compare the usage of formal/informal and visible/invisible interactions between journalists and their sources. The data consists of 475 journalist-source interactions in Lithuania and Sweden reconstructed by 33 political journalists.The results demonstrate how different interactions presuppose different source roles in the news process. Formal invisible sources act as gatekeepers, and informal invisible sources act as agenda setters.

The study explores how the content of the social ties between journalists and their sources, and the multiplexity of the ties in particular, is reflected in the news discovery practices in the political beat. Some of the news ideas come from publicly available channels while others derive from journalists' unique networks of social contacts (often to some degree informal). The sources connected to journalists via single vs. multiplex social ties achieve a discursive power (Jungerr et al. 2019) in different ways. The study is based on reconstructed news discovery situations (n = 162) from two different political journalism environments: Lithuania and Sweden, and combines quantitative and qualitative questions. First, it measures the prevalence of the multiplex social ties between journalists and the sources. Second, it analyzes how the multiplexity of these ties is reflected in the process of the news discovery and, third, the outcome-the news content. The results show that the prevalence of multiplex social ties, and the social network behind them, is reflected in what news journalists can access and select as newsworthy. Process-wise, multiplex social ties work as a shortcut but require a balance between maintaining the access to the network and distance to the source.

This chapter discusses how media and political information sources navigate change and adjust their needs-oriented behaviour to changing conditions. The results presented are based on 20 qualitative interviews with leading political journalists as well as government advisors and spokespersons in Lithuania. Although media and political sources gain power in different situations, both sides function in reciprocal interconnectedness. Formal contacts are quite consistent and professionalised, but they continue to work in the shadow of informal social networks, which create their own power relationships, dynamics and hierarchical structures. Though the findings are contextually fashioned, the views regarding the interaction indicate broader trends of communication professionalisation identified also in other cultures and political conditions.

This chapter sets out to answer a number of questions concerning the relationship between media and political executives in political communication, centring on how the exchange and power balance between journalists and their political sources differ depending on whether the interaction is formal or informal. The results are based on 43 qualitative interviews with journalists who cover national politics and governmental press advisors in Lithuania and Sweden. The findings indicate that formal interaction is advantageous for professional sources in agenda-based news. In non-agenda news and in times of political conflict, journalists as well as some political sources prefer informal interaction. While top political leaders and their press advisors are most often isolated from informal interactions, other political sources might gain from communicating informally. Finally, the results show that media–source exchange in informal relationships reaches beyond “information in exchange for publicity” and that informal relationships allow participants to step outside their traditional professional roles.

This chapter explores political executive-media relations in Sweden, with a particular focus on professional day-to-day relationships and habits. The analysis is mainly based on extensive interviews with journalists and government press secretaries, and it establishes the routinisation at work, as well as the professionalisation. The exchanges between journalists and their sources appear to be close but with recognition of each other’s professional roles. Media developments influence the relationship, and the downsizing of newsrooms, multi-platform production 24/7 and increased competition for unique news have made journalists more dependent on available sources. At the same time, professionalisation of government communication makes news management more efficient and has centralising effects on executive systems. Together these trends shift the balance between journalists and their political sources in favour of the latter. The presented findings have important implications for research on journalism, media and political executives.