Most empirical studies of journalists' thinking and decision-making processes have been conducted as case studies of individual countries. They suffer from a considerable shortcoming insofar as they lack a larger context for assessing the validity of their findings. However, the question of how significant these findings are can be answered by use of comparative analyses, which include a range of different countries. The relevance of international comparative studies is demonstrated, for instance, when we examine the influence that journalists' political beliefs exert on their professional actions. To be sure, case studies of a particular national context can provide a basis for describing the beliefs of journalists in the respective country and the impact of these beliefs on the daily work in newsrooms. Yet, such case studies give no clue as to how much their findings have been influenced by characteristics of the respective media and political systems. The national context must therefore be eliminated if we want to get a clear picture of the connection between the political views of journalists and their professional decisions. This can be achieved by conducting a systematic comparison of various countries with differing media systems and political situations. Apart from its cross-national perspective, this approach also provides a formidable basis for categorizing the state of each country on an international scale.

Journalists in Western democratic societies operate under similar legal, political, economic, and cultural conditions. They enjoy formidable legal protections, have considerable access to those in power, and are backed by substantial news organizations.