Generalised scepticism: how people navigate news on social media

an article by Richard Fletcher and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, UK) published in Information, Communication and Society Volume 22 Issue 12 (2019)

Abstract

Social media is an increasingly widely used and important source of news. News on social media is ‘selected’ by a variety of actors, including the editors and journalists that produce the content, and the algorithms developed by technology companies to make automatic display decisions based on users’ past behaviour and the actions of their friends.

We analyse how people navigate news on social media, and focus on their perception of the different kinds of news selection involved.

The analysis uses a mixed-methods design based on focus group material and survey data from Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Across all four countries, with their different political and media systems, we find that

1. the majority do not understand exactly how the information they receive is filtered by algorithms, but they do not uncritically accept it either, because they are sceptical of all forms of selection ‒ including that performed by editors and journalists,
2. approval for algorithmic selection is stronger amongst younger people, and
3. those with a high level of interest in ‘soft’ news topics (and low interest in ‘hard’ news topics) are more likely to approve of news algorithmically selected on the basis of what their friends have consumed.

We argue that the way in which most people navigate news on social media is thus based on a ‘generalised scepticism’ where people question all kinds of selection.

---

Journalism, solidarity and the civil sphere: The case of Charlie Hebdo

an article by María Luengo (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain) and Karoline Andrea Ihlebæk (University of Oslo, Norway) published in European Journal of Communication Volume 34 Issue 2 (June 2019)

Abstract

On 7 January 2015, Said and Chérif Kouachi assaulted the offices of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, leaving 12 people dead.

The terrorist attack soon became a highly symbolic event, reflecting the core struggle between free speech and religious values that escalated after the ‘cartoon crisis’ in 2005. In this article, we wish to explore media discourses in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack in three European countries – Spain, Norway and the United Kingdom. In particular, we investigate if and how journalism performed their role as ‘vital centre’ in the ‘civil sphere’.

We find that the patterns of in-group and out-group were carefully constructed to avoid polarization between ‘ordinary’ Muslims and the West in most newspapers. By doing so, most of the newspapers managed to work for the construction of an idealized civil sphere that exists beyond race, nationality or religion.

---

Breaking news on Wikipedia: collaborating, collating and competing

an article by Bunty Avieson (University of Sydney, Australia) published in First Monday Volume 24 Number 5 (May 2019)

Abstract

When a major global news event occurs, such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka or the March shootings in New Zealand, Wikipedia contributors from around the world come together in a virtual newsroom to craft a narrative, followed closely by readers seeking the latest information. In any given month, the site’s most popular articles — both in number of views and number of edits — are those reporting breaking news.

Wikipedia’s protocols of ‘no original research’ mean the contributors must draw on the work of journalists, collating and re-purposing what has been published online.

Taking as a case study the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis this paper analyzes Wikipedia’s breaking news practices and the ways the Internet is changing perceptions of news.

Full text (HTML)

---

Frankenstein journalism

an article by Andrew Duffy, Edson C. Tandoc and Richard Ling (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) published in Information, Communication & Society Volume 21 Issue 10 (2018)

Abstract

Confronted with circumstances altered by the Internet, professional working practices have the option to change or to stay the same.

This paper looks at how newsworkers in the new form of digital newsrooms have adapted the old location- or topic-based ‘beat’ system; now that they are called upon to curate or aggregate news stories which arrive fully formed from legacy news websites or emerge from social media. Stories like these are often valued for their virality – that is, how far and fast they have already spread – and their power to attract clicks from readers.

Today, a growing number of news websites aggregate or curate such stories as part of their own news offerings. Yet curating these stories bring challenges to journalists’ identities and work practices, which demands a response.

Based on an ethnographic study of eight digital newsrooms, we report how newsworkers use journalistic rituals to legitimise these second-hand stories flowing into the newsroom. We observed the use of rituals of objectivity, multiple sourcing and comparison with other news outlets as mechanisms that newsworkers used to validate and justify their use of second-hand content.

---

“News comes across when I’m in a moment of leisure”: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media

an article by Pablo J Boczkowski (Northwestern University, USA), Eugenia Mitchelstein (Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina) and Mora Matassi (Harvard Graduate School of Education, USA) published in New Media & Society Volume 20 Issue 10 (October 2018)

Abstract

Incidental consumption of news on social media has risen in recent years, particularly among young people.

Previous studies have characterized what the main dimensions and effects of this phenomenon are. In this article, we complement that literature by looking at how this phenomenon unfolds. Inspired by practice theory, we aim to answer two questions:

1. what are the practices that subtend incidental news consumption on social media among young people? and
2. What are the social consequences of these practices?

We draw upon 50 in-depth interviews with respondents aged 18–29 years from Argentina.

Our findings show the existence of

1. strong connections between technology and content, “anywhere and anytime” coordinates, derivative information routines, and increasingly mediated sociability and
2. fragmentary reading patterns, loss of hierarchy of the news, and coexistence of editorial, algorithmic, and social filtering.

We conclude by elaborating on the empirical and theoretical implications of these findings.

---

Automating judgment? Algorithmic judgment, news knowledge, and journalistic professionalism

an article by Matt Carlson (Saint Louis University, USA) published in New Media & Society Volume 20 Issue 5 (May 2018)

Abstract

Journalistic judgment is both a central and fraught function of journalism.

The privileging of objectivity norms and the externalization of newsworthiness in discourses about journalism leave little room for the legitimation of journalists’ subjective judgment. This tension has become more apparent in the digital news era due to the growing use of algorithms in automated news distribution and production.

This article argues that algorithmic judgment should be considered distinct from journalists’ professional judgment.

Algorithmic judgment presents a fundamental challenge to news judgment based on the twin beliefs that human subjectivity is inherently suspect and in need of replacement, while algorithms are inherently objective and in need of implementation.

The supplanting of human judgment with algorithmic judgment has significant consequences for both the shape of news and its legitimating discourses.

Before I even glanced at the full text my head was reeling. Yes, humans make mistakes but not as often as a badly written algorithm which will get it wrong every time.

Full text (PDF 18pp)

---

Lifehacker: How to Teach Your Kids to Spot Fake News

a post by Leigh Anderson for the Offspring blog [with grateful thanks to ResearchBuzz Firehose]


Image: www.vpnsrus.com via Flickr

How to teach kids to spot fake news?

First: Teach everyone to spot fake news.

When I was a child, my parents had access to only a few news sources: our local paper, the big-city dailies (for us, the Washington Post and the New York Times) and the nightly news. Kids today have … the entire internet, with every crackpot theory and faked moon landing right at their fingertips. Even the distinction between “media” and “journalism” has blurred to the point that many adults don’t know if anyone can be trusted at all.

Which means that parental responsibilities now include giving your kids the tools to assess whether a given story is real – backed up by solid reporting – or biased, or totally and completely fake. Or Russian propaganda. To this end, educators are developing curricula to encourage “media literacy” in the face of an onslaught of, well, media bullshit and a president who’s actively trying to discredit responsible journalism. To get an idea of how parents can help their kids separate fact from fiction, I spoke to two people who are deep in the media-literacy trenches.

Continue reading

---

Why media companies insist they're not media companies, why they're wrong, and why it matters

an article by Philip M. Napoli (Duke University, NC, USA) and Robyn Caplan (Data & Society Research Institute, New York, USA) published in First Monday Volume 22 Number 5 (May 2017)

Abstract

A common position amongst social media platforms and online content aggregators is their resistance to being characterized as media companies. Rather, companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have regularly insisted that they should be thought of purely as technology companies.

This paper critiques the position that these platforms are technology companies rather than media companies, explores the underlying rationales, and considers the political, legal, and policy implications associated with accepting or rejecting this position.

As this paper illustrates, this is no mere semantic distinction, given the history of the precise classification of communications technologies and services having profound ramifications for how these technologies and services are considered by policy-makers and the courts.

Full text (HTML)

---

Why media companies insist they’re not media companies, why they're wrong, and why it matters

an article by Philip Napoli (Duke University, Durham, USA) and Robyn Caplan (Data & Society Research Institute, New York, USA published in First Monday Volume 22 Number 5 (May 2017)

Abstract

A common position amongst social media platforms and online content aggregators is their resistance to being characterized as media companies. Rather, companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have regularly insisted that they should be thought of purely as technology companies.

This paper critiques the position that these platforms are technology companies rather than media companies, explores the underlying rationales, and considers the political, legal, and policy implications associated with accepting or rejecting this position.

As this paper illustrates, this is no mere semantic distinction, given the history of the precise classification of communications technologies and services having profound ramifications for how these technologies and services are considered by policy-makers and the courts

Full text (HTML)

---

The playful newsroom: Iterating and reiterating the news and its publics

an article by Maxwell Foxman (Columbia University, USA) published in First Monday Volume 22 Number 1 (January 2017)

Abstract

The crisis in the journalism industry, intensified with the popularization of the World Wide Web, warrants radical rethinking of the professional identity of journalists and their role in society.

This paper first suggests replacing the Habermasian public sphere with Dutch historian Johan Huizinga’s magic circle of play to describe the relationship between the press and its audience. Within this new model, the writer configures the rules and boundaries in which the reader is free to respond and subvert, an interplay that increasingly shapes both current news production and expectations of the public.

This paper then explores play and playful attitudes in newsroom practices and output through semi-structured interviews with journalists, game designers and educators. The “Game Team” at the news and entertainment Web site BuzzFeed acts as a primary case study of a group of journalists who make a variety of playful products – from full-fledged games to interactives – which they iterate and improve over time, in response to readers’ feedback.

Full text (HTML)

---

Framing fraud: Discourse on benefit cheating in Sweden and the UK

an article by Ragnar Lundström (Umeå University, Sweden) published in European Journal of Communication Volume 28 Number 6 (December 2013)

Abstract

This article analyses discourse on benefit fraud in Swedish and British newspapers. It furthermore compares discourse on fraud in newspapers and political blogs in the two countries. In Sweden, fraud is primarily articulated as a collective social problem in policy discussions related to the health insurance programme. In the UK, it is often articulated employing strategies commonly associated with crime news narratives, and centred on images of individual cheaters.

The main result of the analysis presented here is that these observed differences between British and Swedish media representations are related to the ways in which the relationship between the welfare state and the citizens traditionally have been constructed in liberal and social democratic contexts respectively. Political attempts to highlight the issue of benefit fraud, and dominant media representations of such attempts, must therefore be understood not as attempts to combat fraud, but rather as attempts to delegitimise the more general aim and purpose of the welfare state.

They challenge the deservingness of welfare recipients in general, not just the ones that cheat, and they thereby transform the conditions for public trust in the welfare state. News discourse on fraud in both countries establishes a neoliberal, financialised and individualised notion of welfare dependency, through which the relationship between social and structural circumstances on the one hand, and poverty, exclusion and inequality on the other, become blurred.

The comparison of newspapers and blogs suggests that although dominant media representations are contested through citizen-created journalism in both contexts, they also limit the conditions for discursive struggles over the issue of benefit fraud significantly.

---