ISOJ 2011 Research Papers

Aitamurto & Lewis, 2011, page 1
Open APIs and News Organizations: A Study of Open Innovation in Online Journalism
Tanja Aitamurto and Seth C. Lewis
Citation information
Aitamurto, Tanja, & Lewis, Seth C. (2011). Open APIs and news organizations: A study of open
innovation in online journalism. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Online
Journalism, Austin, TX, April 1, 2011.
Author information
Tanja Aitamurto, MA, M.Soc.Sc.

Visiting Researcher
Stanford Center for Design Research
424 Panama Mall
Stanford University
tanjaa@stanford.edu
Seth C. Lewis, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
111 Murphy Hall
206 Church Street SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
sclewis@umn.edu
Abstract
This paper examines how and why news organizations are deploying open Application
Programming Interfaces (so-called “open APIs”) as part of their online strategy, connecting this
phenomenon with the “open innovation” paradigm (Chesbrough, 2003) popular in the business
management and technology literature. Up to now, the news industry has both under-funded
R&D efforts and underappreciated the wisdom of external ideas. But this is beginning to change,
as some major news organizations—including four studied here: the Guardian, The New York
Times, USA Today, and National Public Radio—have deployed publicly available APIs, which
can be seen as the first manifestation of open innovation in the news industry. Through
qualitative interviews with key developers, we examine the nature of this phenomenon: the
relative motivations, benefits, and challenges associated with using open APIs in the context of
online news. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the business strategy and the process of
innovation, both for news organizations and the profession broadly.
Introduction
The news industry is facing a new challenge as the work of online journalism, once focused
on serving up websites to be viewed on personal computers, must now contend with the
emergence of several digital platforms—computers, mobiles, and tablet devices. Compounding
this challenge is the increasing number of operating systems to manage on a single platform; on
mobile alone, for example, there are several major varieties: iOS, Android, Symbian, and
BlackBerry OS, to say nothing of others coming. Media convergence has created more
competition, and, simultaneously, new platforms are emerging as product lifecycles become
shorter. At the same time, journalism’s traditional advertising-based model is struggling, putting
pressure on news organizations with increasingly diminished resources. This creates a
conundrum for the industry: how to keep up with the modern demands for research and
development (R&D), while at the same time not increasing costs but, in fact, finding new
revenue opportunities to offset declines in legacy operations?
This kind of R&D challenge is hardly unique to the news industry, as firms in a number of
fields struggle with the same tension. In his seminal work on this question, Henry Chesbrough
(2003) argues that firms, operating under the right conditions, can more efficiently innovate by
drawing on external ideas as well as internal ones—in effect, moving past the “not invented
here” syndrome traditionally associated with closed R&D. This paradigm of open innovation
(Chesbrough, 2003, 2006) has since become a standard in the literature on technology
management and corporate R&D (e.g., see the special issue edited by Enkel, Gassmann, and
Chesbrough, 2009). In most cases, this involves an outside-in process whereby firms enhance
their knowledge base by tapping the wisdom of their suppliers, customers, and other related
actors. Open innovation also engages an inside-out process of externalizing innovation processes
to more quickly bring ideas to market (Enkel et al., 2009).
For much of the 20th century, the news industry—in particular, the newspaper industry in
developed countries such as the United States—was a highly stable and successful enterprise
(Franklin, 2008; Picard, 2008), one in which monopolistic control in local markets gave many
news organizations little need to invest in major R&D or to hunt for creative business solutions
from beyond their industry domain (c.f., Meyer, 2009; Nordqvist, Picard, & Pesämaa, 2010). In
short, the industry both under-funded R&D and underappreciated the wisdom of external ideas.
But this has begun to change, and news organizations have a growing interest in refining R&D
processes. In very recent times, some major news organizations—including the Guardian, New
York Times, USA Today, and National Public Radio—have deployed publicly available
application programming interfaces (otherwise known as “open APIs”), which accelerate the
pace at which these organizations can exchange information within their firms and with external
computer developers at large—thus accelerating R&D as a whole.
In this paper, we argue that open APIs can be seen as an early manifestation of open
innovation in the news industry, and thus it’s important to understand the implications of this
phenomenon. Simply put, APIs are well-defined computing interfaces programmed to allow
software programs to more readily “talk” to each other (c.f., de Souza and Redmiles, 2009). In
web development today, APIs frequently allow programmers to build applications and data
“mashups” around information provided by public entities such as the U.S. federal government
and private companies such as Twitter and Facebook. For example, with the popular Twitter
API, web developers can build applications that take content from Twitter’s streams and
reconfigure it for new purposes and in new contexts.
These APIs are “open” in the sense that they are publicly available. In the case of news
organizations studied here, such open APIs are designed to invite developers to use some or all
of the organizations’ content in web applications. For example, with its content API the
Guardian gives access to more than a million articles from the past decade and beyond. The
content can be used on external web or mobile applications with three tiered layers and three
revenue models. The result is that outside software developers can build applications around this
data, and the Guardian, in turn, can both learn from this external development and take
advantage of new revenue opportunities in the process.
The open API phenomenon points to the potential for open innovation in the news industry,
but the academic literature has yet to address the practical and theoretical implications of this
development: i.e., how this is working in practice, and how it might contribute to the
understanding of open innovation in theory. This study seeks to address this through a qualitative
analysis of four major news organizations’ efforts to deploy open APIs, exploring several
questions of particular concern: What are the anticipated and realized benefits of open APIs for
news organizations? What are the relative challenges of open APIs for news organizations? And,
what are the future opportunities for open APIs in news organizations?
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND KEY CONCEPTS

Open innovation as a business strategy
There are two key factors changing the economics of innovation: the increasing costs of
research and development (R&D) for companies, and the shortening product lifecycle
(Chesbrough, 2006a). To thrive in this shifting innovation landscape, companies increasingly are
turning to “open innovation” strategies as a part of their overall approach to R&D. As defined by
Henry Chesbrough (2006b), open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of
knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of
innovation, respectively.
With a business strategy based on the open innovation paradigm, a firm can extract value
from both internal and external ideas, as in the case of Procter & Gamble (Huston and Sakkab,
2006). As part of its “connect and develop” strategy, Procter & Gamble more purposefully
looked for innovation instead of investing in internal R&D alone. The core of this approach was
to find external connections to produce highly profitable innovations, through proprietary
networks as well as open networks such as the innovation platforms NineSigma and Innocentive.
As a result, more than a third of Procter & Gamble's new products originated from outside the
company, 45% of product development initiatives had key elements that were discovered
externally, and R&D productivity overall significantly increased (Huston and Sakkab, 2006).
In the process of open innovation, the organization embraces the flow of ideas both
inbound to the organization and outbound from the organization. This means moving beyond the
traditional closed innovation system, where the innovation processes that are conducted
internally are assumed to be superior to ideas that originate externally—again, the “not invented
here” posture of defensiveness noted earlier. By increasing the flow of knowledge to and from
the organization, open innovation establishes new paths to commercialize the innovations done
within the company, taking advantage of informal and formal ties to outside partners
(Chesbrough 2003; Simard and West, 2006).
Chesbrough argues that most innovations occur outside companies’ internal R&D
apparatus, and therefore, under the right conditions, firms can more readily innovate by applying
the principles of open innovation. In the literature on innovation management (c.f., Van de
Vrande and Gassmann, 2010), other terms—such as co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,
2000) and user innovation (von Hippel and Katz, 2002)—have been deployed to describe similar
processes of breaking down boundaries to external input. All of these related concepts emphasize
the role of collaboration between the firm and the end-user, customer, or external collaborator,
and the role that such collaboration has in creating value to the company.
Open innovation strategy can be applied in constant, everyday R&D work, but open
innovation is also often harnessed to achieve specific initiatives: e.g., deliberate innovation
challenges by companies, as in the Netflix Prize (Bell and Koren, 2007); “prize philanthropy”
contests hosted by nonprofit foundations, as in the Knight Foundation’s Knight News Challenge
(Lewis, 2010); and methods of continuous interaction with the end-users, as in the case of Dell’s
IdeaStorm (Di Gangi and Wasko, 2009).
In the open business model, companies save resources by leveraging external R&D
experiments. By licensing its own intellectual property (IP), the company increases the variety of
its revenue streams, reaching new markets through spin-offs, partnerships, and licensing, and
thus increasing overall revenue (Chesbrough, 2006a). By applying the open innovation strategy,
the company can move towards a platform business model in which the value, and revenue, is
co-created with collaborators (Chesbrough, 2011).
Open APIs and news organizations

One manifestation of the open innovation paradigm is the emergence of open Application
Programming Interface (API) initiatives, which are being rapidly adopted in the technology
industries. APIs enable two computer applications to more readily “talk” to each other in a
language they both understand. Open APIs enable websites to interact with each other and
exchange and share data, in a manner that is far more rich and complex than mere RSS feeds but
still straightforward to use.
APIs serve as an interface between software programs. With public APIs, anyone with the
technical capacity can build a third-party service—e.g., a web application based on the API
server’s content, such as that provided by Twitter or Facebook. The online video service Netflix
has been at the forefront of providing freely accessible APIs for commercial use by external
developers—allowing access to data on Netflix titles, for example. Overall, by providing open
APIs, companies invite and encourage the wider computer programming and web development
communities to experiment with and build upon their content. As a result, a number of such
firms have seen ideas and innovations spring up externally, beyond the organization’s
boundaries—as in the vast array of applications developed around the Twitter platform.
Open APIs are a relatively new phenomenon for news organizations, and to date are
deployed mainly only by some of the leading national and international news outlets. In the
United States, National Public Radio was one of the first major news organizations to launch an
open API when it did so in 2008. At that time, Darren Mauro, Director of User Experience
Delivery for NPR Digital Media, described the significance of this step: “An Open API lets NPR
offer our content to the public in infinite ways. The public has always been an essential part of
what we do—we have ‘Public’ in our name—and the API concept will advance that relationship
in a transformative way.”1
Soon after NPR, the New York Times followed with an open API for its campaign finance
data in late 2008, and later a launch of an open API for its news articles in February 2009. In
Europe, the Guardian, headquartered in the United Kingdom, launched its open API for content
in March 2009. The open API is a part of the Guardian’s “open content” strategy, in which the
newspaper encourages the external developer community to build applications around the
Guardian’s news content and data. The Guardian open API allows access to more than 1 million
news articles, dating back to 1999. USA Today, the second-largest newspaper in the United
States, launched two open APIs in the fall of 2010. What’s important to note in these
developments is that the emergence of open APIs in the context of journalism mostly has been
exclusive to the largest national and international news organizations—ones with the human
resources and technical capacity to invest more fully in R&D and deploy these application
interfaces. To date, open APIs have not been used broadly, if at all, among smaller, locally
focused news organizations (Sullivan, 2010).
The news organizations’ open API initiatives come at a time when news organizations in
the developed world face a host of new challenges brought on by the digitization of information
(for an overview, see Downie and Schudson, 2009; for additional examples, see Lewis,
Kaufhold, and Lasorsa, 2010; McChesney and Pickard, 2011; Phillips et al., 2009; Singer, 2008,
2010; Singer et al., 2011). Historically, news organizations’ R&D work was focused on the print
product, or in the case of broadcast media, on improvements to audio-and-video delivery. In
recent times, and with the fast pace of change associated with digital media, the focus of news
organizations’ R&D has shifted to online publishing (Boczkowski, 2004, 2011). Beyond merely
dealing with the website, however, there are multiple platforms that news organizations now
must consider: computers, mobiles, and tablet devices, in addition to emerging opportunities to
1
See “NPR launches open API: New programming tool enables digital media users to integrate and share NPR news
content,” accessible via http://www.npr.org/about/press/2008/071708.API.html.
expand their reach across media—e.g., newspapers expanding into the realm of audio and video.
As noted at the outset, even within a particular platform like mobile, there may be a number of
operating systems to support. Thus, news organizations, which historically have under-invested
in research and development because of their strong position in the market (see Picard and
Brody, 1997), face a perilous situation: their survival in a shifting environment seems
increasingly tied up in their ability to manage multiple platforms, devices, and channels of
delivery—in effect, to invest in innovation—and yet their weakening market condition makes it
that much harder to commit internal resources to innovation. What are they to do?
Research questions
We argue that the emergence of open APIs at leading news organizations represents a shift
toward an open innovation paradigm that may help address the R&D crisis facing the news
industry. The purpose of this study is to examine four leading cases of this deployment: National
Public Radio, the New York Times, the Guardian, and USA Today. These four were chosen
because, as noted above, they are considered among the first and most prominent open API
efforts to be undertaken by news organizations. While many other news organizations
undoubtedly use closed APIs internally, these four organizations have made a clear step toward
open APIs that facilitate the kind of interactions necessary for open innovation to occur. This
study, exploratory and descriptive in nature, takes up three research questions as a way of
developing an empirical baseline from which to begin theorizing about the impact of open
innovation in the context of journalism:
RQ1. What are the anticipated and realized benefits of open APIs for news organizations?
RQ2. What are the relative challenges of open APIs for news organizations?
RQ3. What are the future opportunities of open APIs in news organization?
METHOD
To answer these research questions, we conducted qualitative interviews with at least one
developer who led or continues to lead the deployment of open APIs at the respective four news
organizations: National Public Radio, the New York Times, the Guardian, and USA Today. These
interviews were conducted over a six-month period in 2010 and 2011. Some interviews were
done in person and others via phone, typically for a duration of 45 minutes; they were recorded
for transcription later. The resulting texts were analyzed by both authors in an open-coding
fashion, allowing for key words and motifs to emerge organically, as is customary in qualitative
textual analysis (Lindlof and Taylor, 2002). To answer the research questions, we watched for
four themes in particular: (1) evidence of concepts of open innovation embedded in these open
API initiatives; (2) discussion of news organizations’ rationales for adopting open APIs; (3) the
results of these efforts, for better or worse; and (4) indications about the future potential of open
APIs in news organizations broadly.
RESULTS
Sample profile
Before detailing the findings from these interviews, we proceed first with a basic profile of
open API use at these four news organizations. Although each has incorporated open APIs into
their workflow, there are differences in the number of open APIs deployed and the overall time
since open API development has begun at each news outlet.
• National Public Radio: NPR’s open API includes audio from most NPR programs dating
back to 1995 as well as text, images and other web-only content from NPR and NPR member
stations. The archive consists of more than 250,000 stories.2
• New York Times: The Times, which began open API development in 2008, offers more
than a dozen open APIs, ranging from news content to entertainment information (e.g., movie
reviews) to data on politics and Congress. These APIs, unlike those offered by the Guardian, are
designed for noncommercial use only, and do not include full-text articles, instead including
links back to the Times’ website.3
• Guardian: The Guardian’s content API gives access to more than a million articles from
the past decade and beyond. The content can be used on external web or mobile applications
with three tiered layers and three revenue models. The Guardian provides also specialized APIs
such as the Politics API, specialized in content covering politics and elections in the UK.4
• USA Today: The latest of these organizations to join the open API domain—with its first
offerings appearing in late 2010—USA Today now offers seven APIs: articles, bestselling books,
book reviews, music reviews, movie reviews, snapshots (statistical graphics), and sports salaries.
The articles API includes news stories back to 2004 but does not offer full-text access.5
Benefits of open APIs for news organizations

This section examines the benefits of open APIs for news organizations. First, we will
elaborate the impact of APIs on internal and external product development. Second, we will
introduce the business strategies behind the open API initiatives and new ways to commercialize
content through APIs. Third, we will provide insight into how news organizations benefit from
open APIs by gaining traffic and leveraging their brand. Fourth, we will elaborate the impact of
open APIs in building a community of developers, and the more sophisticated ways to track
audience behavior through APIs.
Acceleration of internal and external product development

The use of the open innovation paradigm in the form of open API initiatives has benefited
both external and internal research development work in news organizations. With the open
2
See http://www.npr.org/api/.
3
See http://developer.nytimes.com/.
4
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/open-platform.
5
See http://developer.usatoday.com/.
APIs, external developers—virutally anyone with the technical know-how—can experiment with
the news organizations’ content and, for example, build web or tablet applications. This benefits
the news organizations because they no longer have to experiment with everything themselves,
instead allowing for the results of the external developers to find what does and does not work.
This enables the development process to accelerate, as the news organizations draw on existing
experiments as frameworks for their own exploration. Thus, the open APIs function like an
external R&D lab for the organization. A key developer describes this development:
So, there have been some partners who have built versions of apps and then our own
technology team is just able to build stuff quickly because that framework is there. You
don’t have to know anything about databases. If you’re a front-end developer, you
don’t have to work with the database guys or the Java developers. You can just start—
if you’re a Flash expert, you can just start getting to work. Then the collaborators and
the partners have done some experimental work that’s helped us see what’s possible.
Within the four news organizations examined for this study, the open APIs have led to
experiments in which the external developers manage to build a new product by using the
content and information in a fashion that the news organization wouldn’t have thought of doing.
In our sense, it’s essentially free product development, right? I mean we’ve only got so
many resources here. Why not leverage the crowd and see how they envision our
content and how they mash it up? I think that’s extremely interesting and a wonderful
opportunity that an API gives you, to see what kind of product development occurs
sort of organically.
To cite one example, an external collaborator drew up the Guardian’s Politics API, which
covers information about politics and elections in the UK, and information in the Guardian Data
Store to create a “voter power index.” The index assessed the importance of a single vote in a
given region, and thus indicated whether voting there would make a difference in altering the
political power structure. Open APIs thus hold potential for new products that may lend fresh
perspective on the democratic purposes that are central to journalism’s function.
Moreover, by tapping into the wisdom of the crowd in this fashion, news organizations can
gauge the relative demand for existing content that could be recycled or repurposed—as in the
case of USA Today’s ongoing list of bestselling books:
Is there a demand out there for our bestselling books beyond sort of the website
where it’s always lived? I mean, we’re basically giving new life to this content, and
we want to see if people out there bite and are interested in it.
Open APIs also enable developers to build products for niche audiences—or something
that can initially appear as a niche audience but later evolve into a bigger audience. This is an
advantage for news organizations that have to focus on bringing products to mass markets rather
than targeting marginal audiences. For example, a Google engineer developed an NPR
application for the Android platform with his 20% time, which Google gives to all its employees
for developing products according to their own interests. Also for NPR, an external collaborator
built an audio player for the Unix platform, a marginal platform in terms of user volume. But
there is demand within that niche group for the audio player on Unix, and a collaborator just
needed the NPR open API to be able to build the product and satisfy that demand.
These examples indicate that open APIs foster product differentiation in news
organizations’ product portfolios—whether the products are owned by them or external
collaborators. This is crucial given the fast pace of digitalization that news organizations are
facing. With the help of open APIs, the external developers (aka collaborators) can customize the
content within a framework that is useful to them. This is important because news consumers are
growing accustomed to increasingly customized ways of gathering their news.
Furthermore, the external development initiatives can even show the way in internal
development, as has happened for NPR. The first iPhone application for NPR content was
launched by an external developer who was using NPR’s API. The application was called NPR
Addict, and it quickly became popular, with hundreds of thousands of users. Within NPR, the
externally created application opened the eyes of the internal development, and accelerated
NPR’s own product development, leading NPR to build its own iPhone application. “But, in
addition to that, it really captured our imagination that, ‘Wow, if we don’t do it, someone else is
gonna do it. We’d better do it.’”
The news organizations embrace these experiments, and would like to see more of them.
They feel that by releasing their content on open APIs, they are giving their content a new life.
This leads to experiments, which, in best cases, result in innovation.
The use of open APIs also benefits the news organizations internally. The launch of an
open API initiative is often tied to larger structural changes within the organization, such as
retooling the content management system (CMS) and creating a systematic, organization-wide
use of APIs. The API gives a formulaic and structured way to do product development;
therefore, the API lets the development team focus on the user experience, so they don’t need to
spend their time on learning about different technological aspects or technological twists such as
connecting databases to one another. This results in less need for in-house developer work,
accelerates the development work, and ultimately saves money. For example, the Guardian was
able to build an iPad app with is internal API for a fraction of the normal cost for an iPad app.
Inside news organizations, product development with APIs has increased collaboration
across departmental boundaries. The API initiatives and the open platform approach overall
leads to collaboration between the technology teams and editorial teams, which (in the best
cases) has inspired further collaboration and cooperative development. For example, when the
UK Treasury released its COINS (Combined Online Information Systems) data6, providing
details on UK government expenditures, the Guardian editorial team and the technology team
together built a service to search the COINS database. At the Guardian, such API usage has
accelerated the analysis of data, and helped the teams work more closely. A developer at the
Guardian described this progress:
So, for example, when the UK Treasury released the COINS data, we were able to
work really, really quickly to—across the technology and the editorial teams. They
came together to try and find out what was in there, what mattered, what needed to be
surfaced, what user experience did we need to create so other people could access it.
In the space of about four days, we had a really nice working model of something that
you could use to search COINS database. That was because the technology and
editorial teams came together.
In NPR, the API has benefited operations at national headquarters, but it also has helped
member stations that are using the station-level key of the NPR API. The station-level key gives
member stations a broader access to the NPR content than the public API. The API is a better
method for the member stations to work on the content, because it facilitates better transfer of
content to the member station from NPR’s main CMS. Member stations use the NPR API to
publish content on their websites, and some of the stations are using the NPR API as a
distribution channel for themselves.
At NPR, most of the API requests come internally, and therefore, most of the traffic that
the API-driven applications draw comes from the NPR-built applications. This means that NPR
is the biggest consumer of NPR-produced, API-facilitated content—a process that one developer
described as “eating our own dog food.”
Open business strategies: New ways to commercialize news as a product

Business strategy is one of the main motivations for the news organizations to launch their
open API initiatives. “We’re trying, especially these days,” said one developer, “to think about
how to monetize our content.” Other developers were similarly direct:
This is of commercial interest to us. We’re not doing it just because it was fun. We’re
not doing it because it came out of some R&D project. We’re doing it because it’s for
the benefit of the future of the business.
The news organizations have identified strategies for gaining revenue from open APIs.
There are basically two direct ways to gain direct revenue: First, by letting collaborators use their
content for free, but expecting them to take the news organization’s advertising key with them.
In the case of the Guardian, this means that when an external developer builds a mobile app on
6
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/coins-combined-online-information-system.
the Guardian content through its API, the application presents advertising from the Guardian ad
network, but the Guardian also allows developers to present their own ads. This is one option at
the Guardian's three-tiered model at the Guardian open API. The second method for revenue via
open API-built products is to charge a licensing fee for the content. USA Today applies this
method as one revenue opportunity, and also the Guardian provides the method in its three-tiered
access model for API.
Apart from direct revenue streams in the form of advertising and licensing fees, the news
organizations can find other, more indirect ways to strengthen the value of their product through
an open business strategy. One of them is to drive traffic to their website through their open
APIs. At the New York Times, the open API strategy is built around driving traffic to the Times
website. When using the content delivered through the company’s API, there are links back to
Times content baked into the API, and the Times requires that the link be displayed. As a
developer described this approach: “The Times has a great brand and great content, and the best
way to get it to people and to get people coming back to our site is to get that content everywhere
and to have eyeballs on it all the time.” The Guardian uses a similar approach in its three-tiered
business strategy: the news organization allows the collaborator to access the Guardian
headlines, data, tags, and metadata, but not the body copy of the article. At this level, the
developer can publish the Guardian headlines and metadata for free, and keep the advertising
revenue.
At NPR, the (direct) business strategy behind the open APIs is to generate more traffic to
the NPR content. The traffic can be monetized, as NPR can tack on a sponsorship at every
request. The NPR page impressions are growing, and because most of the consumption comes
from NPR and its affiliates, the content piped through APIs gets impressions on the NPR-driven
platform; these page impressions, in turn, can drive banner-ad revenue from sponsorships.
Overall, these news organizations are generally open to customized partnerships with re-
publishers. One tier in the Guardian strategy is to form customized partnerships, which allows
for using Guardian content without the Guardian ads under certain conditions. In this tier, the
revenue share is negotiated.
Leveraging the brand and generating traffic

One example of an indirect business strategy is brand leveraging. The news organizations
with open API initiatives have a strong view about how the unrestricted, boundless Web changes
the nature of the news business. In this view, it is not enough to provide the best content only on
your website; that content also needs to be spread across the Web, as audiences spend less and
less time on any one destination site as they “snack” on content across many domains. Thus, the
developers at these news organizations recognize the internet, rather than a single site, as their
publishing platform, and want to see their content leveraged all across the Web. For these
developers and their organizations, the introduction of open APIs is an important step in the
process of circulating that content and thus making their brand more salient around the network.
You start thinking, “Well, how can our brand become meaningful in the experiences
that people are having wherever those experiences are at whatever time of day, in
whatever application, on whatever device?” So, that’s where we came up with this
kind of big, broad statement about weaving the Guardian into the fabric of the
Internet. It was because it was a realization that we needed to be a part of the
Internet and not just on the Internet.
This is a radical shift for news organizations, as they are used to controlling their content
on their own platforms, even setting up paywalls and related means of guarding its use.
However, in the digital era, news organizations have less, if any, control over the infrastructure,
the Internet. Letting go of control creates a new role for the news organization: rather than being
passive information providers, they claim a stronger, more active role in enabling users to reuse,
interact with and experiment with their content—the very intellectual property of the news
organization.
The whole [open API initiative] is really about trying to turn us from a news and
information site into a news and information platform. So we want to be more than
just a website where you come and get your news. We have all this great news and
information, and we really want to treat those as building blocks for other things
across the web and really … help The Times become a part of the web and not just a
discrete site where you go to get your news.
These news organizations see their open API initiatives as central to this process of
embedding their content across the Web and within the framework of how the Web works. The
purpose is to build the brand and drive exposure. For example, the Guardian’s “Powered by the
Guardian” logo, attached to content shared via the API, can be found across a number of
domains; not only does this enhance branding and traffic, but because that API comes with
Guardian-driven advertising, there are built-in opportunities for direct revenue. Altogether, this
shift in thinking has begun to change the way these news organizations see their (potential)
audience: from being simply visitors to the news organization’s domain, to a wider group of
users spread beyond those boundaries.
The news organizations see open API initiatives as an inevitable path in publishing.
However contradictory it may sound, they understand this process of opening up as a way of
helping them to wield greater control over the content. As one developer described it:
We don’t want [our content] to necessarily be free. We want people to use it and
attribute it and do all the good stuff with it. You treat it respectably. The API actually
gives you an opportunity to control that in some ways that the web site doesn’t, and in
fact the people who use the API have more respect for it anyways. I mean, they’re
authorizing that they are gonna abide by the terms of use, they’re developers, they
understand the world in which that kind of content sharing is. But people who just go
to [our website], for example, copy and paste, they don’t necessarily have the same
respect, and no one can track it in the same way, and no one can shut ’em down in
the same way.
As the audience footprint spreads across the Web through the use of open APIs, the news
organizations see APIs as benefiting their knowledge of consumer habits. The use of open APIs
give news organizations useful metrics, identifying who is using the content, how they are using
it, and how often they are using it. With API-based interfaces, news organizations can use this
better tracking of user behavior to create correlations across multiple platforms about what the
user is doing based on impressions via particular platforms. This information can lead to a more
efficient ways of delivering content to end-users.
Ecosystem effect: Creating a community of developers

The open API initiatives have attracted a community of developers around the news
organizations. The community often begins with a handful of developers interested in the news
organization’s content, and grows to include a larger group of developers. The Guardian has
3,000 developers around its Open Platform, which includes its open API initiatives and its Data
Store. As they learn to communicate and collaborate with developers, news organizations are
finding opportunities for partnerships and business opportunities amid this development
ecosystem.
And we’ve gotten a lot of people reach out to us and say, “We want to do business
with you because we know you have an API, we know that an integration would be
very easy because an API makes that integration easy, and we know that NPR content
is awesome, so let’s do a deal.” If we didn’t have the API, some of these people would
still approach us because they love NPR’s content, but they might not know how it’s
gonna happen. So, if you know there’s an API and you like the content, let’s talk. So
there have been a lot of business-development opportunities as a result of it.
The open APIs give developers an opportunity to see what kind of content is available, and
imagine the ways they might use that content, without having to first approach the news
organization to find out more information. In this way, the open API initiatives become a “good
conversation starter” and a baseline for further collaboration. The open API initiatives have also
made collaboration with more established companies smoother, because the news organizations
can point them to the API rather than going through a complicated and time-consuming content-
sharing process, one request at a time.
[Having an open API has] allowed us to really have more interesting discussions
with other tech companies that maybe we wouldn’t have if we didn’t have these APIs.
So, we’re in constant contact with the Yahoo developer network, and with the people
at Google, and a lot of startups in the city. And so, you know, in a way it’s given us
access to their mindshare and to talk a lot about like, “What are they doing and
what’s coming with them?” So, I think it really helps keep us on the cutting edge of
stuff so that we know what’s going on and how we can pull some of the interesting
things that they’re doing onto our site. That’s been very helpful also just to open the
lines of communication. It’s good street cred.
Overall, the interest from the developer community and other companies has slightly
surprised the news organizations. The interviewees said that, amid the surplus of user-generated
content online, there is considerable demand among web developers for high-quality,
professional content of the kind produced by leading news outlets.
The Guardian is a particularly strong brand in terms of its journalism. So, I think a
lot of the uptake is because … a lot of developers have wanted to actually use high-
quality content in their apps, and that is just a different thing that very few
organizations that have an open strategy have to offer. It is usually a specific
technology service. Amazon offers hosting, and that is just so different from what we
are doing, that it puts us in a unique position and desirable to be able to publish
Guardian content directly in your app and in your website.
Some of the news organizations, particularly the Guardian and New York Times, have
nourished their network of developers by organizing events—e.g., so-called “hack days”7—to
bring together developers and journalists, in a single physical space, to work together on
projects.
The aggregate result of such efforts is greater awareness running in both directions: the
news organizations’ developers are better in touch with external trends and are more fully
networked with the wider development community; and the web development community, in
turn, has become more attuned to the benefits of partnering with news organizations and their
content. This creates a virtuous circle of mutually reinforcing benefits flowing between and
among the news and technology organizations alike.
Navigating the challenges of open APIs

The developers were emphatic that, on balance, the introduction of open APIs at news
organizations has been a positive step—indeed, one that in many cases has exceeded their
expectations. Nevertheless, just as there are internal and external benefits associated with open
APIs, the news organizations have also experienced internal and external challenges through this
7
As one example, see http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/timesopen/hackday.html.
process—e.g., from internal struggles to secure buy-in from corporate managers to the external
difficulties of ceding a degree of control over content and its use by outsiders.
Internally, the technological challenges of developing and developing open APIs were
relatively minimal. In most cases, APIs in some form had been used previously, and therefore
transitioning from closed to open APIs was the basic technical undertaking. By contrast, it was
the cultural mind-set of traditional news organizations that proved a more significant hurdle, and
which generally took more time and creativity for the developers to overcome. While it’s true
that some top-level managers were more open to the API initiatives than others, the trend we
found was that these developers and others from the information technology (IT) wing of the
news organizations had to make a strong pitch for internal acceptance. This required reaching up
vertically to gain the buy-in of corporate leaders, and, to a lesser extent, reaching across
horizontally to convince journalists in the newsroom. Not surprisingly, given the ongoing
debates about whether news content should be freely available online, internal stakeholders were
skeptical about the nature of making anything “open.”
We made the push. We sold it internally. There was some apprehension, some wonder
what you’re talking about, “Why are we gonna give away the farm for free? This is
our baby. We’re giving away the content.” Our argument was, “The content is on the
website. Anyone can come and scrape it. Anyone can capture a stream. The content is
out there. It’s free anyways.” (emphasis added)
In a similar vein, another developer described how his team “sort of de-emphasized the
open side of things” in their discussions with executives, explaining to them that the “open part”
was simply a “byproduct,” an unavoidable factor of having a public API for purposes of better
R&D—“speed-to-market around product development”—and, therefore, a better bottom line in
the future.
And, frankly, although I was very excited about the open side of things, as were many
of us down in IT, we didn’t want to go into these meetings talking too much about
going open, because [it’s a sensitive topic] … particularly for some of our more
traditional executives that are at high levels, talking about paid content models and
now charging for content. … We didn’t want to confuse them into thinking that just
because you have an open API means that you are giving away your content.
Ultimately, developers found that they could gain acceptance among internal stakeholders
by framing “open” initiatives in two ways: in one sense, as “Business Development 2.0,” as one
developer put it; and, in ironic twist, as a means of maintaining control over content. The first
pitch appealed to journalism-as-a-business, with its desire for monetization; the second appealed
to journalism-as-a-profession, with its desire for control as a natural instinct of professionalism.
That was basically our sales pitch, that, “This content is wide open anyways. Let’s
control it, and let’s be able to track it and shut people down if they’re doing evil
things, and whatever else,” and eventually people came around and we opened it.
Another internal difficulty, and one that also has superseded technological concerns, was
the question of intellectual property rights. In most cases, the licensing rights that news
organizations have negotiated—e.g., for the use of freelance photography—have been done with
print or web publishing in mind; those rights are not optimized for the database-driven, multi-use
nature of APIs and the variety of applications that emerge from them. These considerations have
factored into determining whether news organizations can (and should) charge licensing fees, or
whether content should support commercial applications created by external developers.
There are certain things where it’s very fuzzy, like images is one where there are lots
of different rules depending on what agency we get it from, whether it’s internal and
a staff writer or a staff photographer, or if it’s internal and a freelancer. And so for
those things where we aren’t completely sure, we just leave it out. We don’t want to, I
don’t know, step over any lines.
At one organization, the navigation of legal rights created a back-and-forth ping-pong of

meetings that hampered the deployment of the open API initiative far more than any technical
problems. “[W]e had a long series of meetings about what we’re capable of legally, technically,
and what business drivers there were to withhold or to present all this material publicly. So the
challenge became learning about all of those impediments, trying to wash away as many as we
can, and, for those that remained, building technology into the system … to support those
things.” The particular challenge, as this developer noted, was that “the legal team doesn’t know
anything about APIs, so it’s an education process.”
While the technological issues have generally been easier than cultural and legal ones,
these developers nevertheless have found difficulty in synchronizing the structure of APIs
(variable-driven databases) with the atomic unit of journalism (narrative accounts). Whereas the
latter are intended for linear (human) consumption, the former are designed for nonlinear
(machine-driven) engagement. For example, in one case a developer found that to develop a
database of his newspaper’s movie reviews, it would require “de-normalizing” the data to pull
apart archived stories that would include several reviews within a single published article.
Having those review “briefs” couched in a single article made sense at the time of publication,
but that logic gets pulled apart in a longitudinal database. A related challenge was that while
much of journalism implies one-off coverage of events as they arise, databases require continual
updating over time—and so the very rhythm of newswork seems out of sync with APIs.
We have to be careful about opening an API if there’s no commitment to maintaining

that data and massaging that data and enriching it. … [Before releasing an API,] one
of the questions there is making sure that we don’t go through the IT effort of writing
a web service around that if there’s not that editorial commitment to maintain that
data.” (emphasis added)
Looking externally, perhaps the primary challenge is preparing for the inevitable uses of
the API that will not be to the liking of the news organization—and yet must be negotiated
carefully, so as to maintain a consistent and close connection with the development community.
We do worry about what people could do, and I think we’re just not at the scale
where people are going to abuse us yet. That day will come. … It will be hard to deal
with. There will be someone who’s going to be very noisy, who’s going to do
something with our content that makes us very, very uncomfortable and we’re going
to have to decide, “Do we turn off their [API] key or do we let it go and let it be?”
Our default is to let it go at the moment. We haven’t seen anyone do anything that we
felt was damaging to our brand.
Overall, the looming challenge for news organizations is figuring out which is the most
successful strategy in a complex and fast-changing environment. Much of this involves
negotiating a line between openness and control, between free and paid licensing, between
what’s permissible under copyright law and what’s not. At the moment, there are no tidy
answers.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The basic principle of open innovation, the flow of ideas and knowledge outbound from the
organization and inbound to the company, is manifest in the news organizations’ open API
initiatives in the following ways: the news organizations make their core product—news or
(more broadly) content—available for anyone to use. This is the outbound flow. As a result, they
get to see their content take on a “new life,” as it were, in various applications created by
external developers, through innovations in presenting and publishing that content. This process
of observing and learning from the external community comes back to benefit the internal
research and development (R&D) work being conducted internally within the news
organization—thus providing the inbound flow.
The news organizations have benefited from applying the open innovation paradigm in the
form of open APIs in a variety of ways. The open APIs have taken a role of an external R&D
lab, in which the external collaborators use the content made available by the news organization
and develop applications based on the content. This leads to experiments and forms of
exploration that wouldn’t (and couldn’t) be done by the news organizations alone. The result is a
three-way boon for the news organizations: First, they don’t have to experiment with everything
with their own R&D initiatives in order to find out the best way to publish and present their
content—and this saves resources. Second, the external collaborators can build products that
better reach audiences, thus leveraging the journalistic content to “more eyeballs” (as developers
put it) and resulting in increased traffic and revenue for the news organization. Third, the
external collaborators can use the open API to serve niche audiences by building products that
the news organization would otherwise have overlooked because the niche is too small to justify
internal R&D resources.
Open APIs have also brought new revenue opportunities to news organizations. The
strongest revenue source is increased advertising revenue, as the content is spread on the Web
through numerous applications based on open APIs deliving the news organization’s advertising
network, or through increased traffic via hyperlinks from the applications. Some news
organizations charge licensing fees for their APIs, and some of them form partnerships with their
open API collaborators to share the advertising revenue. The news organizations envision a
number of nascent business opportunities in their open API initiatives. Open APIs also allow
improved behavioral tracking of the consumers, which can benefit news organizations in creating
more customized products.
The news organizations examined here see their open API initiatives as a part of their wider
strategy, in which they want to shift from being a passive news site to a more active platform,
one that people can interact with more fully. They want to be, as one developer put it, “woven
into the fabric of the Web.” They want to learn (as another developer described it) to “act open.”
Thus, by using open APIs, the news organizations transition from simply being on the Web to
being of the Web. They gain greater brand leverage, as their branded content is spread more
widely across the Web. Additionally, they are creating communities of developers around their
content and open platforms, paving the way for mutually beneficial partnership opportunities.
While the benefits are many, there are clear challenges as well, beginning with the internal
difficulties of getting buy-in from top management, which generally is nervous about “giving
away” content in any fashion, and sorting out the fuzzy legal implications associated with rights
management in database-driven applications. There are also structural and technical challenges
baked into the nature of traditional news gathering and storytelling, but clearly it’s the cultural
reticence of news organizations that will be the greatest impediment to implementing open APIs.
Ultimately, for all the benefits they may offer, open APIs have not yet been
transformational to news organizations, and to date have not been widely deployed outside of a
cluster of major national and international news outlets. Nevertheless, the findings in this study
point toward a platform business model described by Chesbrough (2011), one in which value and
revenue are co-created with collaborators in a variety of ways. As the news industry struggles to
find value and revenue in the digital environment, the open innovation paradigm may well offer
a way forward.
References
Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.
Boczkowski, P. J. (2010). News at work: Imitation in an age of information abundance. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.
Bell, R. M., & Koren, Y. (2007). Lessons from the Netflix prize challenge. SIGKDD Explor.
Newsl., 9(2), 75-79. DOI=10.1145/1345448.1345465
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1345448.1345465
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Chesbrough, H. (2006a). Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation
Landscape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Chesbrough, H. (2006b). Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial

Innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open Innovation:
Researching a New Paradigm (pp. 1-27). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2011). Open services innovation: Rethinking your business to grow and
compete in a new era. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
de Souza, C. R. B., & Redmiles, D. F. (2009). On the roles of APIs in the coordination of
collaborative software development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),
18(5), 445-475.
Downie, L., & Schudson, M. (2009). The reconstruction of American journalism. New York:
Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Di Gangi, P. M., & Wasko, M. (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user
innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision
Support Systems, 48(1), 303-312.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring
the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.
Franklin, B. (2008). The future of newspapers. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 630-641.

Huston, L. &Sakkab, N. (2006)Connect and Develop. Inside Procter&Gambler's New model for
innovation. pp. 58-66. Harvard Business Review.
Lewis, S. C., Kaufhold, K., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2010). Thinking about citizen journalism: The
philosophical and practical challenges of user-generated content for community
newspapers. Journalism Practice, 4(2), 163-179.
Lewis, S. C. (2010). Journalism innovation and the ethic of participation: The case of the Knight
Foundation and its News Challenge. Unpublished dissertation, Austin, TX: University of
Texas.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McChesney, R. W., & Pickard, V. W. (Eds.). (2011). Will the last reporter please turn out the
lights: The collapse of journalism and what can be done to fix it. New York: New Press.
Meyer, P. (2009). The vanishing newspaper: Saving journalism in the information age (2nd ed.).
Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
Nordqvist, M., Picard, R. G., & Pesämaa, O. (2010). Industry associations as change agents: The
institutional roles of newspaper associations. Journal of Media Business Studies, 7(3), 52-
69.
Picard, R. G., & Brody, J. H. (1997). The newspaper publishing industry. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Picard, R. G. (2008). Shifts in newspaper advertising expenditures and their implications for the
future of newspapers. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 704-716.
Phillips, A., Singer, J. B., Vlad, T., & Becker, L. B. (2009). Implications of technological change
for journalists’ tasks and skills. Journal of Media Business Studies, 6(1), 61-85.
Prahalad, C.K. &Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-Creation Experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 18 (3) 5-14. Wiley Periodicals.
Simard, C., & West, J. (2006). Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of innovation. In
H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a
new paradigm (pp. 220-240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singer, J. B. (2008). Five Ws and an H: Digital challenges in newspaper newsrooms and

boardrooms. International Journal on Media Management, 10(3), 122-129.
Singer, J. B. (2010). Journalism in the network. In S. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to
news and journalism. (pp. 277-86). New York, NY: Routledge.
Singer, J. B., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Hermida, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., Reich, Z., &
Vujnovic, M. (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online
newspapers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sullivan, W. (2010). The big winner at ONA: APIs for news organizations. Journerdism [Web
page]. Retrieved from http://www.journerdism.com/the-big-winner-at-ona-apis-for-news-organizations/.
Van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Broadening the scope of open
innovation: Past research, current state and future directions. International Journal of
Technology Management, 52(3), 221-235.
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management
Science, 48(7), pp. 821-833.
“What Aggregators Do: Rhetoric, Practice, and Cultures of Digital and Analog Evidence in
Web-Era Journalism.”
C.W. Anderson, College of Staten Island (CUNY)

cwa2103@columbia.edu
Paper Submitted to the 12th International Symposium for Online Journalism

Austin, Texas | April 2-3 2010
Abstract
This paper is analyzes an increasingly valorized form of newswork-- “serious, old fashioned,”
“boots on the ground reporting”-- through an exploration of its purported occupational opposite,
news aggregation. The paper begins with a qualitative content analysis of the March 4, 2010 FCC
workshop “The Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities: Serving the Public
Interest in the Digital Era,” in which journalists and scholars, using public rhetoric, attempted to
draw a sharp, clear boundary between original reporting and aggregation. The paper turns, in its
second section, to an exploration the actual hybridized practices of journalistic aggregation.
Connecting these threads is an argument, drawing from research in science and technology
studies, that knowledge claims must be examined both as pure, line drawing arguments and as
messy hybrids in which mangled practices need to be constantly purified through the
aforementioned rhetorical work. The paper concludes by pointing towards an under-theorized
aspect of this process of occupational differentiation-- the role played by actual things (digital
objects like hyperlinks, databases, and algorithms) —in the establishment of the boundaries that
make up our socio-technical world. It is this analysis of the connection between fields and things
might provide the most fruitful avenue for journalism research in the digital age.
Introduction: Aggregate This!
The so-called “battle between bloggers and journalists” continues to rage, long past its
expiration date, persisting in a journalistic world of increasing occupational overlap and hybrid
work practices. In his recent excavation of the psychological roots of the debate, NYU media
scholar Jay Rosen called the argument a “psychological thing,” and argued: “there’s something
about bloggers versus. journalists that permits the display of a preferred (or idealized) self among
people in the press whose work lives have been disrupted by the Internet … Spitting at bloggers,”
he concludes, “is closely related to gazing at your own reflection, and falling in love with it all over
again” (Rosen 2011). For Rosen, the rhetoric of bloggers versus journalists is a pathology in
which self-mythologized communication producers denigrate their “evil opposite” via the creation
of their ideal other.
Rosen thus follows in a long line of scholars (Anderson 2009, Carlson 2007, Carey 1997,
Lowrey 2006, Singer 2003, Zelizer 1992) who have argued that the tensions between different
occupational categories of media producers can be found in the nexus of jurisdictional struggles
and rhetorical claims to professional expertise. Drawing on extensive newsroom fieldwork, semi-
structured interviews, and content analysis, this paper argues that the primary “jurisdictional
conflict” in journalism today actually lies between reporting and aggregation rather than blogging
and journalism. The roots of the conflicts animating today’s journalism can this best be
understood by examining different visions of what constitutes meaningful empirical evidence in
the digital age, analyzing the tensions that surround the definition of “proper” newswork, and even
by thinking philosophically about the nature of digital reality itself. The meaningful arguments in
journalism today, in short, must be approached as questions of ontology, not epistemology.
A recent article by New York Times editor Bill Keller perfectly captures the crux of this
debate about original reporting and news aggregation. In an opinion piece called “Aggregate
This,” Keller made it clear that while “’aggregation” can mean smart people sharing their reading
lists, plugging one another into the bounty of the information universe … [it] too often it amounts
to taking words written by other people, packaging them on your own Web site and harvesting
revenue that might otherwise be directed to the originators of the material” (Keller 2011a, np).
Amongst the primary culprits in Keller’s world of barely disguised thievery was the Huffington Post
and it’s CEO, Arianna Huffington. In a follow-up column, Keller was even more blunt:
“aggregating the work of others is no substitute for boots-on-the-ground journalism” (Keller
2011b, np). In her reply to Keller, Huffington chose not to directly address questions of theft,
preferring to emphasize her traditionalist bona fides. “Even before we merged with AOL,”
Huffington argued, “HuffPost had 148 full-time editors, writers, and reporters engaged in the
serious, old-fashioned work of traditional journalism” (Huffington 2011, np).
This paper is analyzes this increasingly rare (and increasingly valorized) “serious, old
fashioned,” “boots on the ground journalism” through an exploration of its purported occupational
opposite – news aggregation. The paper begins with a qualitative content analysis of the March 4,
1
2010 FCC workshop “The Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities: Serving the
1
A note on public hearings: the pubic hearing transcripts discussing the “future of journalism,” primarily
carried out in Washington DC in 2009 and 2010 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) have been chosen as the primary corpus through which professional
boundary drawing battles will be analyzed. Obviously, many other corpora on this topic are possible: twitter
discussions, blog postings, industry trade journals, conference proceedings, journalism school textbooks,
and so forth. Public hearings, however, are unique insofar as they mark a primary moment in the U.S. media
Public Interest in the Digital Era,” in which public rhetoric attempted to draw a sharp, clear
boundary between original reporting and aggregation. The paper turns, in its second section, to
an exploration the actual hybridized practices of journalistic aggregation. Connecting these
threads is an argument, drawing from research in science and technology studies, that
knowledge claims must be examined both as pure, line drawing arguments and as messy hybrids
in which mangled practices need to be constantly purified through the aforementioned rhetorical
work. The paper concludes by pointing towards an under-theorized aspect of this process of
occupational differentiation-- the role played by actual things (digital objects like hyperlinks,
databases, and algorithms) —in the establishment of the boundaries that make up our socio-
technical world. It is this analysis of the connection between fields and things that provides, I
argue, the most fruitful avenue for research on journalism in the digital age.
Public Rhetoric and the Contest Over Journalistic Jurisdiction
Journalism scholar Wilson Lowrey has advanced a useful intellectual framework by which
to examine the conflicts over the boundaries of 21st century journalism. Drawing on Andrew
Abbott’s ecological approach outlined The System of the Professions, Lowrey argues that
journalism should be seen as existing within “an interrelated system and as compet[ing] for
jurisdiction over ‘work tasks’, or ‘human problems amenable to expert service.’” (Lowrey 2006,
480). Journalists, Lowrey notes, are engaged in a “battle” for control over their work practices, the
positive rhetorical claims they make on behalf of those practices, and the jurisdiction created by
this combination of occupational practice and expert claim. Other groups, Lowrey argues, can
seize neglected or vulnerable areas of journalism’s professional jurisdiction by claiming it as their
own, or by claiming that the positive public outcomes pointed to by original jurisdiction occupants
no longer hold within a new technological, social, economic, or political environment. Such
system when the values of journalism are specifically addressed by formal bodies who have the power to
(occasionally) set practice-defining policy. It might be inferred, then, that it is in these public policy setting
that rhetorical arguments will be the most sharply defined. It is against this background that the historical
analyses of the 1934 Radio Act (McChesney 1995) the Hutchins Comission (Pickard forthcoming), and the
1927 Radio Act (Sylvain 2010) have been carried out.
structural changes can also open up new jurisdictional spaces to be seized. As Anderson and
Schudson put it, also drawing on Abbott:
“Expert” professionals—in this case, journalists—seek, via occupational struggle, to

monopolize a form of journalistic expertise, which itself is discursively constructed out of
various journalistic practices and narratives, including the claim to professional objectivity
(Schudson and Anderson 2009, 96).
Reporters and aggregators, under this model, can thus be expected to battle over
journalistic jurisdiction (Gieryn 1983, Zelizer 1992) by making particular rhetorical claims about
what they do and why they do it in public settings or in “inter-professional venues such as
conventions and trade publications” (Lowrey 2006, 482). Through this lens, Keller’s arguments
about the special value of “boots on the ground journalism,” Huffington’s response to Keller, and
even Rosen’s analysis of the responses to Huffington’s response, can be seen as aspects of a
larger jurisdictional struggle between workers engaged in practice of news aggregation and
workers doing original reporting.
Despite increasingly sophisticated theoretical work on this topic, empirical research
devoted to the analysis journalism’s jurisdictional struggles remains rare. The first section of this
2
paper undertakes a qualitative content analysis of the March 4, 2010 FCC workshop “The Future
3
of Media and Information Needs of Communities: Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era” in
an effort to add some substance to this discussion of rhetorical boundary-maintenance. This
2
A note on public hearings: the pubic hearing transcripts discussing the “future of journalism,” primarily
carried out in Washington DC in 2009 and 2010 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) have been chosen as the primary corpus through which professional
boundary drawing battles will be analyzed. Obviously, many other corpora on this topic are possible: twitter
discussions, blog postings, industry trade journals, conference proceedings, journalism school textbooks,
and so forth. Public hearings, however, are unique insofar as they mark a primary moment in the U.S. media
system when the values of journalism are specifically addressed by formal bodies who have the power to
(occasionally) set practice-defining policy. It might be inferred, then, that it is in these public policy setting
that rhetorical arguments will be the most sharply defined. It is against this background that the historical
analyses of the 193x Radio Act (McChesney 1995) and the Hutchins Comission (Pickard forthcoming,
Sylvain 2010) have been carried out.
3
The analyses here is exploratory in two senses: first, the completed paper will contain more thorough
analyses of other FTC and FCC hearings that took place in 2009 and 2010 in Washington DC, in addition to
the one discussed here; second, the content analysis itself is preliminary insofar as it has been carried out
by single researcher. There is thus no discussion of inter-coder reliability in this section of the paper, and its
arguments should be taken as highly provisional.
section of the paper utilizes qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005), to
understand the process by which FCC commissioners and witnesses discussed journalistic
products (“news reports,” “news stories”) as either original or aggregated. What were the tacit
conceptions of original reporting and aggregation that commissioners drew upon during the
March 4 hearing? And how did commissioners and witnesses articulate their understanding of the
relationship between original and aggregated journalistic content within the larger digital news
ecosystem?
Of course, “original reporting” and “aggregation” were not the only, or even necessarily
the primary, topics discussed at the FCC on March 4, 2010. The nuances of broadcast regulation
made up a lengthy portion of the hearing, as did more macro-level arguments about the
economics of newswork in the digital age. The uncertain line between original and aggregated
content comprised up a substantive portion of this larger economic debate, however, a fact that
provides further evidence for my earlier argument that the jurisdictional conflict within journalism
is very often centered around notions of “ontological originality.”

Fig. 1: Word Cloud of Topics at March 4, 2010 FCC Hearings
Sixty-three statements within the 340-page hearing transcript were coded as relevant to
st
debates over original reporting and aggregation in 21 century journalism. These discussions
about the meaning and importance of “original reporting” clustered around two distinct sections of
the hearing, and the differences between them are as illuminating as their overall similarities in
style and tone. During the first third of the hearing, academics valorized original reporting and
touted its importance for democracy; their conversations, however, remained largely
disconnected from technological changes or from a deeper analysis of what was meant by
original reporting. In the final third of the hearing, witnesses and commissioners directly
addressed the relationship between original reporting and news aggregation practices afforded by
digital technology; they defined aggregation primarily in terms of search engines, however, and
did not address aggregation in the form of either blogs or human powered news websites like the
Huffington Post.
In the first third of the hearing, witnesses and commissioners argued that original
reporting was essential for democracy. They also made a second point: that most reporting
originated in newspapers, and occasionally in local TV.“ It's newspapers and broadcast media
that still originate the overwhelming amount of the news we get,” noted FCC commissioner
Michael Copps, “on the order of three-quarters or more, and that number is going to go down only
slowly." (FCC 2010, 13) In a second representative comment, media historian Paul Starr noted:
Paid circulation is also in long-term decline, yet newspapers have financed most of the
original reporting at the state and local level, and as both their advertising revenues and
circulation dropped, they are cutting back for original reporting more rapidly than new
resources are developing on line. (ibid, 31)
Here and elsewhere, speakers draw a connection between reporting, positive democratic
outcomes, and the importance of newspapers to the journalistic process. Newspapers are
described as the “originators” of most original content; indeed, hearing chairman Steven
Waldman joked that the Project for Excellence in Journalism “should get a royalty every time [the
committee]” mentioned the group’s study finding that 95% of news stories with new information
came from traditional media, primarily print journalism (ibid, 304). The taken-for-granted
importance of original reporting articulated in the first third of the hearing did not include much
discussion about the meaning of “original reporting,” or the manner in which technological
changes were affecting that reporting. Indeed, much of the discussion in the early part of the
th st
hearing could have been presented at any time in the late 20 or early 21 century; the sense of
“crisis” within the news industry expressed by participants could have been applied to earlier
periods of concern about shrinking news coverage. Indeed, one speaker made note of the fact
that one reason for the historical success of FM radio was a 1965 regulatory decision that these
stations had to produce a certain amount of original programming in exchange for their licenses.
The analysis, here and elsewhere, bore an uncanny resemblance to earlier declinist arguments
about the disappearance of a journalistic “golden age” under impact of forces of
commercialization, corporatization, or technology. The actual mechanics of that decline seemed
less important than the general lament.
In the final third of the hearing, on the other hand, the tenor and content of the
conversation shifted as witnesses directly debated the relationship between digital technology,
search engines, and the economic impact of these technologies on original reporting practices.
The rhetoric during this final portion of the March 2010 hearing crystallized around a debate
between Associated Press General Counsel Srinandan Kasi and CUNY journalism school
professor Jeff Jarvis. Kasi threw down the gauntlet, arguing, in his words, that “effectively what
we see happening [online] … is that those who are in a position to fulfill demand -- consumer
demand online for news are, therefore, controlling modernization -- have literally no cost of news
gathering.” (ibid, 250). In other words, the vast majority of digital revenue on the internet went to
online search engines like Google that filtered, sorted, and highlighted digital content. Meanwhile,
argued Kasi, the originators of that content were left out in the cold:
There's a real cost in news gathering and that goes to what I call the cost of the first
copy. But the technology allows you to have secondary copies at no cost. So what
happens when a number of these secondary copies get into the same ecosystem and
effectively compete for opportunity -- modernization opportunity -- with the first copy?
(ibid, 254)
In defending Google and other search engines, Jarvis advanced a different argument,
one that emphasized Google’s ability to create audiences and deliver them to publishers. “Google
gives you value,” he told Kasi and the FCC “There are two creations of value today -- the creation
of the content and the creation of the audience for that content. Each bring value … It's up to
[publishers] to decide whether you can create a relationship and value out of that.” (ibid, 282). But
if Jarvis saw Google as an indexer of content and a driver audiences, the executives working for
traditional media companies perceived it as a fragmentizing original content substitute, one which
occupied an unfair position in the digital value chain. The name they gave to this process of
fragmentation, excerption, and indexing was aggregation. If you analyze web traffic, argued Kasi,
“what you'll see is that the aggregation sites actually enjoy the benefit of the traffic flow. Over half
the surveyed audience got the news from aggregation sites” rather than the original content
producers Kasi concluded (ibid, 253).
In this debate, we encounter a de-emphasis on the positive democratic outcomes
outlined in the first debate and a re-emphasis on the economic injustice of news aggregation. The
assumed public importance of original reporting operates in the background of this conversation,
however. Also at work here is a criticism-- not of “traditional” news aggregation-- but rather the
massive algorithmically powered process of indexing and search. The definition of what, exactly,
original reporting is, why it is important, and how it compares to the aggregation of information is
addressed only obliquely. Also almost entirely ignored in the March 24 hearing are the websites
many people think of as classic news aggregators—blogs and hybrid bog / news websites like
Gawker, Media Gazer and the Huffinton Post. Nevertheless, the animus to a variety of
technological and digital information processes on the part of news executives comes though
clearly in these hearings. The enemy is named, and the enemy is aggregation.
Only at the conclusion of the hearing does Chairman Steve Waldman attempt probe more deeply
the question of what original reporting might actually mean, and why it might be important.
Turning to Jarvis, he inquires about whether the he is worried by the recent Pew Report on
Baltimore which concludes that the vast majority of original news content comes from traditional
print media. “I don't agree with the premise,” Jarvis responded
because I think there's a definition of news. There's a top-down definition of news. When I ran
community sites and we had a site for ballerinas under the news tab it said the leotards are in.
Well, to them that's news. There's many different definitions of news. And I think that the flaw in
the Pew study was its definition of news and media and distribution were very limited (ibid, 305).
We are thus left with tantalizing questions about whether or not certain categories of
original reporting are undervalued, along with the even more the metaphysical question of what is
original reporting even is. Although these questions were not addressed in the March 24 hearing,
several larger themes are prominent. They include: the assumed connection between original
reporting and a healthy democracy, the negative economic consequences of the digital economy
for original content producers, and the confusion about what aggregators are and how they are
different from search engines. The most important theme, however, is simply the transparently
negative animus directed against the idea of aggregation by many traditional reporters and news
executives, along with the idea that it is radically distinct from original reporting. It is in this fairly
simplified fashion that public hearings like the ones held by the FCC and FTC throughout 2009
and 2010 may have their most impact on jurisdictional contests.

From Purification to Complexity and Back Again
In the early pages of Science in Action, anthropologist of science Bruno Latour draws a
distinction between what he calls “ready made science” and “science in the making.”
Accompanied by the image of the “two faced Janus” (with the wise, beaded face representing
ready-made science and the youthful, insouciant face standing in for science in the making),
Latour argues (Latour 1987) that all settled controversies represent a series of unopened black-
boxes, and that the outcome of rhetorical and praxis-based controversy is to either open or close
these boxes.. In Latour’s analysis, ready-made science represents the default state of affairs, a
situation in which distinctions are clear and simplicity is valued. As Graham Harman puts it in his
overview of the concept of the black box:
In a sense, all human activity aims to create black boxes. Boeing engineers labor to
create a new model of jet, which will never reach the market if its various parts break
down during test flights. In forming a friendship, settling a marriage, or composing a
manuscript, our hope is to establish something durable that does not constantly fray or
break down. A job in which our roles are reassigned each week, or with the constant
danger of being sacked by an emotionally unstable superior, is more of a headache than
anyone can endure. Earning a doctoral degree would not be worth the trouble if our
transcript and thesis were scrutinized monthly by a panel of experts for the rest of our
lives, or if long-time professors had to retake their comprehensive exams every summer.
In everyday language we now refer to certain cars and people with the wonderful phrase
‘high-maintenance’. By definition, a black box is low-maintenance. It is something we rely
on as a given in order to take further steps, never worrying about how it came into being.
The reason it can be either so refreshing or so annoying to speak of one’s work with
outside amateurs is that they lack awareness of the black boxes widely recognized in our
respective professions (Harman 2009, 37).
For our purposes, the utility of Latour’s argument is that it gestures at the fairly common-
sense notion that all stable definitions of originality and aggregation disguise their incredibly
complex histories. They also bracket off the tangled, halting practices of actual journalistic work.
The differences between an “aggregator” and an “original reporter” are never as clear in actual
practice as they are during testimony in front of a public commission. Indeed, even during the
already examined FCC hearings, the lines between aggregator and original reporter were not
entirely clear. Most noticeable was the oft-fudged distinction between aggregation as the
compilation and contextualization of previously reported stories and the notion of aggregation as
an algorithmic sorting of articles carried out on a massive scale by powerful algorithms. Once we
shift our analytical lens from the domain of rhetoric to the domain of practice, the complexity of
the distinction between aggregation and original reporting becomes even more tangled.
In this second section, I want to analyze the manner by which seemingly-solid occupational
boundary lines are actually comprised of a myriad of complex, uncertain, unstable practices. I
argue that the boundary line between aggregation and original reporting only becomes stable
rhetorically or retroactively, once the controversy over the definition of aggregation is settled.
Studying these micro-practices qualitatively can do more than simply add complexity to a
previously clear situation; the purpose of this second strand of analysis is not to simply
ethnographic masochism. Rather, the analysis of the manner by which rhetoric is complicated in
practice, and by which practices become retroactively pure, help point us toward new analysis of
the evidentiary status of news objects, along with a deeper understanding of the work of
journalism in the digital age.
Aggregation in Action
Between 2008 and 2010, site visits to the offices of Philly.com (the website aggregating
and repackaging the content of both the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News),
4
the New York City-based media news and opinion blog JorunoBlab , the offices of the Newark
Star-Ledger, and the offices of the Washington Post allowed me to formulate a schematic
overview of aggregation as its own unique form of newswork. An important complement to these
site visits were a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with former and current news
aggregators, primarily in Washington D.C. and New York City. All in all, I conducted eleven semi-
structured interviews with news aggregators and engaged in more than 100 hours of aggregation-
specific fieldwork (much of it occurring during an extensive period of research in Philadelphia). As
with the content analysis presented above, the qualitative research into news aggregation
4
A pseudonym
discussed here should be considered highly provisional, with more research (and hopefully more
site visits) to come. It was an odd aspect of this research that my attempts to gain access to
supposedly “informal” news aggregation organizations like the Huffington Post, Gawker, and
Mediaite were considerably more fraught than my earlier participant observations at more formal
news companies like Philly.com and The Newark-Star Ledger.
A Schematic Overview of Aggregation as Journalistic Work
At the time of my initial research, between 2008 and 2009, Philly.com was located in its
own non-descript downtown offices, separate from the newspapers they aggregated. As in many
of the newsrooms I visited, employee desks occupied the central space of the main room, with
executive offices ringing the outside walls. Surprisingly, the web production team took up only a
fraction of the space inside of Philly.com— in terms of space allocated and the number of
employees, the production team was far outnumbered by the marketing and advertising
departments. The Washington Post, on the other hand, had by the summer of 2010 completed a
long and somewhat tortuous process of “digital integration,” with the formerly separate employees
5
of Washingtonpost.com now scattered across the larger Washington Post newsroom. At the
Post, the “continuous news desk” stood at the center of the main newsroom, surrounded by
technical gadgetry and desks for “user-interactivity” and public-relations/social media. The more
traditional newspaper desks (local, politics, business, obituaries) formed an outer ring around the
continuous news desk, sections immediately distinguished by their employee workspaces
covered with paper and coffee mugs rather than mp3 cables. The offices of JournoBlab, finally,
were uncomfortably wedged into a SoHo into office building above a very hip record store; there
was less a sense of conscious desk organization here than simply a feeling of far too many
people in far too small a space (indeed, by the time I visited them in 2010, JournoBlab was
preparing to move into larger offices).
5
I should note that, by the time of my follow-up research there in the winter of 2011, Philly.com had itself
been integrated back into the same building as the Philadelphia newspapers, though in a far more
haphazard fashion than the Washington Post.
The lengthy amount of time I spent observing Philly.com web producers helped me
formulate a schematic definition of news aggregation, a generalized description that can be used
as a reference point for analyzing other, more unique forms of aggregation work as well as in
formulating broader empirical themes. At Philly.com the primary role of a web producer was to
determine where a news story (usually written by a reporter at the Inquirer or the Daily News,
almost never by an employee of Philly.com itself) belonged on the Philly.com website. This was
mostly an issue of news judgment: was a piece of news worthy of being a “biggie” (the name for
the top story on the site), should it be downgraded one notch and function as a “spotlight” story,
or should it not be promoted at all? Producers at Philly.com rewrote what they saw as web-
unfriendly ledes and headlines, procured art, and decided on ways to “build out” stories with links
to other, related stories on Philly.com. To movie into a lead position at Philly.com, a story needed
to contain art, as well as an additional piece of “user-generated content” (often a comment box, or
a poll). A story almost certainly needed a collection of related links if it was going to ascend the
adder of importance at Philly.com.
For the purposes of this paper, then, I define news aggregators as hierarchizers, inter-
linkers, bundlers, rewriters, and illustrators of web content. News aggregation is particularly
common in journalistic networks where journalists at the ends of an organizational chain produce
pieces of content in an uncoordinated or quasi-coordinated fashion. In many cases, these end-
network producers are not formal members of the news institution that is doing the news
aggregation. A news aggregator coordinates amongst a series of quasi-institutionalized (or
entirely independent) content producers. The primary task of this news aggregator is, then, to
build links between independently produced news stories, and to rank these bundled news stories
according to a rapidly shifting criteria of importance, popularity, and newsworthiness.
It is interesting to note that many of the individual news aggregators I interviewed told me
that they had no real workflow to speak of. “When something comes across the internet, we either
grab it or we don’t,” one of the workers at JournoBlab told me. “There’s not much more to it than
that.” (CITE). Indeed, many of the aggregators I spoke to seemed skeptical that anyone could find
anything interesting or meaningful to say about aggregation as a form of newswork.

Nevertheless, after talking to a number of individuals engaged in aggregation work at a number of
different organizations, larger themes and structures in the routines of aggregation quickly
became apparent.
Daily Routines
For most of the professional content aggregators I spoke to, the news day begins early,
and it begins with an immersion in the tsunami of digital content that continually flows across the
internet. “I subscribe to about 150 RSS feeds on my Google reader,” a former editor at the
Washington DC based website DCist told me. “For a while, I just sit at my laptop skimming
head[lines], clicking on ones that seemed relevant, and opening browser tabs. My early morning
goal was always to put together something called the “morning roundup,” which was a long-ish
summary of three or four top stories, plus descriptions of and links to five or six minor stories.”
The DCist editor added “the goal was to have the morning roundup up by 9am, but sometimes it
wouldn’t get up until 9:30 or 9:45. There are other aggregators out there more hard-core than
me.”
One of these “hard core aggregators” was John Winter, who worked for several months
as the local politics and entertainment editor for one of the leading online news aggregators in the
6
country, the Wellington Gazette.com . After a short career in weekly journalism and a stint in
graduate school, Winter describe jointing the Wellington Gazette after school and instantly
entering an intense work environment where days began and ended with intense media
consumption.
My alarm would go off at 6:55, and I’d jump out of bed and immediately turn on [MSNBC].
I’d watch it while I was combing the online newsires. If I thought that nothing was
absolutely breaking right away, I would get some granola. While I was eating, I would
look through the websites of the [Wall Street] Journal, and the New York Times blogs. I’d
also check the AP and check Reuters.
6
Ex-staffers with the Wellington Gazette are subject to a fairly stringent non-disclosure policy, making
accurate representations of work there difficult to come by. This ex-aggregator spoke to me under the
condition of anonymity.
From this stream of news Winter would craft his aggregated content. Between 7am and
8am, Winter described what he called a “really frenzied process” of refreshing the local politics
page and “clearing it out.” “Clearing it out” meant removing an old story and replacing it with a
newer one. “A good half the page would be cleared out, would be new, by 8am,” Winter told me.
He also noted that he had two content management “buckets” on the backend of the local politics
page, one that would manage the content on the news and aggregation portion of the page, and
a second that controlled the blog posts submitted by the Gazette’s volunteer blogging community.
Most of the blog content was simply arranged in chronological order, while the display of the
news involved some prioritization. “There is one story that runs all the way across the top, in huge
blaring letters. Then there was space for three stories below that, and below that, there are
secondary and tertiary stories.” After clearing out as much of the page as he could, Winter would
backtrack and check the television news, the internet, and his feeds again, “and if it was clear, I’d
hop in the shower.” But there was often more news, “and there were times when I wouldn’t head
for the train until 9 and get into the office until 10 or 10:30. From then on, and for the rest of the
day, the goal was is to refresh the page until 6 or 7pm.”
All the aggregators I interviewed described their mornings in similar terms, as the
immediate immersion in the flood daily news and an attempt to pick out those stories that would
most directly interest their website’s audience, draw traffic, or both. The remained of the day
usually involved sitting in front of a computer and repeating the same basic tasks, at a less
frenzied place. The importance of an early start and intense start to the day, while apparently
trivial, actually contrasts in some significant and symbolic ways with the habits of traditional
journalists; during my earlier Philadelphia fieldwork, professional reporters working for
newspapers spoke happily about their late-morning starts and their late evenings. But beyond
simply “getting up” and “reading the internet,” is there anything more to say about the work of
news aggregation? There is. To understand, on a deeper level, the set of skills that go into
aggregation work, I want to turn discussion of the relationship between aggregation and news
judgment.
The Skills of Journalistic Aggregation
Sitting in a darkened midtown bar that has long been one of the favorite haunts of
journalists working for the New York City tabloid New York Post, Hasaani Gittens was emphatic.
“There are skills to news aggregation,” he told me. As a self-described “former “old school rewrite
man” for the New York Post now working as a web editor at the local NBC website, Gittens is the
kind of journalist who often gets ignored in the classic studies of both digital and analog
journalism, and his choice of the location for our interview was an interesting one. Our bar was
what might be described as a “New York Post bar,” distinct from the “New York Daily News bar”
on the other side of Times Square, and Gittens drew on his journalistic experience, his rewrite
experience, and his aggregation experience when outlining the qualities of a good news
aggregator. For Gittens, there was s a distinct typology of skills needed to report, to rewrite, and
to aggregate:
As an aggregator, you really need to know what's a good story. It's heavy on news sense.
And you need to know what's a good story for your audience. But it's not about reporting
skills. To be a reporter, on the other hand, you need to know certain neighborhoods. Most
of all, you have to have the guts to ask questions. You need to know how to talk to
people to get them to talk to you. You need to know how to take notes. You need to know
how to develop and cultivate sources. As an aggregator, you're, number one, going to
need to know how to have a sense of story.
When I pressed him about how aggregation differed from his days as a rewrite man,
Gittens had a ready response: “You do a little journalism as a rewrite man,” he told me. “There's
a skill involved in crafting a witty turn of phrase out of a boring story, and a lot of the stories you
end up rewriting for a tabloid are boring stories. So you can really have three kinds of skills. You
can have reporting. You can have rewriting. You can have aggregation.” But the dominant quality
of a good aggregator was “news judgment. Good reporters don’t always have the greatest news
judgment in world, but good editors always do, and so do aggregators.” You have to know how to
write a good headline, Gittens went on. You also have to know how to write a good summary of a
story, and how to incorporate visual graphics and photos. “You need to know how to write a hed
that gets you traffic. But most of all you need to know what’s news.” The former editor of DCist
described a similar panoply of skills, emphasizing news judgment above all. “You need to know
what stories readers will be interested in. You need to keep track of your sources. You need to be
quick. And you need to add value to the story you’ve aggregated. But news judgment is the most
important.”
John Winter, the former aggregator with the Wellington Gazette, also contrasted the
relationship between aggregation and reporting, though he phrased the distinction in almost
entirely cultural terms. “No one I worked with at the Wellington Gazette wanted to call themselves
a journalist,” he told me. “Because they didn’t like it. They looked down on it. They thought
journalism was dying, and they didn’t want to be part of a dying thing. And they actually looked
down on journalists, for cultural reasons. The journalists they knew were old, and none of them
had gone to the same prep schools they had.” Winter said that he found the experience
incredibly depressing. “I’d gone to journalism school,” he told me. “And here I was with these
people who totally looked down on what I did, or at least what I’d wanted to do when I was in
school.” At the same time, Winter noted that, in the months since he’d left the Gazette, he’d
retrospectively begun to see what the work he did there as journalism.” Aggregation was
journalism, he told me, because it was no longer just the work of a few fringe bloggers and digital
cranks. “Now traditional news organization have started aggregating and applying their ethics to
it,” he said.
The fact that news organizations are themselves now engaged in aggregation work is
another example of the hybridized complexity I referred to at the conclusion of the previous
section. A further complexity stems from the fact that news organizations often deliberately seek
to be aggregated: “we are they aggregator and the aggregates,” Gittens laughed, describing the
process of deliberately seeking out links from high-traffic web sites like the Drudge Report and
Yahoo News. Gittens spoke of spreadsheet kept by the aggregators on staff at NBC News that
had contact information for various web editors at major internet sites, as well as potential hooks
that might encourage them to link back to a story. It was considered a major success, particularly
in financial terms, when other aggregators linked to NBC.

“Keeping an Ear to the Internet”
Journalists engaged in the work of news aggregation consume massive amounts of
digital content, and also need to have good news judgment. But what is it that they actually
produce? The question is complicated by the rhetoric of content “theft” that permeated the FCC
hearing analyzed earlier, as well as the hope of many traditional news organizations to both
“aggregagate” and “be aggregated.” But a common description of what news aggregators did was
summarized by the ex-editor of DCist: “our job is to make it possible for someone to have a one-
stop location for the news they need about DC … if you only read DCist, we wanted you to know
what was going on in town. And we also want to add value to content as well. As an aggregator,
you should always be adding a little something: a poll, a different take on an issue, our own two
cents, bring two related ideas together in one space, a better photo. That kind of stuff.” This idea
of being a “one-stop shop” was expressed by every aggregator I spoke to, in almost identical
language. “What did Wellington Gazette pay me for?” asked Winter. “They paid me to try to be
the one stop shop for news about local politics and entertainment.”
The primary reference point of the one-stop-shop news aggregator was the internet itself.
It was from the digital bounty of the online universe that aggregators drew the content they would
parse, rebuild, and contextualize. “What we do as aggregators isn’t about journalism,” one high-
level news executive told me. “It’s about making sense of the internet.” Comparing his tenure at a
major daily newspaper with his time as the manager of a prominent and wealthy news
aggregator, the executive noted that traditional journalism had “always been about making sense
of the public, and about your local community, but with the internet, we aggregators need to make
sense of this other world. It’s why the Huffington Post, for example, has the guts to call an
‘internet newspaper.’ It’s about the internet. It isn’t about journalism, at least the way we’ve
always thought of journalism up until now.”
It is interesting to compare the aggregation practices I observed at Philly.com and
practices at the other news aggregators I spoke to in the months after my fieldwork. Because of
the combination of Philly.com linking practices (discussed in the final section, below) and the
company’s organizational setup, the web producers at Philly.com found them aggregating content
from a very narrow set of sources; almost all the content on Philly.com comes from one of the two
local newspapers. So while there was a constant stream of digital news being ingested and
regurgitated by Philly.com aggregators, the scope from which that content could be drawn was
fairly narrow and presented in a fairly rational fashion. Reporters at the Daily News and the
Inquirer were company employees, subject to the same upper management as workers at
Philly.com and operating under fairly established deadlines and news routines. Aggregators at
Philly.com did not, in other words, aggregate the internet, or even the local internet in
Philadelphia. True aggregators, in contrast. “keep their ear glued to the internet.” Their
informational commons, and often their journalistic mandates, are far broader. And while the
speed of work at Philly.com was fast-paced, and the content demands were high, these demands
and routines paled in comparison to the expectations at more traditional web aggregators.
Creativity and Speed
As part of the discussion of his daily routine at the Wellington Gazette, John Winter made
an interesting point about the amount of time and effort he put into his various aggregated pieces
of content on a typical day. An outside observer might assume that every aggregated story is
more or less the same and requires a more or less identical amount of time and effort. But this is
not the case. “There’s a degree of whorishness to the fact that we spent so much time at the
Wellingon Gazette trying to come up with SEO-optimized headlines,” Winter told me. “But that
was the name of the game, and it really got interesting when we tried figure out these sexy
headlines for those really important stories.”
You do put up some garbage stories. You have to put it on the page. But I'm not going to
spend any mental energy on those stories. I have to put them up because I have to feed
the beast, but I'm going to put it up there with just the most straight, boring headline ever,
and spend my time figuring out headlines for the stories I really care about or that are
really important.
Winter makes the point that, with a goal of refreshing the local politics three or four times
a day, producing quality aggregated content—content that, in the words of the editor of DCist,
always contains added value—was difficult if not impossible. But, he adds, the regularized
production of mediocre content could coexist with the occasional production of higher-quality
stories.
There is little doubt, of course, that the demands upon digital journalists are increasing.
At the end of our interview, I asked the former editor of DCist if she had any thoughts on recent
journalistic complaints by journalists that the increasing speed of their work routines were
diminishing creativity. Was increased speed or output demand damaging original reporting? “I
don’t really see the point in putting original reporting on a pedestal,” she told me. “It’s important,
sure. But it’s only one thing among many other things. I don’t have a lot of respect for these old-
time journalists, to be honest. I think writing four stories a month is lazy. I think it’s lame.” In
discussing a reporter at the Washington Post who often spends a great deal of time on long-form
stories, a Post digital editor complains to me that the reporter spends a lot of “time flying down to
Florida to talk to fishermen, or to someplace else to stare at horse. During the amount of time he
spent doing that he could have written 20 stories. But he has the best journalism job. No
journalists have that job anymore.”
DCist publishes between 18-20 stories a day, with upper-level company executives
hoping for publication metrics on the 3--story per day range. Gittens estimates that the local NBC
website asks web producers to compose 10 stories per day, leading to a total of between 40 and
50 new stories per day for the entire website. Are ten aggregated stories per day a great number?
There are few standards by which to answer these questions. While the DCist editor expressed
contempt for “traditional journalism whiners,” the aggregator at the Wellington Gazette spoke
eloquently about his own burnout and the “deep levels of exploitation” he felt while working at the
high-octane company. In the end, even the creative workarounds Winter designed to highlight the
stories he really cared about while spending next to no time on the rest were not enough to keep
him from going back to traditional journalism. “The culture there wasn't right for me and I did want
to have a life. And people there didn't have a life. Or at least they didn't want to hang out with me.
So maybe it was me. But I didn't want to work with people who made me feel guilty for having fun.
I worked,” he concludes. “for people who were joyless.”
Digital and Analog Evidence in web Era Journalism
The preceding overview of aggregation “in action” has helpfully complicated the
rhetorically purified notion of aggregation often expressed in public hearings, trade journals, and
online polemics. Obviously, the actual work of aggregation is a complicated exercise, one in
which the line between “original reporting” and “aggregated content” is not entirely clear.
Traditional media organizations aggregate, and thus blur the line between what exactly is meant
by original reporting and digital content. These organizations also play the role of both
“aggregator” and “aggregatee.” In short, the work of aggregation is a complex affair.
Perhaps the most intriguing idea expressed by the aggregators interviewed above is the
notion of aggregation as “keeping your ear to the internet.” A digital editor at the Washington Post
told me that “while the thing about aggregation is that its constantly changing as a practice, as
new techniques come along, and so on. But it's always the same insofar as what people are
trying to do is to tap into the human psyche -- and by that I mean the human psyche as it gets put
on the internet … so aggregation isn’t about journalism, at least the way we’ve always thought of
journalism up until now. It’s about understanding the web. ”
As defined processually the line between aggregation and original reporting is not entirely
clear, despite rhetorical attempts at category purification and boundary-drawing. Aggregators and
journalists both compile shards of facts, quotes, documents, and links together in order to create
narrative-driven news stories. Could it be that the real conflict between aggregation and
journalism lies not in the work of either occupation, and not in the way that each defines the other
as a sort of pathological doppelganger, but in the type of objects of which they build their stories
and that they take as their criteria of evidence? Is it possible that the great conflict over journalism
may be centered around the things of journalism, rather than the work of journalism or the
definition of journalism?
Studying the things of journalism would mark a move away from journalistic epistemology
and towards a sort of ontology of reporting. This scholarship would look at the meaning and
status of hyperlinks, not simply as ways in which the news is framed, but also as the objects out
of which journalism crafts stories (Coddington, forthcoming). It might chronicle historical
divergence between journalism, the “social survey movement,” and academic sociology in the
early 20th century. It could combine the growing number of cross-cultural histories of the
interview with research on rise of the document in journalism “and the invention of direct
observation. This research could analyze Philip Myer’s work in order to trace the genealogy of
hacks and hackers and the rise of variable-based journalism. Ultimately this research would draw
upon philosophies of digitization and quantification. Perhaps it is in the realm of the digital—the
creation of a world and a set of practices in which the aggregation of purely digital objects is
possible, necessary, and socially useful—that the true transition of journalism into something new
and different might be glimpsed.

Secondary Works Cited
Anderson CW (2009) Breaking Journalism Down: Work, Authority, and Networking Local News,
1997—2009. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Carlson M (2007) Blogs and journalistic authority: the role of blogs in US Election Day 2004
coverage. Journalism Studies, 8(2): 264-279.
Carey J (1997) The communications revolution and the rise of the professional communicator. In:
Munson E and Warren C (eds) James Carey: A Critical Reader. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 128-142
Gieryn T (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and
interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6): 781-795.
Harman G (2009) Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics.Victoria: re: press
Hsieh H and Shannon S (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitiative
Health Research, 15(9):1277-1288
Huffington A (2011) Bill Keller accuses me of “aggregating” an idea he actually “aggregated” from
me. Available at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bill-keller-accuses-me-of_b_834289.html
Keller B (2011a) All the aggregation that’s fit to aggregate. Available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/magazine/mag-13lede-t.html
Keller B (2011b) Aggregation agro. Available at

http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/postscript-aggregation-aggro
Latour B (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lowrey W (2006) Mapping the journalist-blogger relationship. Journalism: Theory, Practice,

Criticism, 7(4) 477-500.
McChesney R (1995) Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle For Control
of US Broadcasting, 1928-1935. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Pickard V (forthcoming) Whether the giants should be slain or persuaded to be good: Revisiting
the Hutchins Commission and the role of media in a democratic society. Critical Studies in Media
Communication 27 (4): 391-411.
Rosen J (2011) The twisted psychology of bloggers vs. journalists. Presented at South by
Southwest. Austin, TX
Schudson M and Anderson CW (2009). Objectivity, professionalism, and truth-seeking in

journalism. In: Wahl-Jorgensen K and Hanitzsch, T (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies.
New York: Routledge.
Singer J (2003) Who are these guys? the online challenge to the notion of journalistic
professionalism. Journalism: Theory, Practice, Criticism, 4(2): 139-163
Sylvain O (2010) Domesticating “the Great, Throbbing, Common Pulse of America”: A Study of
the Ideological Origins of the Radio Act of 1927. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Zelizer B (1992) Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media, and the Shaping of
Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Opening the Gates:
Interactive and Multimedia Elements of Newspaper Websites in Latin America
By
Ingrid Bachmann
(ibachmann@mail.utexas.edu)
and
Summer Harlow
(summerharlow@gmail.com)
School of Journalism
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station A1000
Austin, TX 78712
512-417-2081
Abstract
In light of newspapers' struggle to maintain readers and viability in the digital era,
this study aims to better understand how newspapers in Latin America are responding to
this shift toward user-generated and multimedia content. Using a content analysis of 19
newspapers from throughout Latin America, this study found that newspaper websites are
bringing citizens into the virtual newsroom on a limited basis, allowing them to interact
with each other and with the newspaper but only to a small degree. For example, while all
newspaper websites have some multimedia content and most have Facebook and Twitter
accounts, few allow readers to report errors, submit their own content, or even contact
reporters directly. Further, most online newspaper articles include photos, but video,
audio and hyperlinks rarely are used. These results further our understanding of how
online interactivity is changing the traditional role of journalists and how Latin America
is responding to the challenge.
International Symposium on Online Journalism

Austin, TX, April 1-2, 2011
2
Opening the Gates:

Interactive and Multimedia Elements of Newspaper Websites in Latin America
Introduction
Since David Manning White’s (1950) seminal study highlighted the decisions Mr.
Gates made about which stories would be in the next day’s newspaper, the role of
journalists as gatekeepers has become one of the central tenets of communication
research (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009). But in today’s online news ecosystem, ruled by
blogs, social media, and a 24-hour news cycle where information has become so
prevalent that scholars speak of “ambient news” (Hermida, 2010a), the notion of a
“gatekeeper” seems like a quaint relic.
The onset of new technologies, and the resulting pressure on newspapers to
incorporate more citizen journalism, has prompted some scholars to posit that the
convergence of professional and citizen journalism might perhaps be undermining the
traditional gatekeeping model (Hermida, 2010b; Bowman & Willis, 2003; Witt, 2004),
and opening the gate to allow at least some alternative, citizen voices through. The rise of
new technologies and the development of a Web 2.0, characterized by its interactive
features and user-generated content, has meant a blurring of what journalism is,
potentially transforming how it is practiced and who is doing it (Deuze, 2003; Lasica,
2003). Such a fundamental shift brings with it an assortment of challenges and
opportunities, as newspapers look to incorporate more interactivity in order to attract
more readers, while still maintaining the traditional gatekeeping function so central to a
journalist’s identity. A bourgeoning body of Euro- and US-centric literature has begun
analyzing what kinds of interactive elements newspaper websites are offering, but little
3
research has examined how online newspapers in digitally divided regions like Latin
America are incorporating this kind of multimedia and participatory content.
Thus, in light of newspapers’ struggle to maintain readers and viability in this
digital era, this study aims to better understand how newspapers in Spanish- and
Portuguese-speaking Latin America are responding to this shift toward participatory
journalism, taking into consideration how meaningful such an opening of the gates can be
when the bulk of the population is excluded from participating because of lack of Internet
access. Drawing on a theoretical framework of gatekeeping, participatory journalism and
the digital divide, this study uses a content analysis of 19 newspaper websites in Latin
America –one newspaper from each country– to offer an initial exploration of whether
newspapers are opening their newsrooms to citizens by providing multimedia features
and other web elements that encourage reader participation.
Such research is important for analyzing how much access to the media the average
citizen truly has. This also has implications for attracting readers, which is essential for
drawing advertising dollars. Further, the interactivity level of a newspaper’s website also
is important in terms of transforming the traditional role of journalists as gatekeepers. As
newspapers increase their interactive and participatory options, they potentially are
undermining their own gatekeeping responsibilities, fundamentally changing journalism
–and perhaps impacting democracy– as they open the newsroom to new and alternative
voices and perspectives.
Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
Gatekeeping
White (1950) contended that gatekeepers in the newsroom regulate the flow of
4
information and knowledge, using varying criteria to control which stories make it onto a
newspaper’s pages (Gieber & Johnson, 1961; Shoemaker, 1991). Gatekeeping, in
essence, is the “overall process through which the social reality transmitted by the news
media is constructed” (Shoemaker et al., 2001, p. 233). Extending the notion of
gatekeeping from a lone editor with the final say over what is or is not published, other
scholars have highlighted the role of newsroom routines, organizational structure and
journalistic norms that also influence what becomes news (Gans, 1979; Shoemaker &
Reese, 1996).
In today’s digital era, scholars disagree over whether or how the Internet is
changing the gatekeeping function. Singer (2005) contended that the same traditional
routines and norms found in print newspapers are replicated online, while Bruns (2005)
offers the notion of “gatewatching,” a type of news filter. For others, the web has
changed the game entirely, reducing the need for gatekeepers when everyone with access
to the Internet can use, create, or disseminate the news that they see fit (Bowman &
Willis, 2003; Hermida, 2010b).
A number of scholars have attempted to define content from non-professional
journalists, referring to citizen journalism, para-journalism, public journalism, user-
generated content, and collaborative journalism (Black, 1997; Burns, 2010; Jaaniste,
2010; Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2001; Outing, 2005; Rosen, 2008; Thurman, 2008; Vujnovic
et al., 2010). Bowman & Willis’s (2003) term “participatory journalism” seems to
encapsulate “the collaborative nature of journalism now: professionals and amateurs
working together to get the real story, linking to each other across brands and old
boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives” (Jarvis, 2006).

5
Collaborative journalism
In this age of convergence, newspaper readers once considered only as the
“audience” are no longer just passive consumers, as emerging digital communication
tools increasingly are allowing citizens to both create and disseminate news and
information (Bowman & Willis, 2003; Deuze, Bruns & Neuberger, 2007). Accustomed to
using blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and other such platforms, citizens have come to want
more than just the ability to write a letter to the editor. Internet-savvy newspaper readers
now expect some level of interactivity and increased engagement with a news site,
forcing traditional news media to rethink not only the process of news production, but
also who is considered a journalist (Hayes et al., 2007).
Studies that have considered why newspapers allow citizen participation suggest it
is a combination of democratic ideals and a market-driven bottom line that seeks to
increase website traffic (Jenkins, 2006; Vujnovic et al., 2010). Ever-decreasing
circulations and advertising revenues have meant newspapers increasingly are looking to
the Internet for a way out (Paterson & Domingo, 2008; Singer, 2008; Thurman & Lupton,
2008). Still, a recent industry report showed that 20% of digital journalism ventures in
Latin America do not generate profits (Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano,
2011). Hermida and Thurman (2008) noted that a news organization’s adoption of
participatory journalism was in part a result of a cost-benefit analysis. Their study of the
BBC found that the time and effort it took to moderate and editorially control user-
generated content drained resources that some editors believed could be better spent on
traditional news gathering. Such findings fit well within previous research that has
demonstrated the news media’s generally dismissive attitude toward the audience (Gans,
6
1979), and the notion that journalists know better than consumers what is newsworthy
(Schlesinger, 1978).
It should come as no surprise, then, that studies of news organizations in the United
States and the UK indicate that professional journalists are not overhauling their news
processes to embrace citizen participation (Boczkowski, 2003; Deuze, 2003; Domingo et
al., 2008; Zúñiga & Duque, 2009). Despite opening their websites to limited user-
generated content, news organizations still moderate what is posted, ensuring that any
citizen contributions are in line with existing journalistic norms and culture (Hermida &
Thurman, 2008). In fact, Singer (2005) contended that mainstream journalists
“normalize” participatory media, controlling and adapting it until it fits within traditional
journalistic practices and understandings. Thus, while user-generated content often is
seen as more democratic and participatory, the lack of change or adaptation in journalistic
practices means a fundamental shift in the mindset about the role of citizens in journalism
has yet to occur (Williams et al., 2011). As Williams and colleagues (2011) noted,
“journalists have remained journalists and audiences are still audiences, and truly
collaborative relations between the two groups remain rare exceptions” (p. 12).
Research has shown interactivity to be multi-dimensional, but scholars have yet to
reach a consensus on what exactly interactivity on news sites entails. Zeng and Li’s
(2006) analysis of U.S. newspapers suggested two types of online interactivity:
interactivity with the content, and interpersonal interactivity, whereas McAdams (2005)
proposed six aspects of interactivity: feedback, control, creativity, productivity, type of
communication, and adaptability. Deuze (2003), on the other hand, described three types
of interactivity generally allowed on websites: (a) navigational, wherein the user chooses
7
how to browse through content; (b) functional, wherein the user can interact with other
users or content producers, such as through links or discussion forums; and (c) adaptive,
wherein the site adapts itself to a user’s preferences and habits, and users can upload their
own content. In general, interactivity on mainstream media news sites is limited to the
navigational level, and when more advanced options of interactivity are offered, it often
is done without explanation as to why (Deuze, 2003). Lasica (2003) highlighted several
ways the audience can participate in mainstream media: staff blogs that include reader
comments, emails and direct posts; citizen-authored blogs sanctioned by the newsroom;
discussion forums; reader-authored articles (such as those about a high school sporting
event, often solicited by the newspaper); and reader photos, videos and eye-witness
reports.
Thus, taken from the preceding literature on participatory journalism and user
interactivity, the first research question this study will answer is:
RQ1: How often do Latin American newspaper websites offer multimedia,
interactive and participatory elements, and what kinds of these elements
are offered?
The Digital Divide
Of course, any such discussion of interactivity and online participatory journalism
would be remiss if it ignored the question of digital inclusion and who has the ability to
participate online, especially in Latin America, where just 35% of the population has
Internet access (World Internet Stats, 2010). Optimists have heralded the rise of the
Internet as a democratic space that can offer greater political access for marginalized
groups (Kellner, 2000). Others, however, note the potential for already disenfranchised
8
groups to become further marginalized as technologies leave them farther behind
(Bonfadelli, 2002; Kim, 2008).
More than just lack of access, the digital divide represents a lack of technological
know-how, outdated infrastructure, and lack of interest in technologies, making it a
cultural, political, and economic divide (Castells, 2001; Diani, 2000; Fuchs, 2009;
Goldstein, 2007; Ribeiro, 1998). Newhagen and Bucy (2004) outlined four dimensions of
access: physical, or ready access to a computer with Internet; system, or ability to access
high-speed Internet; cognitive, or the skill to understand what is online and how to search
for it; and social access, or differences in access for certain individuals or cultures. If
participatory journalism is a democratic ideal about opening the public sphere to citizen
input, then it begs the question of how truly democratic or participatory journalism can be
when two-thirds of the region is automatically excluded.
Beginning around 1997, Internet technologies began spreading rapidly, yet
unevenly, across Latin America, resulting in a digital divide not just between Latin
American countries and other nations in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development, but also within Latin America itself (Hawkins & Hawkins, 2003). For
example, Argentina currently has the highest percentage of Internet users, with roughly
64% of the country connected, and in small Uruguay, with a population of just 3.5
million, more than half the population (53%) has access (Internet World Stats, 2010). Yet
in Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, only 38% of the population is connected,
and in Mexico, the second largest country, just 27%. Nicaragua has the lowest Internet
penetration rate of the region, at just .03% (Internet World Stats, 2010). Internet use in
Latin America is linked to socioeconomic inequality, with countries with more unequal
9
income distribution having lower rates of Internet penetration (Hawkins & Hawkins,
2003).
Exacerbating this is the fact that information communication technologies are more
expensive in the poor countries, and cheaper in the wealthier ones (Hilbert, 2010).
Despite more than 140,000 public Internet access sites identified across Latin America
(Maeso & Hilbert, 2006), the poorest populations of the region still are excluded, as with
just $.18-.$67 cents a week available to spend on information communication
technologies, most would not even be able to afford a half-hour at an Internet café
(Hilbert, 2010). Further, Hughes and Lawson (2005) noted the low print- and digital
media penetration rates plaguing Latin America. It is questionable, then, whether these
segments of the population would use what little Internet time they can pay for to
comment on a newspaper’s website or send an email to a reporter.
Thus, the next research questions this study will answer are the following:
RQ2: Which Latin American newspapers offer more multimedia and interactive
elements?
RQ3: Is the development level of a country related to a newspaper’s use of
multimedia and participatory content in Latin America?
RQ4: Is the Internet penetration in a country related to a newspaper’s use of
multimedia and participatory content in Latin America?
Despite such access limitations, studies have shown that the Internet, with its
interactive capabilities, can boost reader engagement (McMillan & Hwang, 2002),
deepen a reader’s understanding of an issue (Dalrymple & Scheufele, 2007; Eveland et
al., 2004), and increase both the use and discussion of news (de Vreese, 2007). Studies
10
also have shown that news sources that go the extra mile to provide interactivity also
benefit in terms of higher credibility ratings and reader satisfaction, which has
implications for attracting and maintaining audiences (Chung, 2008; Kim, 2009). More
important, the web’s participatory capacity offers users the chance to both provide, and
expose themselves to, alternative points of view (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). As such,
newspapers that treat readers as active participants rather than as consumers could be
contributing to Gans’ (2003) notion of “multiperspectival” journalism that approaches the
news from the bottom up, making a space for citizens’ voices to be heard, and,
ultimately, strengthening democracy.
Scholars long have acknowledged that democracy and a free press go hand in hand
(Dahl, 1998). The press has a responsibility to contribute to public discourse (Waisbord,
1996), and opening the gates to allow for online user participation is perhaps the 21st
century version of this duty. Ackerly (2003) noted that the Internet has been lauded for its
democratic potential, increasing access to information and supporting free speech.
In fact, some scholars view online media and the inclusion of diverse voices as
having the potential to strengthen freedom of the press in Latin America (Dizard, 2010;
Steenveld, 2004). Dizard (2010) noted that despite basic freedom of expression laws
established in most Latin American countries, violence against journalists, media
consolidation, government advertising, and poor wages for journalists are contributing to
a backslide in press freedom. Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect
Journalists, in a statement to the Committee on House Foreign Affairs in June 2010, said
that citizen journalists and bloggers have stepped up as a result of repression against the
press. As such, opening newspapers to allow citizens to actively participate in the news
11
process, and potentially act as “watchdogs,” could bolster both freedom of expression and
press freedom.
Thus, the final research question this study will address is:
RQ5: Is press freedom in a country related to a newspaper’s use of multi-media
and participatory content?
Methods
This study relies on a content analysis of 19 newspaper websites in Latin
America. This method allowed for a quantitative assessment of the multimedia,
interactive and participatory characteristics of the newspaper sites under study
(Neuendorf, 2002). Informed by the literature and in consideration of the wide array of
multimedia and participatory options, the authors specified three categories for this type
of content. “Multimedia” refers to content forms other than text, such as video and photo,
and diverse platforms for the newspaper content, such as mobile devices. “Interactive” is
the label encompassing features that allow users to be more than a receiver and become
disseminators of the newspaper content, such as by sharing a story via social media.
Finally, “participatory” are those features that let readers be active users and sources, to
the extent that they can give their input about the medium and its stories, like submitting
a citizen report.
Flagship newspapers were chosen in each country: Clarín (Argentina), La Razón
(Bolivia), Folha de S. Paulo (Brazil), El Mercurio (Chile), El Tiempo (Colombia), La
Nación (Costa Rica), Granma (Cuba), Listín Diario (Dominican Republic), El Universo
(Ecuador), Prensa Gráfica (El Salvador), Prensa Libre (Guatemala), La Prensa
(Honduras), El Universal (Mexico), El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua), La Prensa (Panama),

12
ABC Color (Paraguay), El Comercio (Peru), El País (Uruguay), and El Universal
(Venezuela). While one newspaper cannot alone account for the prevalence of
multimedia and participatory features in any country’s media industry, the chosen
newspapers —the most prominent and in most cases the ones with the highest circulation
numbers in each country (see Maddux, 2009)— have the financial and journalistic means
to adopt new technologies and interactive features.
Given the cyclic variation of newspapers, the researchers chose to analyze a
week’s worth of content and selected one week in December to pool the data needed for
the analysis. Starting on Dec. 9, 2010, and for the next six days, the researchers visited
each newspaper website and saved a copy of the homepages at the end of the day in each
of the 19 countries, for a total of 132 files (Cuba’s Granma did not have a Sunday
edition). Both researchers, who are fluent in Spanish and Portuguese, then coded for the
presence of 14 web features (yes=1; no=0) on each newspaper’s homepage. These
features were multimedia (i.e., versions for mobile devices, a digital copy of the day’s
print newspaper, blogs, RSS feeds, Twitter profile, Facebook page or similar, YouTube
account, and video features), interactive (most popular/most read stories feature, and
search function), and participatory (reporting errors feature, information to contact the
editors/reporters, forums/chat rooms, and reader input via polls or citizen reports).
Besides looking at the homepage overall, the coding scheme also called for an
analysis of each article posted by 6 p.m. on the homepage that had a photo or some text
accompanying the headline. These stories were selected because the inclusion of photo or
text with the headline was an indication that these were the stories deemed most
important by the newspaper’s gatekeepers. If the story led to an external domain (e.g., a
13
different URL), it was excluded. This approach yielded 2,304 stories, coded for story
topic, byline, and the inclusion of another set of web features. The multimedia features
were in-story hyperlinks (any link within the story text), external links (leading readers to
pages with a different URL outside of the newspaper), links to related stories (labeled as
such and apart from the story text), links to other articles by the same author, links to
blogs, story tags, photos, videos, slide shows, audio clips or podcasts, and info-graphics.
Regarding interactive features, the coding checked for the option to share the story via
any social network, the possibility of sharing via email, a story-printing option and the
Facebook “like” button. Participatory features coded were reader’s comments, the
author’s email or contact information, the option to submit corrections to the story,
forums or chat rooms (e.g., inviting readers to discuss the story), uploading one’s own
photos/videos/audio, and editing options (i.e, the user could correct or update
information, or add links to an existing story). Additionally, the coders counted the
number of in-story links and related stories in each article.
Preliminary intercoder reliability analyses led the researchers to amend some of
the coding instructions. After that, reliabilities as Cohen’s kappa showed high agreement
between both coders and ranged between .81 and 1.0 1
After all the material was gathered, the data was processed using frequencies,
cross-tabulations and other appropriate statistics to answer the research questions.
Specifically for RQ3, the country’s level of development was measured as the Human
Development Index reported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in
1
The reliabilities were the following: Story topic: .81; byline: .99; in-story hyperlinks: .99; links to related
stories: .99; links to other articles by the same author: 99; number of in-story links: .95; number links of
related stories: .99; photos: .98; source of video: .93; audio: .98; Facebook “I like” button: .97; email to the
author: 99; and readers’ comments: .99. All the other variables, including all of those related to the
newspapers’ homepages, had a 1.0 coefficient.
14
20102. For RQ4, the numbers for Internet penetration rate in each country came from the
Internet World Stats website (www.InternetWorldStats.com), and for RQ5 the authors
used Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press 2010 ranking. All web features in the
newspaper homepages and each of the individual stories were added and then averaged
into an index in a weighted manner to compute a score of multimedia, interactive and
participatory features present in the homepages and each of the analyzed stories. This
way, a score of 1 represents a newspaper that included all of the homepage features and
all the story features in every article, and a score of zero means that none of these web
features were present. Each newspaper was ranked according to these scores.
Results
In answering RQ1, all of the newspapers analyzed include some kind of
multimedia, interactive and participatory features, although to a varying degree. All of
the newspapers had RSS feeds and included a digital copy of the print version of the
paper, whereas 12 of them (63.2%) had an edition for mobile devices, and only one
newspaper, Brazil’s Folha de São Paulo, had a direct link on its home page to report
errors. Similarly, five newspapers did not include in-story links and less than a fifth of the
stories analyzed (17.6%) listed the author’s email or contact information.
The most popular multimedia features in these newspapers’ websites — in
addition to RSS feeds and a digital version of the paper — were Twitter and Facebook
profiles, as all but one (Nicaragua’s El Nuevo Diario) included these.3 Conversely, only
Guatemala’s Prensa Libre and Venezuela’s El Universal (i.e, 10.5% of the newspapers)
2
The UNDP’s Human Development index does not include Cuba, so this country was excluded in that
particular analysis.
3
In January 2011, El Nuevo Diario revamped its website, which now includes several new web features.
15
listed a You Tube account, although 16 newspapers (84.2%) had a video section in the
homepage. A total of 14 newspapers (73.7%) presented links to blogs.
At the story-level, photos were the most common multimedia feature (70.3%).
Hyperlinking in general was less frequent, as less than a fifth of the stories (17.4%)
included an internal link and less than a tenth (8.4%) linked to external sources. Stories
about arts and entertainment were more likely to have links. Almost 39% listed links to
related stories and 31.3% included story tags. Less common were the inclusion of
slideshows (9%), audio (8.5%), video (6.8%), and podcasts (6.6%) —the latter
exclusively in Uruguay’s El País. Almost 40% of the videos were produced by the
newspaper itself, and another 39% came from wire services or television networks. Info-
graphics were almost non-existent, and appeared in less than 3% of the stories. Stories
about arts and entertainment, and stories about sports were more likely to include photos,
videos and slideshows, while audio was more prevalent in stories dealing with politics,
crime, and education.
Regarding the interactive features in the homepages, all of the newspapers
included a search feature, and all but two (89.5%) included a most popular/most read
stories feature. Similarly, almost all of the stories offered the possibility to share it via
social media (98.4%) or email (97.1%), and included a story-printing option (e.g., an
icon; 98.5). The Facebook “like” button was present in less than half of the stories (45%).
The participatory features also varied throughout the papers. A total of 18
newspapers (94.7%) offered information for the users to contact the website personnel,
and seven out of the 19 newspapers (36.8%) offered readers a discussion platform like
16
forums and chat rooms. User participation also was solicited in citizen reports and polls
in 15 of these newspapers’ homepages (78.9%).
An analysis at the story-level offers a similar scenario. Overall, readers’
comments were allowed in 72.3% of stories, but this feature varied considerably among
newspapers. For instance, none of Cuba’s Granma stories allowed comments, whereas
Argentina’s Clarín and Guatemala’s Prensa Libre had this feature in only some of the
stories. Every story in Costa Rica’s La Nación and Brazil’s Folha de São Paulo, on the
other hand, allowed readers to post comments. In addition, less than a third of the stories
(29.3%) let readers submit corrections and almost 8% invited readers to discuss the story
in a forum or chat room. In no case could users edit, correct, or add to the stories
themselves.
In answer to RQ2, which questioned which newspapers offer more multimedia and
interactive elements, analysis shows that the online version of Colombia’s El Tiempo
provided the most web features (multimedia, interactive, and participatory) according to
an overall combined index. Brazil came in second, followed by Venezuela’s El Universal
(see Table 1). Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Cuba comprised the bottom three. Peru’s El
Comercio topped the index for basic multimedia elements, Paraguay’s ABC Color led the
interactivity index, and Colombia’s El Tiempo scored highest on the participatory index.
17
Table N° 1
Percentage of web features in Latin American newspaper homepages and web
stories
Multimedia Interactive Participatory Overall Web

Newspaper
Features Features Features Features
Argentina’s Clarín 54.6% 88.9% 28.8% 53.3%
Bolivia’s La Razón 41.7% 87.5% 47.5% 51.0%
Brazil’s Folha de Sao
53.1% 100.0% 57.6% 62.0%
Paulo
Chile’s El Mercurio 54.4% 88.4% 26.6% 52.6%
Colombia’s El Tiempo 54.9% 99.6% 58.7% 63.2%
Costa Rica’s La Nación 43.5% 87.5% 43.3% 50.3%
Cuba’s Granma 28.0% 37.5% 12.5% 25.4%
Dominican Republic’s
48.1% 87.5% 35.6% 51.2%
Listín Diario
Ecuador’s El Universo 31.4% 87.6% 35.4% 41.5%
El Salvador’s La
47.8% 75.0% 47.9% 53.4%
Prensa Gráfica
Guatemala’s Prensa
45.5% 100.0% 30.2% 50.7%
Libre
Honduras’s La Prensa 55.1% 82.4% 30.2% 52.0%
Mexico’s El Universal 57.5% 87.5% 48.9% 59.9%
Nicaragua’ El Nuevo
21.8% 100.0% 35.1% 38.5%
Diario
Panama’s La Prensa 34.9% 87.5% 43.5% 45.6%
Paraguay’s ABC Color 44.3% 100.0% 45.9% 53.8%
Peru’s El Comercio 62.3% 87.5% 35.0% 58.5%
Uruguay’s El País 56.3% 99.9% 42.5% 59.2%
Venezuela’s El
53% 99.7% 47.7% 59.9%
Universal
Note: Cell entries are the average percentage of homepage and story-level web features for each
newspaper. For example, a score of 100 indicates that all the features included in that index were present in
the homepage and every story.
When looking only at the interactive elements available in individual stories, the
following newspapers had significantly more stories offering a Facebook “like” button:
Brazil’s Folha de São Paulo, El Salvador’s Prensa Grafica, Guatemala’s Prensa Libre,
Nicaragua’s El Nuevo Diario, Paraguay’s ABC Color, Uruguay’s El País and
Venezuela’s El Universal (X2 = 2078.64, df = 18, p < .001).

18
The sampled newspapers from Boliva, Brazil, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela had significantly
more stories that allowed readers to post a comment (X2 = 1796.85, df = 18, p < .001).
Uruguay’s El País (100%) also included significantly more stories that were
accompanied by forums or chat rooms (X2 = 2036.09, df = 18, p < .001).
Honduras’ La Prensa (100%) published significantly more articles that included
email contacts for reporters (X2 = 1451.93, df = 18, p < .001). The sampled newspapers in
Ecuador (100%), Paraguay (100%) and Uruguay (100%) included significantly more
stories that allowed readers to directly report newspaper errors or corrections (X2 =
2289.76, df = 18, p < .001).
Peru’s El Comercio (97%) published significantly more articles that included
hyper-linked text within the body of a story (X2 = 857.5, df = 18, p < .001), and that
linked to sources outside the newspaper (28%, X2 = 232.16, df = 18, p < .001). La Prensa
in Honduras (100%) ran significantly more stories that included links to related articles
(28%, X2 = 1121.12, df = 18, p < .001). Significantly more articles from Peru’s El
Comercio (100%) and Uruguay’s El País (100%) included tags (X2 = 1873.16, df = 18, p
< .001).
ABC Color in Paraguay (95%) published significantly more stories with photos (X2
= 204, df = 18, p < .001), and La Prensa in Honduras (25%) published significantly more
articles with slideshows (X2 = 148.5, df = 18, p < .001). Significantly more stories in El
Comercio in Peru (36%) included videos (X2 = 264.26, df = 18, p < .001), and the
Dominican Republic’s Listín Diario (100%) and Honduras’ La Prensa (100%) produced
significantly more of those videos themselves (X2 = 155.76, df = 42, p < .001). Uruguay’s
19
El País (100%) published significantly more audio clips with stories (X2 = 1763, df = 18,
p < .001). El Universal in Mexico (13%) published significantly more info-graphics with
its reports (X2 = 128.97, df = 18, p < .001).
Answering RQ3, which queried whether the development level of a country is
related to a newspaper’s use of multi-media and participatory content, analysis showed
that rank-order correlations between a country’s UNDP rate and a newspaper’s use of
basic multimedia elements were non-significant (rs = .40; n.s.). Similarly, results were
not significant for interactive features (rs = -.12; n.s.), participatory features (rs = -.07;
n.s.), or the combined index with all web features (rs = .08; n.s.).
For RQ4, analyzing whether a country’s Internet penetration rate is related to a
newspaper’s web content, findings show significant rank-order correlations between each
country’s Internet penetration rate and newspaper’s use of multimedia elements
significant (rs = .52, p < .05), and between the Internet rate and the combined index of all
of a newspaper’s web features (rs = .50, p < .05). Again, however, results were not
significant for interactive features (rs = .24; n.s.) or participatory features (rs = .12; n.s.).
In answer to RQ5, whether press freedom was related to web content, the rank-
order correlations were non-significant and with coefficients close to zero, showing no
relationship. This was the case for multimedia features (rs = .03; n.s.), the interactive
features (rs = -.06; n.s.), and the participatory features (rs = .03; n.s.), as well as a
combined index with all web features (rs = -.06; n.s.).
Discussion and Conclusions
This content analysis of 19 online newspapers from throughout Latin America
demonstrates that in general, newspapers include basic multimedia elements, but they are
20
slow to adopt more interactive and participatory features. Almost all newspapers
encouraged users to share their stories, offering multimedia elements that facilitated
dissemination, whether through RSS feeds, social media buttons or the ability send a
story via email. However, when it came to actually soliciting input from readers, instead
of just allowing them to share the content, newspapers in general were more reticent.
While three-fourths of newspaper stories included a space for reader comments, the
ability to give feedback by contacting reporters or reporting errors was almost non-
existent. Not a single newspaper allowed readers to edit stories or upload their own
content directly.
Few newspapers took advantage of the multimedia and interactive potential of the
Internet, as content mostly mirrored what would be found in a traditional print
newspaper. For example, photos – a mainstay of non-textual content – were published
alongside most stories, but videos, audio clips, slideshows, and info-graphics were
included less than 10 percent of the time. Further, less than a fifth of newspaper articles
included links within the text of the story, and less than half included links to related
stories, all of which indicates that these newspapers in Latin America still are following a
print-first mentality, adapting the new technologies to fit with old practices, rather than
embracing their potential for greater reader participation.
Newspapers in South America came out on top in terms of providing the most
web features, with South American countries rounding out the top five in the overall
combined index of web features. Countries in South America also comprised the top five
in the multimedia index and the participatory index. The Central American countries of
21
Guatemala and Nicaragua, however, made an appearance in the top five newspapers in
the interactive index.
Development and press freedom were not significantly correlated with any of the
indices, which arguably could hint at the idea that there are more macro and micro factors
at play. Just as development throughout Latin America, and even within countries, is
uneven, so too are the resources available to newspapers that would allow them to make
the most of new technologies. As such, it makes sense that results showed no significant
relationship between development and a newspaper’s use of web features, but a
significant correlation existed between Internet penetration rates and a newspaper’s use
of multimedia features. Such a finding reinforces the idea that newspapers are cognizant
of the digital divide, offering only those multimedia elements they believe their audiences
will be able to take advantage of. For example, in Cuba, where communications
technologies are severely lacking and few citizens have Internet access, the newspaper
Granma includes few web elements. Similarly, La Razón, the newspaper studied in
Bolivia, a resource-poor country with little Internet access, also offers little in the way of
multimedia or interactivity. In contrast, in a country like Uruguay, which has one of the
highest Internet penetration rates in Latin America, the newspaper El País provided a
downloadable podcast of every single story. As such, these Latin American newspapers
seem to be responding to the realities of digital exclusion in their respective countries,
offering web features according to availability of digital resources. Further illustrating
this concept is the way newspapers, when they did offer video, relied heavily on ready-
made YouTube videos or those from other networks, rather than spending the resources
to produce their own.

22
Thus, while a newspaper’s use of multimedia web features has less to do with
development and press freedom than with Internet penetration rates and technological
resources available, these findings are important for offering insight into the crossroads
between print and digital journalism in a region largely ignored in scholarly research.
Findings indicate that while these newspapers in Latin America are willing to incorporate
new technologies on a most basic level, they still have not adjusted their news routines to
make the most of the ever-expanding digital toolbox. As such, findings seem to suggest
that newspapers are adapting technologies to fit traditional print practices, rather than
evolving to better fit within a digital realm. Additionally, newspapers seem to be limiting
what web features they do offer to those that allow users to interact only on a superficial
basis. While readers can share stories via Facebook, Twitter or email, there is little
opportunity for them to have any significant input, again demonstrating the newspapers’
adherence to the standard one-way, top-down approach to news reporting. Thus, these
Latin American newspapers are in essence unlocking the gates, but keeping them mostly
closed.
In an era dominated by social media and blogs, with newspapers struggling to
maintain readers and advertising, these Latin American newspapers that are failing to
offer truly participatory content are perhaps hurting themselves by keeping readers at
bay. As studies suggest the possibility that including interactive elements can positively
benefit newspapers, these Latin American publications may be missing out on readers
and advertising. As such, these newspapers should perhaps consider ways to bring more
citizen voices into the online newsroom, promoting two-way, bottom-up engagement
with readers. Such inclusion of citizen voices could allow for diverse, alternative views to
23
gain prominence, perhaps ultimately strengthening democratic debate and thus
democracy itself.
This study is limited as it includes just one newspaper from each country, and
uses only one week of content. Nevertheless, such research is important as it provides a
thorough account of web content at flagship newspapers in a developmentally and
culturally distinct region outside of traditional communication research.
Moving forward, similar research into online journalism practices in digitally
diverse countries should continue. For example, future studies should consider increasing
the sample size to include more media and more countries. Also, qualitative research,
such as interviews, could tap into newsroom practices, editorial policies, and the
gatekeeping decisions made as to which stories get which multimedia elements, and how
newspapers decide the extent of user participation that they will allow.
As this study indicates, these Latin American newspapers in general have made
just slight incursions into an era of Web 2.0, characterized by its interactivity and user
participation. Their limited strides suggest the digital divide plays a role in the extent of
web features a newspaper offers. Until digital access and know-how become more
widespread, then, newspapers might not find it worthwhile in a cost-benefit analysis to
provide multimedia content or open the gates of the newspaper to allow participation
from users who might never even log onto a newspaper’s website. Thus, newspapers are
faced with the challenge of deciding whether they are willing to forego their traditional
role as gatekeepers and fully embrace the interactive potential of the Internet, or whether
they will remain static, clinging to traditional print practices and philosophies in a digital
world.
24
References
Ackerly, B.A. (2003). Lessons from deliberative democratic theory for global civil society
building.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Philadelphia, PA., 28-31 August.
Black, J. (Ed.). (1997). Mixed News: The Public/Civic/Communitarian Journalism

Debate. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Boczkowski, P. J. (2004), Digitizing the news: Innovations in online newspapers.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Bonfadelli, H. (2002). The Internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical and empirical
investigation. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 65-84.
Bowman, S. and Willis, C. (2003). We media: How audiences are shaping the future of
news and information. Retrieved from February 22, 2011 from
http://www.hypergene.net/ wemedia/download/we_media.pdf
Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. New York :
Peter Lang Publishing.
Burns, A. (2010). Oblique strategies for ambient journalism. Journal of Media and
Culture, 13(2), 1-11.
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business and
society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chung, D. S. (2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and
predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13, 658-679.
Dahl, R. (1998). On democracy. New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press.
Dalrymple, Kajsa E. & Scheufele, Dietram A. (2007). Finally informing the electorate?
How the Internet got people thinking about presidential politics in 2004. The
Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(3), 96-111.
Deuze, M. (2003). The Web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of
different types of news media online. New Media & Society, 5(2), 203-230.
Deuze, M., Bruns, A., & Neuberger, C. (2007). Preparing for an age of participatory
news. Journalism Practice 1(3), 322-338.
de Vreese, C.H. (2007). Digital Renaissance: Young consumer and citizen? The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 207-216.
Diani, M. (2000). Social movement networks virtual and real. Information,

Communication & Society, 3(3), 386-401.
25
Dizard, J. (2010). Fragile Progress, Rising Threats. Harvard International Review, 32(3),
58.
Domingo, D., Quantdt, T., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Singer, J.B., & Vujnovic, M.
(2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond. Journalism
Practice, 2(3), 326-342.
Eveland, Jr. William P., Marton, Krisztina & Seo, Mihye (2004). Moving beyond “Just
the Facts”: The influence of online news on the content and structure of public
affairs knowledge. Communication Research, 31(1), 82-108.
Fuchs, C. (2009). The role of income inequality in a multivariate cross-national analysis
of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 41-58.
Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Americano (2011, March 10). Sondeo de tendencias de los
emprendimientos periodísticos digitales en América Latina. Retrieved March 14
from http://www.fnpi.org/noticias/noticia/articulo/-7556b0a6d3/
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly
News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gans, H. J. (2003). Democracy and the news. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gieber, W. & Johnson,W. (1961). The City Hall Beat: A Study of Reporter and Source
Roles. Journalism Quarterly, 38, 289-297.
Goldstein, R. (2007). Contributing to socially relevant public policies on e-governance:
The case of the genesis of the communes in Buenos Aires City. In M. Gascó-
Hernández (Ed.), Latin America online: Cases, successes and pitfalls (pp. 277-
318). Hershey, PA: IRM Press.
Hawkins, E., & Hawkins, K. A. (2003). Bridging Latin America's digital divide:
Government policies and Internet access. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 80(3), 646-665.
Hayes, A.S., Singer, J.B., & Ceppos, J. (2007). Shifting roles, enduring values: The
credible journalist in a digital age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, (22)4, 262-279.
Hermida, A. (2010a). From TV to Twitter: how ambient news became ambient
journalism. Journal of Media and Culture, 13(2), 1-10.
Hermida, A. (2010b). Twittering the news: the emergence of ambient journalism.
Journalism Practice, First published on: March 11, 2010 (iFirst).
Hermida, A. & Thurman, N. (2008). A clash of cultures: The integration of user-
generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British
newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 343-356.
Hilbert, M. (2010). When is cheap, cheap enough to bridge the digital divide? Modeling
income related structural challenges of technology diffusion in Latin America.
26
World Development, (38)5, 756-770.

Hughes, S., & Lawson, C. (2005). The barriers to media opening in Latin America.
Political Communication, 22, 9-25.
Jaaniste, L. O. (2010). The ambience of ambience. Journal of Media and Culture, 13(2),
1-7.
Jarvis, J. (2006). Networked Journalism. Buzzmachine. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/07/05/networked-journalism/
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York:
NYU Press.
Kellner, D. M. (2000). Habermas, the public sphere and democracy: A critical
intervention. In L. Hahn (Ed.), Perspectives on Habermas (pp. 259-287). Peru,
Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co.
Kim, D. (2009, August). Interacting is believing? Examining bottom-up credibility
among politically interested Internet users. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Boston, MA.
Kim, S. (2008). Testing the Knowledge Gap Hypothesis in South Korea: Traditional
News Media, the Internet, and Political Learning. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research, (20)2, 193-210.
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople
Should Know and The Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Lasica, J.D. (2003) ‘‘What Is Participatory Journalism’’, Online Journalism Review, 7
August. Retrieved December 5, 2010 from
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php
Maddux, S. (ed., 2009). Editor & Publisher International Year Book 2009. New York:
Editor & Publisher Company.
Maeso, O., & Hilbert, M. (2006). Centros de acceso público a las tecnologías de
información y comunicación en América Latina: Características y desafíos.
United Nations, Santiago, Chile: United Nations ECLAC, Information Society
Programme. Retrieved March 13, 2011 from http://www.cepal.org/cgi-
bin/getProd.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/3/26273/P26273.xml&xsl=/ddpe/tpl/p9f
.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bottom.xsl
McAdams, M. (1995). Inventing on online newspaper. Interpersonal Computing and
Technology, 3(3), 64-90.
McKenna, K.Y.A. & Bargh, J.A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implication of the
Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 57-75.
27
McMillan, Sally J. & Hwang, Jang-Sun (2002). Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An

Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time
in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29-42.
Newhagen, J. N., & Bucy, E. P. (2004). Routes to media access. In E. P. Bucy & J. N.
Newhagen (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new
technology use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Outing, S. (2005). The 11 layers of citizen journalism. Poynter Online. Retrieved March
11, 2011, from http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/69328/the-11-layers-of-
citizen-journalism/
Paterson, C., & Domingo, D. (2008). Making online news: The ethnography of new
media production. New York: Peter Lang. Ribeiro, G. L. (1998). Cybercultural
politics: Political activism at a distance in a transnational world. In S. E. Alvarez,
E. Dagnino & A. Escobar (Eds.), Cultures of politics, politics of cultures: Re-
visioning Latin American social movements (pp. 325-352). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Rosen, J. (2008). A most useful definition of citizen journalism. PressThink, Retrieved
March 13, 2011, from
http://archive.pressthink.org/2008/07/14/a_most_useful_d.html
Shoemaker, P. (1991). Gatekeeping. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Shoemaker, P.J., Eichholz, M., Kim, E., & Wrigley, B. (2001). Individual and routine
forces in gatekeeping. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 233-
246.
Shoemaker, P.J. & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on
mass media content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Shoemaker, P.J. & Voz, T.P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.
Singer, J.B. (2005). The political J-blogger: ‘Normalizing’ a new media form to fit old
norms and practices. Journalism, 6(2), 173-198.
Steenveld, L. (2004). Transforming the media: A cultural approach. Critical Arts: A
South-North Journal of Cultural and Media Studies, 18(1), 92-115.
Thurman, N. (2008). Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content
initiatives by online news media. New Media & Society, 10(1), 139-157.
Thurman, N., & Lupton, B. (2008). Convergence calls: Multimedia storytelling at British
news websites. Convergence: The Journal of Research Into New Media
Technologies, 14(4), 439-455.
White, D.M. (1950). The gatekeeper: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism
Quarterly, 27, 383-396.
28
Vujnovic, M., Singer, J. B., Paulussen, S., Heinonen, A., Reich, Z., Quandt, T., et al.
(2010). Exploring the political-economic factors of participatory journalism:
Views of online journalists in 10 countries. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 285-296.
Waisbord, S. R. (1996). Investigative journalism and political accountability in South
American democracies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 13, 343-363.
Williams, A., Wardle, C., & Wahl-Jorgensen. (2010). Have they got news for us? .
Journalism Practice, iFirst, 1-15.
Witt, L. (2004, May 13). Jimmy Breslin on the end of the gatekeepers. PJNet Today.
Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://pjnet.org/post/162/
Zeng, Q. & Li, X. (2006). Factors influencing interactivity of Internet newspapers: A
content analysis of 106 U.S. newspapers’ web sites. In Xigen Li (ed.), Internet
newspapers: The making of a mainstream medium. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Zúñiga, D., and Duque, A. (2009). Interactive tools in two Colombian daily papers. Signo
y Pensamiento, 54(28), 330-340.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
Love it or leave it? The relationship between polarization and

credibility of traditional and partisan media
Kang Hui Baek

Doctoral Student
University of Texas at Austin
khbaek@mail.utexas.edu
Mark Coddington
Masters Student
markcoddington@gmail.com
Maegan Stephens
Doctoral Student
maegan@mail.utexas.edu
Larissa Williams
Masters Student
larissa.c.williams@gmail.com
Thomas J. Johnson
Amon G. Carter, Jr. Centennial Professor
tom.johnson@austin.utexas.edu
Jennifer Brundidge
Assistant Professor
Radio, Television, Film Department
jbrundidge@mail.utexas.edu
Paper presented at the International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX, April 2011
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
Love it or leave it? The relationship between polarization and credibility of

traditional and partisan media
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between credibility and polarization for balanced versus
partisan news sources. As credibility in news has been linked to news media use, and political
polarization seems to be on the rise, this analysis of which types of news sources (balanced or
partisan) relate to credibility perceptions and polarization scores reveals important information
about the news credibility puzzle. A secondary analysis of NAES 2008 data reveals that the
findings are not cut and dry. The less respondents believed information from MSNBC, the more
likely they were to have polarized views; the same was not true for those believing Fox News.
Additionally, those who expressed less believability in the information from the New York
Times, CNN, and broadcast television news were more likely to have polarized views.
Implications and directions of future research are discussion.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
Love it or leave it? The relationship between polarization and credibility of

traditional and partisan media
Media organizations, in the face of competition from blogs, online news sites, and
partisan cable shows, have argued that traditional media and their online counterparts remain the
most valuable source of information because facts are gathered using established ethical
standards and they are more accurate and believable than their partisan competition (Aeikens,
2009). But credibility judgments may play an even more important role in the political process
as evidence suggests that while partisan sources contribute to political polarization, mainstream
sources that strive for fair and balanced coverage do not lead to increased political partisanship
(Metzger, Flanagin, Lemus, & McCann, 2003). As audience members increasingly seek their
news from partisan sources such as MSNBC and Fox and abandon more balanced sources like
national newspapers and broadcast news (Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2009), credibility
of these more partisan sources might help explained the increased polarization of the American
electorate.
Studies indicate several links between credibility, selective exposure and political
partisanship. Those who spend more time with partisan sources of information such as blogs and
cable news are more likely to practice selective exposure than those who use more mainstream
sources such as newspapers and broadcast news (Best, Chmielewski, & Krueger, 2005; Johnson
Bichard & Zhang, 2009; Johnson, Zhang & Bichard, in press; Stroud, 2006, 2008, 2010). People
perceive information that supports their point of view as more credible than contradictory
information because such information is seen as much more convincing and therefore more
legitimate ( 2005; Miller, McHoskey, Bane, & Dowd, 1993; Nimmo 1990). Also, the more
people seek out information that supports their political views, the more likely individuals will
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
take more extreme stands on issues (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009; Meffert, Chung, Joiner, Waks, &
Garst, 2006; Stroud, 2010; Sunstein, 2001; Prior, 2002). Therefore some scholars argue that the
more individuals spend time with a source the more credible they will perceive it (Melican &
Dixon, 2008; Wanta & Hu, 1994) and the sources people judge most credible are ones that
present information that they judge as more agreeable. The more people seek out information
that supports their political positions, the more they are practicing selective exposure (Garrett,
2009). The more that remain in contact with likeminded individuals the more likely they will
hold more extreme polarizing views. The opposite could also hold true: Those who hold more
extreme views will seek out likeminded information, which they judge as more credible.
However, when Stroud (2010) examined the relationship between selective exposure and
polarization she found more support for the position that selective exposure motivated
polarization than vice versa.
On the individual level, increased political polarization leads to people being more likely
to hold extreme views and to express less tolerance of opposing opinions (Mutz, 2002). On a
societal level, political polarization means a more fragmented society with people holding fewer
beliefs in common. As the public’s views become more polarized it becomes more difficult for
politicians to legislate as different sides of the argument cling more strongly to their opposing
positions (Stroud, 2008).
But while studies have found links between credibility and selective exposure and
between selective exposure and polarization, no study could be found that has examined whether
credibility influences political polarization and conversely, whether political polarization
influences credibility of various information sources. Studying the link between credibility and
political polarization is important because studies suggest people do not seek sources they don’t
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
perceive as credible (Johnson & Kaye, 1998, 2002, 2010). This study employs a secondary
analysis of National Annenberg Election Survey data during the 2008 presidential primaries to
determine if believability of selected sources will link to polarized political attitudes, or whether
polarized attitudes will be related to credibility of both partisan and balanced sources. By
looking at perceptions of believability of specific information sources (i.e., New York Times,
Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and broadcast television news), this study
determines whether or not credibility in general relates to political polarization or whether the
phenomenon is limited to partisan sources of information.
Literature Review
Polarization
Polarization encompasses both a process and an attitudinal state; it is “the strengthening
of one’s original position or attitude” (Stroud, 2010) or rather “the circumstance in which
members of a group hold strong, or even extreme, and contrary attitudes about an issue” (Wanta,
Craft & Geana, 2005). Polarization is conceptualized across a duality of individual and group
opinion formation, where “an initial tendency of individual group members toward a given
direction is enhanced following group discussion” (Isenberg, 1986). Along with group
identification, perception of group opinion also plays an important role, where individual
opinions may become polarized to match perceived group opinions (Doise, 1969). The emphasis
on perception is important in the study of polarization, where there is ongoing debate as to the
level of political polarization in both American politics and the American psyche.
Are we a polarized nation? There is less disagreement concerning the increase in
polarization of media pundits as well as “political elites” over the past few decades (Fiorina,
Abrams, & Pope, 2005; Jacobson, 2003; Stroud, 2010). More problematic is the discussion
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
concerning the public at large; here, academics are decidedly split (Nivola & Brady, 2006).
There is evidence that certain issues have a higher potential for polarization (e.g. abortion)
leading to increased polarization among certain subsets of the population (Evans, 2002). Some
describe the current climate as a “culture war” (Fiorina, 2004), or the as the “red state, blue state
theory of polarization” (Samuelson, 2004) that has Americans thriving on different ends of the
political spectrum. Other times, scholars have noted that conceptualizing America as
fundamentally polarized is “overstated” (Fiorina & Bradburn, 2005; Mouw & Sobel, 2001;
Wanta, et al., 2005)
There is also evidence to suggest that specific news sources are related to polarization,
where traditional media use was positively related to political polarization while Internet use was
negatively related (Wanta & Craft, 2004). However, individual political ideology acted as an
intervening variable, where high Internet use conservatives were less polarized and high Internet
use liberals were more polarized. On the other hand, when Wanta (2008) compared Fox News
viewers with all other media users he found that the Fox News viewers were much more
polarized in their beliefs.
One element is not in debate is that the American media diet has become highly
customizable with the vast number of choices for news and entertainment. Scholars recognize the
positive and negative effects of the shift from a “low-choice” to a “high-choice” media
environment, specifically to democracy (Hollander, 2008; Prior, 2005). Some argue that
increased choice has led to increased political involvement while others argue the opposite;
increased options lead to channel surfing and less “chance” exposure to news content and thus
less political knowledge (see Neuman, 1996).

!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
There needs to be more research conducted into the relationship between selective
exposure to such diverse options of information and polarization of attitudes. “Afterall, the
media are the primary way in which elite opinions are transmitted to the public” (Stroud, 2010).
The relationship between attitude change, selective exposure, and polarization remains
complicated and unsolidified. Some researchers, such as Mutz (2006), noted that the
consequences of selective exposure to polarization are not yet well documented. Additionally,
Feldman (2009) found no evidence that opinionated news increased attitude differences among
opposing groups when compared to non-opinionated news. However, in 2010, Stroud found
strong evidence that partisan selective exposure is related to polarization, though there is
conflicting evidence as to whether polarization leads to selective exposure or if the reverse causal
relationship is true. Given the complexity of interactions, it is no wonder polarization continues
to inspire rigorous scholarly debate, particularly at the crossroads of the media audience and the
media makers.
Credibility and News Media
Initial credibility studies assessed the difference in the source of a message by conducting
experiments in which participants read a message that was attributed to one source or the other,
even though the message remained unchanged (e.g., Hovland & Weiss, 1951). As the 1950s
progressed and moved into the 1960s, medium credibility studies assessing the credibility
differences between the newspaper and television entered the scene (e.g., Westley & Severin,
1964). Credibility research slowed until the Internet emerged as a news medium. Determining
credibility was straightforward in the early days of the Internet when news websites could be
largely divided into professional ones provided by traditional media versus personal ones created
by individuals. Online versions of traditional media were judged at least as credible as their
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
traditional media counterpart (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000, 2007; Johnson & Kaye, 1998, 2000,
2009). Objectivity was considered a major factor in judging credibility of a source (Best, et al.,
2005; Finberg & Stone, 2002) and online versions of traditional media benefitted from a halo
effect in which credibility of the traditional sources such as the New York Times was
automatically transferred to its online counterpart (Finberg & Stone, 2002; Johnson & Fahmy,
2009). It wasn’t long before the distinction regarding what counted as credible news online
became blurred.
Web 2.0 offered citizens the opportunity to integrate their own voice into the news media,
collaborate with others to create news, and to critique traditional journalism via comment
sections and blog postings. The ability to “talk back” to the news media was never as available to
the general public as it was once internet interactivity increased. Not only did citizen
involvement change news online, alternative news from such sources as The Huffington Post and
The Drudge Report began popping up. The rise of alternative news forms impacted credibility in
two ways: first, journalists and reporters working for alternative sources voiced more criticism of
the mainstream media than these traditional mediums had ever done of themselves (Center for a
Digital Future, 2008; Rainie & Horrigan, 2007; Singer, 2006); and second, stories that the
mainstream news did not cover would often appear on alternative websites and blogs (Johnson &
Kaye, 2009; Kaye & Johnson, 2004; Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010). Perhaps not surprisingly,
citizen’s distrust in the news media is at an all-time high (Gallup, 2010).
Credibility and Partisan Sources
Another consideration that comes into play in the evolving news environment is the role
of credibility and partisan sources versus non-partisan sources. The Internet provides the
opportunity for not only an increase in information but an increase in the partisan nature of that
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,%
information. Additionally, some cable news anchors, unlike most network news anchors, can and
do express their political preferences, both covertly and overtly. According to the Pew Research
Center for People and the Press’s most recent News Media Credibility study (2010), Fox News
was rated as the 5th most believable news outlet and MSNBC was the 8th. Historically-balanced
sources such as broadcast news and the New York Times were rated lower. Perhaps more
interesting is the partisan divide within the credibility ratings: Whereas 41% of Republican rated
Fox News as credible in 2010, only 21% of Democrats did. Additionally, the next Republican-
rated credible news source was the Wall Street Journal at 28%. With respect to MSNBC, 34% of
Democrats found it credible but only 13% of Republicans agreed. Democrats listed many other
sources as more credible than MSNBC.
Davis (1997) argued that viewers might judge partisan sources as more open about their
biases than traditional outlets who claim objectivity. Moreover, the sources that individuals
gauge as more credible are those that reinforce their political views as people perceive
information that supports their worldview as more legitimate and convincing than information
that challenges their views (Choi, Watt & Lynch, 2006; Taber & Lodge, 2006). While the
connection between partisan viewing and credibility is important, Johnson and Kaye (2009)
found that only extreme partisans who judged political blogs and websites as credible were more
likely to seek out information that supported their political views; those who saw online
broadcast news as credible were less likely to practice selective exposure and credibility of
online newspapers proved unrelated to selective exposure.
Time Spent with Media and Credibility
Probably the most consistent finding in the credibility literature is that how credible one
views a medium is strongly related to how often one spends time with it (Greenberg, 1966;
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Wanta & Hu, 1994; Westley & Severin, 1964), and that people judge their preferred medium as
the most credible (Carter & Greenberg, 1965). However, results are split on whether Internet use
predicts Internet credibility (Stavrositu & Sundar, 2006). Researchers have speculated that
Internet use might not be linked to credibility because users have become increasingly savvy and
vigilant about verifying information and are therefore better able to tell good sources from bad
(Center for the Digital Future, 2007; Flanagin & Metzger, 2000, 2007). Other studies suggest
Internet use might not be as strong as a predictor of online credibility as traditional news sources
because the Internet serves as a supplement rather than a replacement for traditional sources
(Johnson & Kaye, 2000, 2002; Lin, 2001; Johnson & Kaye, 2002; Kaye & Johnson, 2003) and
that people simply transfer their credibility judgments of traditional sources to their online
counterparts (Finberg & Stone, 2002; Johnson & Fahmy, 2009). More recent studies of the
Internet and its online counterparts have found that time spent with online media is a strong, if
not the strongest, predictor of online credibility (Banning & Trammell, 2006; Johnson & Kaye,
2004, 2009, 2010). As people increasingly depend on the Internet for news and information, they
develop a repertoire of sources they visit that they perceive as trustworthy (Johnson & Kaye,
2010). Also, researchers have developed more sophisticated measures for tapping Internet use,
focusing on Internet use for news and information rather than simply Internet use in general.
Using the Internet for entertainment has not proven a strong predictor of online credibility while
using the Internet for news and information more consistently relates to online credibility
(Stavrositu & Sundar, 2006).
Time spent with the Internet may prove to be an even stronger predictor of credibility for
partisan sources, such as MSNBC and Fox News, than mainstream media and their online
counterparts. Infrequent users of partisan sources such as cable news and blogs might be put off
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,,%
by this mediums slanted coverage and angry tone while heavy users may be attracted to them for
that very reason. Also, selective exposure studies indicate that people are more likely to seek out
content that supports their political dispositions for partisan sources such as cable news than
mainstream sources (Hollander, 2008; Stroud, 2010; Stroud & Lee, 2008; Wanta, Craft &
Mugur, 2009). Researchers have linked selective exposure to credibility, noting that consumers
search for information they find believable and trustworthy. They judge those sites that reinforce
their political views as more credible because supportive information is perceived as more
convincing and legitimate than contradictory information (Fischer, Jonas, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt,
2005; Miller McHoskey, Bane, & Dowd, 1993; Nimmo 1990; Stroud, 2010). Listeners and
viewers of conservative sources such as cable news and political talk radio may judge those
sources more credible than mainstream media because they do not share the belief systems,
values and ideologies of mainstream news media, believing that those who decide what to
include in newspapers and on TV news are out of touch with conservative values espoused in
cable television and talk radio (Christie, 2007). Indeed, studies find a huge partisan gulf between
conservatives and liberals in how they judge credibility of sources. This divide is not limited to
partisan sources such as MSNBC and Fox News, but also sources considered to be more
balanced such as the New York Times, CNN and broadcast news that are viewed as trustworthy
by liberals much more than conservatives (Jamieson, & Capella, 2009).
Time Spent with Media and Selective Exposure
The effects of the Internet use on selective exposure depend on what medium is examined.
Traditional news media and their online counterparts adhere to balance and objectivity, so time
spent with these media may be unrelated to selective exposure (Best, et al., 2005; Mutz &
Martin, 2001). Selective exposure may be more strongly linked to partisan sources such as
political Web sites or blogs because they are often limited to viewpoints that are in sync with the
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
user. For instance, the more individuals seek out blogs or political Web sites, the more likely
they will practice selective exposure (Johnson et al., 2009, 2011, in press).
Polarization and Political Measures/Demographics
Relatively little research has been conducted examining the direct relationship between
political measures and polarization, perhaps in part because polarization can in itself be
considered a political measure. Some studies have found that polarization tends to correspond
more closely with those who are politically involved (Chaffee & McLeod, 1973; Zaller, 1992)
and politically knowledgeable (Meffert, et al., 2006).
Numerous studies, however, have connected political measures to polarization through
the concept of selective exposure. Polarization and selective exposure have repeatedly been
found to be linked, though research has conflicted somewhat regarding the directions of and
reasons for that relationship. Several studies have suggested that polarization leads individuals to
seek out views that reinforce their own (Ziemke, 1980; Mutz & Martin, 2001; Taber & Lodge,
2006; Garrett, 2009; Johnson, Bichard, & Zhang, in press), and while Stroud (2010) found that
the relationship flowed from polarization to exposure, there was limited evidence of the reverse.
On the other hand, several other studies have found that selective exposure leads to polarization
(Lavine, Borgida, & Sullivan, 2000; Huckfeldt, Mendez, & Osborn, 2004; Jones, 2002). Taken
together, these two directional findings, as Stroud (2010) suggests, might be evidence of a spiral
effect. Lavine et al.’s (2000) finding in particular hints at this cycle in particular: They concluded
that those with high attitude involvement in an issue tend to seek out more like-minded political
information, which in turn solidifies their polarization on the issue. It is through this process that
selective exposure might act as an intermediary between political measures and polarization.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Stroud (2010) gives an example of such a process when she posits that those with more political
knowledge might be led to increasing polarization through selective exposure, because they are
more able to pick up on cues that indicate like-minded material.
Because of selective exposure’s intermediary role, the political measures that influence
selective exposure may also be helpful in determining influences on polarization. Iyengar and
Hahn (2009) found that selective exposure increased among the politically engaged and Stroud
(2008, 2010) has suggested that political interest might affect selective exposure through media
use, but Johnson et al. (in press) found no significant differences in selective exposure based on
political interest. Regarding differences between particular political ideologies in practicing
selective exposure, results have been inconclusive: Best, Chmielewski, and Krueger (2005)
found that Iraq War opponents were more likely to visit foreign Web sites, though for
confirmatory purposes, and Johnson, Bichard, and Zhang (2009) found liberals practiced more
selective exposure to blogs. But other studies have shown largely similar selective exposure
patterns between conservatives and liberals (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009; Johnson et al., in press).
Some research has looked at the demographic effects on polarization, though most of it
has been at a conceptual, or a macro-historical level. Stoker & Jennings (2008) have found that
age is a significant factor, as political positions stabilize in middle age and are influenced by
what issues were important when individuals came in adulthood. Others have suggested racial or
class- and economic-based reasons for polarization, positing that polarization has been
exacerbated through the normalization of certain types of whiteness (Olson, 2008) or by
widening income gaps (Bartels, 2006; McCarty, Poole, & Rosenthal, 2006), though these
hypotheses have not been tested at an individual level. Regarding selective exposure, studies
have found more evidence of selective exposure by younger individuals (Ziemke, 1980; Chaffee
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
and Miyo, 1983) and narrower selective exposure among women regarding foreign news sources
(Best et al., 2005). However, Stroud (2008) tested age and gender variables on selective exposure
with inconsistent results.
Based on the credibility, polarization, and selective exposure literature we pose the
following hypothesizes and research questions:
H1: Individuals who perceive partisan news sources (MSNBC and FOX) as credible will
be more polarized in their political attitudes, even after controlling for political and
demographic attitudes.
RQ1: Does perceived credibility of balanced sources (New York Times, Wall Street
Journal, CNN, and broadcast television news) link to increased or decreased levels of
political polarization after controlling for political and demographic attitudes?
RQ2: Do polarized political attitudes link to increased or decreased perceived credibility

of partisan sources (MSNBC and FOX) after controlling for political and demographic
attitudes as well as with time spent with media?
RQ3: Do polarized political attitudes link to increased or decreased perceived credibility

of balanced sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, and broadcast
television news) after controlling for political and demographic attitudes as well as with
time spent with media?
Methods
This study examining the link between credibility and polarization is based on a
secondary analysis of 2008 National Annenberg Election data taken from rolling cross-sectional
telephone (RCS) surveys during the 2008 presidential primaries, from Feb. 21, 2008 when
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were still locked in a heated battle for the Democratic
nomination until May 29, 2008 when Obama was close to securing the nomination. John McCain
was the clear leader of the Republican nomination during this time period.i A total of 16,305
respondents answered the survey. The response rate for the survey was 19% as calculated by the
Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Measurement
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Control variables
Demographics. The age of respondents was assessed with six age categories (18-24, 25-
34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and older; median=45-54). For gender, males (42.8%, n=2, 4791)
were coded as 1 and females (57.2%, n=3,3176) as 2. Education was measured by four
categories (less than high school, high school graduate, some college, higher the college degree;
median=higher the college degree). Race/ethnicity was measured by four categories (85.5 %
White/white Hispanic, 8.1% Black/African American/black Hispanic, 1.6% Hispanic/no race
given, and 4.8% other). For statistical purposes, race was coded with non-White equal to 1 and
White equal to 0. Income was assessed with nine categories (from less than $10,000 to $150,000
or more; median=$50,000 to less than $75,000).
Political orientations. Political ideology was measured with a 5-point scale ranging from
1=very conservative to 5=very liberal (M=2.8, SD=1.15). Partisanship was measured by
combining party leaning and party identification strength variables with a 4-point scale ranging
from 1=strong Republican to 4=strong Democrat (M=2.59, SD=1.24). Political interest was
measured by asking the question: How closely are you following/did you follow the 2008
presidential campaign on 4-point scale ranging from 1=very closely to 4=not closely at all?
(M=1.77, SD=0.81). For the political knowledge, index was created by summing four items
measuring general political knowledge (range=0-4, M=2.05, SD=1.02).
Independent variable
Believability. Believability of both balanced and partisan information sources was
measured by the question: How would you rate the believability of the New York Times on this
scale of 4 to 1 (where four means you can believe all or most of what the organization says, and
one means you believe almost nothing of what they say)? The same question was repeated for
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
other mainstream sources (Wall Street Journal, CNN and broadcast television news) as well as
the more partisan ones (MSNBC and Fox News). While credibility is often measured as a multi-
variable construct, believability is believed to be the most direct measure of credibility and
researchers often use credibility and believability interchangeably (Metzger, et al., 2003). The
means for each of believability are as follows: New York Times (M=2.51, SD=1.05), Wall Street
Journal (M=2.91, SD=.94), CNN (M=2.82, SD=.94), broadcast television news (M=2.71,
SD=.93), MSNBC (M=2.7, SD=.89), and Fox News (M=2.59, SD=1.02).
Time Spent with Sources. Time spent with sources was measured by asking respondents
how many days they discussed politics (M=3.72, SD=2.64), watched broadcast or cable
(M=5.47, SD=2.47), listened talk radio (M=1.72, SD=2.58), read newspaper (M=2.92, SD=3.02),
or saw online (M=2.93, SD=3.03) campaign information in the past week.
Dependent variable
Polarization. To examine political polarization, this study relied on a method employed
by Stroud (2010) using the 2004 version of the NAES data. Respondents were asked to rate
leading Republican and Democrats on a 0-10 scale where 0 means very unfavorable and 10
equals very favorable and 5 means you do not feel favorable or unfavorable toward that person.
This study focused on favorability ratings for the two nominees: McCain (M=5.49, SD=2.63) and
Obama (M=5.65, SD=3.11). Polarization was determined by taking the absolute value of the
difference between favorability scores of McCain and Obama (M=3.67, SD=2.87) with higher
scores indicating higher levels of polarization.
Data analysis
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine whether credibility of more
balanced and/or more partisan sources are stronger predictors of the polarization after controlling
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
for demographic and political variables. Demographic variables (age, gender, race, education,
and income) were entered as the first block. Political variables (political ideology, partisanship,
political interest, and political knowledge) were the second block. Another hierarchical
regression analysis was performed to ascertain whether polarization is a stronger predictor of the
credibility of more balanced and/or more partisan sources after controlling for demographic and
political, as well as Internet use variables. The processes with demographic and political
variables were the same as those of the first regression analysis. The Internet use variables were
entered as the third and polarization variables were entered as the final block.
Results
Credibility as a predictor of polarization
The first hypothesis predicted that the more individuals believe that partisan news sources
are credible, the more polarized their attitudes would be after controlling for demographic and
political variables (See Table 1). This hypothesis was not supported. In fact, the less respondents
believed information from MSNBC (!=-.47, p<.01), the more likely they were to have polarized
views. There was no significant relationship between the perceived credibility of Fox News and
polarization attitudes (!=-.23, p=.15).
The first research question examined whether credibility of the balanced sources would
be linked to increases or decreases in levels of political polarization after controlling for
demographic and political variables. This study found that the less respondents believed
information from the New York Times (!=-.39, p<.05), CNN (!=-.55, p<.01), and broadcast
television news (!=-.39, p<.05), the more likely they were to have polarized views (see Table 1).
None of the demographic and political variables were significant predictors of polarization.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Table 1: Hierarchical regression analysis of a predictor of Polarization

Polarization
Predictor variables
Gender (1=Male) .34 (.28) .34 (.29) .69(.32) .50 (.32) .25 (.29) .42 (.31)
Age -.03 (.11) .02 (.11) .12(.12) .05 (.12) -.03(.11) -.005(.12)
Race (0=White) .65(.44) .81(.46) .87(.50) .71(.49) .65(.47) .73(.49)
Education .18 (.16) .22(.17) .29(.20) .25(.20) .15(.17) .19(.18)
Income -.07(.08) -.06(.08) -.10(.09) -.08(.09) -.08(.08) -.08(.08)
R! .02 .02 .043 .028 .015 .021
Political ideology -.03(.15) -.05(.16) .12(.17) -.003(.17) -.037(.16) .004(.17)
Partisanship .17(.13) .23(.14) .13(.15) .15(.14) .18(.14) .25(.14)
Political interest -.36(.19) -.32(.20) -.38(.22) -.22(.21) -.32(.20) -.34(.20)
Political knowledge -.26(.16) -.22(.17) -.12(.20) -.16(.19) -.27(.17) -.29(.18)
R! .039 .043 .066 .042 .036 .050
R! change .022 .022 .023 .014 .021 .029
Partisan source cred
MSNBC -.47**(.17)
R! 0.06
R! change 0.021
N 337
Fox News -.23(.12)
R! .050
R! change .006
N 320
Balanced source cred
New York Times -.39*(.18)
R! .084
R! change .018
N 245
Wall Street Journal -.03(.17)
R! .042
R! change .000
N 238
CNN -.55**(.17)
R! .069
R! change .034
N 321
Broadcast television -.39*
news (.18)
R! .066
R! change .016
N 300
Adjusted R .031 .019 .045 .000 .040 .034
Sig. of change .007 .150 .032 .000 .001 .028
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Notes: Unstandardized coefficient (SE)!
Time Spent with Media as a predictor of Credibility
As shown in Table 2, time spent with some sources of campaign information tended to
significantly predict the perceived credibility of partisan sources. For example, time spent with
talk radio was negatively related to the perceived credibility of MSNBC (!=-.05, p<.05) and
positively related to that of Fox News (!=.003, p<.01) after controlling for demographic and
political variables. This demonstrates that, the less respondents relied on talk radio to get
campaign information, the more likely they were to believe MSNBC; and, the more they relied
on talk radio, the more likely they were to believe Fox News. Time spent with broadcast or cable
news also was linked to increased credibility perceptions of Fox News. None of the Internet use
measures were significantly related to the perceived credibility of balanced sources.
Polarization as a predictor of Credibility
In considering the relationship between Internet use and credibility, the second research
questions examined whether polarized political attitudes are related to either an increase or a
decreases in perceived credibility of partisan sources after controlling for demographic, political,
and Internet use variables (see Table 2). Polarization was negatively related to the perceived
credibility of MSNBC (!=.-05, p<.01) and not significantly related to Fox News. This result
indicates that the less polarized respondents’ views, the more likely they were to believe
MSNBC.
The third research question asked if polarized political attitudes are related to either
increases or decreases in the perceived credibility of balanced sources after controlling for
demographic, political, and Internet use variables. Polarization was negatively related to the
perceived credibility of some balanced sources. For example, the less polarized respondents’
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
views, the more likely they were to believe sources from the New York Times (!=.-06, p<.05)
and CNN (!=.-06, p<.01). Polarization did not significantly predict the perceived credibility of
the Wall Street Journal and broadcast television news.
Table 2: Hierarchical regression analysis of believability predictor of partisan & balanced

sources
Believability
MSNBC Fox News NYT CNN WSJ Broadcast
TV news
Predictor
variables
Gender .16(.10) .12(.12) .22(.14) .19(.11) .15(.13) .20(.11)
(1=Male)
Age -.05(.04) -.03(.05) -.13(.05) -.10(.04) -.09(.05) -.08(.04)
Race .01(.17) -.24(.20) .13(.22) -.01(.18) -.02(.20) .09(.18)
(0=White)
Education -.04(.07) -.08(.08) .08(.10) -.06(.07) -.11(.09) -.05(.07)
Income -.03(.03) -.06(.03) .03(.04) -.001(.03) .12*(.04) -.04(.03)
R! .024 .032 .054 .035 .063 .041
Political .12* -.16* .21** .19** -.005 .05
ideology (lib) (.05) (.06) (.07) (.06) (.07) (.06)
Partisanship .16**(.05) -.20***(.05) .13*(.06) .10*(.05) -.003(.06) .19***(.05)
Political interest -.01(.07) .03(.08) .18(.09) -.04(.08) -.14(.09) -.002(.08)
Political -.07(.06) -.22**(.07) .03(.08) -.02(.07) .05(.08) -.02(.07)
knowledge
R! .127 .190 .174 .125 .078 .123
R! change .103 .158 .120 .091 .015 .082
Reliance
Political -.01(.02) -.02(.03) -.04(.03) -.05(.03) .02(.03) .005(.03)
discussion
Broadcast or .03(.02) .03*(.03) -.04(.03) .04(.03) -.05(.03) .03(.03)
cable
Talk radio -.05*(.02) .003**(.02) -.03(.02) -.04(.02) -.01(.02) -.03(.02)
Newspapers .02(.02) .002(.02) .003(.03) .01(.02) .05(.02) .005(.02)
Online .005(.02) -.01(.02) .02(.02) .01(.02) -.01(.02) .01(.02)
R! .127 .196 .199 .161 .118 .137
R! change .032 .006 .025 .036 .040 .014
Polarization -.05**(.02) -.03(.02) -.06*(.03) -.06**(.02) -.03(.03) -.04(.02)
R! .182 .203 .223 .188 .124 .150
R! change .023 .007 .024 .027 .006 .013
N 270 257 203 262 196 245
Adjusted R .134 .154 .161 .139 .052 .095
Sig. of change .008 .149 .017 .005 .268 .061
Notes: Unstandardized coefficient (SE)
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
In the case of demographic variables, only income was identified as a positive predictor
of perceiving balanced sources as credible. That is, the lower an individual’s income, the more
likely he or she was to believe the Wall Street Journal (!=.12, p<.05). In examining political
variables, partisanship was a significant predictor for the perceived credibility of both partisan
and balanced sources. For instance, respondents who reported they were strong Democrats were
more likely to believe MSNBC (!=.05, p<.01), New York Times (!=.13, p<.05), CNN (!=.10,
p<.05), or broadcast television news (!=.19, p<.001). Not surprisingly, Fox News was more
likely to be perceived as a credible sources by strong Republicans (!=-.20, p<.001). Similarly,
conservative respondents were more likely to perceive Fox News as a credible source (!=-.16,
p<.05); and, liberal respondents were more likely to believe MSNBC (!=.05, p<.01), New York
Times (!=.21, p<.01), and CNN (!=.19, p<.01). Interestingly, this study found that an
individual’s level of political knowledge was negatively related to the perceived credibility of
Fox News; respondents with lower political knowledge were more likely to claim that Fox News
is credible (!=-.22, p<.01).
Discussion
This study is one of the first to test the relationship between credibility and political
polarization. Previous studies have investigated the link between credibility and selective
exposure (Best, et al., 2005; Johnson Bichard & Zhang, 2009; Johnson, Zhang & Bichard, in
press; Stroud, 2006, 2008, 2010), as well as selective exposure and polarization (Iyengar &
Hahn, 2009; Meffert, et al. 2006; Stroud, 2010; Sunstein, 2001; Prior, 2002); however, this
study adds to the body of literature by analyzing if credibility perceptions of partisan versus
balanced sources correspond to polarization. In answering our general question, does credibility
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,,%
in general influence political polarization or is it limited to partisan sources of information, our
answer is mixed.
Credibility and Polarization for Partisan Sources
The relationship between credibility and polarization, with respect to partisan sources, is
not cut and dry. This analysis reveals that there is a relationship but that it only exists for
MSNBC. Additionally, that relationship was different than anticipated: the more an individual
rates MSNBC as credible, the lower his/her polarization score. In light of literature that says that
high polarization brings with it problems at the individual and societal level, the decreased
polarization amongst those who find MSNBC believable is important. Researchers already
champion media credibility because of its relationship to increased news media use, but this
finding suggests that credibility might be even more important than was initially thought.
Although we cannot claim causality (that high polarization causes individual to rate
MSNBC as less credible or the reverse, that one’s credibility perception of MSNBC leads them
to polarize politically) the relationship is important to address, particularly because it was absent
in the Fox News source. Why is it that the credibility perception of the liberal news source
corresponded to polarization levels but the conservative news source does not? One explanation
might come from the political variables.
Although none of the political variables predicted polarization, some of them did predict
credibility in the partisan outlets: Democrats and liberals believe MSNBC and Republicans and
conservatives believe Fox News, a finding that corresponds to prior research (Smith, 2010;
Stroud, 2008, 2010). Past studies suggest that conservatives are more likely than liberals to
perceive that media are biased against their views (Eveland & Shah, 2008). Consequently,
liberals are more likely than conservatives to seek out news from a range of media sources,
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
including conservative sources (Stroud, 2008; Johnson, Bichard, & Zhang, in press). Therefore,
those who watch the liberal MSNBC may be getting news from conservative sources including
Fox News and therefore their views are less polarized.
Credibility and Polarization for Balanced Sources
High credibility scores also corresponded to decreased polarization in some of the more
balanced sources. Those who rated the New York Times, CNN, and broadcast news as more
believable had lower polarization scores (similar to those who rated MSNBC as credible). When
we used polarization as the predictor variable, those with high polarization scores rated the New
York Times and CNN as less believable. These results are in line with selective exposure studies
that suggest that more balanced sources either reduce or are unrelated to selective exposure.
Mainstream sources such as the New York Times and CNN attempt to adhere to journalistic
standards of fairness and balance, making it less appealing for someone only seeking out
information that supports their viewpoint (Best, et al., 2005; Mutz & Martin, 2001). Like
MSNBC, the relationship between credibility of traditionally-labeled balanced sources and
polarization is also likely related to political ideology and partisanship. Self-reported Democrats
corresponded to higher believability scores for New York Times, CNN, and broadcast news while
being liberal related to higher believability scores for New York Times and CNN. So like
MSNBC, sources such as New York Times, CNN and broadcast news may be linked to reduced
polarization because liberals tend to seek out a wider variety of sources than conservatives.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There are two important limitations related to the use of survey data in this study. First,
we cannot make generalized claims about the findings in this study because the survey was
conducted during the 2008 campaign cycle. Not only are these findings specific to the 2008
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
election but they are also limited in their ability to speak to the relationship between credibility
and polarization in other, non-political contexts (Stroud, 2010). Future research would do well to
test the relationship between credibility and polarization in other elections, as well as in other
contexts. Second, we cannot make casual claims from this data. The 2008 NAES was not
collected in panels from the same participants, making a time-series or panel analysis impossible.
Still, our finding of a relationship between credibility and polarization with some news media,
although not causal, provides an important stepping stone for researchers working in this area.
This study chose to rate the New York Times, CNN and broadcast news as balanced
because past content analyses have found that these sources do not slant the news to the left or to
the right (Lee, 2005; Watts, Domke, Shah, & Fan, 1999). However, this study found like others
before it that these sources are perceived to be liberal and therefore favored by liberal
Democrats. Stroud’s (2010) study of partisan selective exposure and polarization classified the
Times and CNN as liberal and examined the influence of conservative and liberal media use on
polarization. Future studies of credibility and polarization should consider employing the liberal
versus conservative distinction rather than partisan/balanced, as well as create indexes of
conservative and liberal media to see if this better explains the relationship between credibility
and polarization.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
References
Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2008). New Media and the Polarization of American
Political Discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345-365.
Banning, S., & Trammell, K.D. (2006, August). Revisiting the issue of blog credibility: A
national survey. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for
Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, San Francisco, CA.
Bartels, L. M. (2006). What’s the matter with ‘What’s the matter with Kansas?’ Quarterly
Journal of Political Science, 1, 201-226.
Bernhardt, D., Krasa, S., & Polborn, M. (2008). Political polarization and the electoral effects of
media bias. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1092-1104.
Best, S. J., Chmielewski, B., & Krueger, B. S. (2005). Selective exposure to online foreign news
during the conflict with Iraq. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(4),
52.
Brannon, L. A., Tagler, M. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2007). The moderating role of attitude strength in
selective exposure to information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 611
617.
Carter, R. F., & Greenberg, B. S. (1965). Newspapers or television: Which do you believe?
Journalism Quarterly, 42, 29-34.
Center for the Digital Future. (2007). Online world as important to Internet users as real
world? Retrieved from http://www.digitalcenter.org/pdf/2007-Digital-Future-
Report-Press-Release-112906.
Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod, J. M. (1973). Individuals vs. social predictors of information seeking.
Journalism Quarterly, 50, 237-245.Christie, T.B. (2007). The role of values in predicting
talk radio listening: A model of value equivalence. Journal of Radio Studies, 14, 20-36.
Choi, J. H., Watt, J. H., & Lynch, M. (2006). Perceptions of news credibility about the war in
Iraq: Why war opponents perceived the Internet as the most credible medium. Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication, 12(1), 209-229.
Christie, T.B. (2007). The role of values in predicting talk radio listening: A model of value
equivalence. Journal of Radio Studies, 14, 20-36.
Davis, R. (1997). Understanding broadcast political talk," Political Communication, 14, 323-32.
Doise, W. (1969). Intergroup relations and polarization of individual and collective

judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 136-143.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Evans, J. H. (2002). Polarization in abortion attitudes in US religious traditions,

1972–1998.
Eveland Jr, W. P., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal
factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24(1), 101-117.
Feldman, L. (2009). The Opinion Factor: The Effects of Opinionated News on

Information Processing and Attitude Change. Conference Papers -- International
Communication Association, 1-46.
Finberg, H., & Stone, M. L. (2002). Digital journalism credibility study. Online News
Association. Retrieved from http://journalists.org/Programs/ Credibility_study.pdf.
Fiorina, M. P. (2004). ‘Holy War’Over Moral Values or Contempt for Opinion? San
Francisco Chronicle.
Fiorina, M. P., & Bradburn, N. M. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America.
Survey Research, 34(833), 635.
Fischer, P., Jonas, E., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2005). Selective exposure to information:
The impact of information limits. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 469-492.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515-540.
Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information
verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media
& Society, 9, 319-342.
Gallup. (2010a). Distrust in US media edges up to record high. Retrieved from

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/Distrust-Media-Edges-Record
High.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_
content=morelink&utm_term=Media.
Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among
Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 265-285.
Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the Concept of Credibility. Journalism
Quarterly, 63(3), 451-462.
Hollander, B.A. (2008). Tuning out or tuning elsewhere? Partisanship, polarization,

and media migration from 1998-2006. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 85, 23-40.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication
effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and
engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political
Psychology, 25, 65–95.
Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J.N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the
conservative media establishment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (in press). Revived and refreshed: Selective exposure
to blogs and political web sites for political information. In F. Comunello, ed.,
Networked Sociability and Individualism: Technology for Personal and Professional
Relationships. Forthcoming.
Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication Communities or

“CyberGhettos?”: A Path Analysis Model Examining Factors that Explain Selective
Exposure to Blogs1. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 15(1), 60-82.
Johnson T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (1998). Cruising is believing? Comparing Internet and traditional
sources on media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
75, 325-340.
Johnson T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (2000). Using is believing: The influence of reliance on the
credibility of online political information among politically interested Internet users.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 865-879.
Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (2002). Webelievability: A path model examining how

convenience and reliance predict online credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 79, 619-642.
Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the Blog: How reliance on traditional media and the
Internet influence perceptions of credibility of Weblogs among Blog users. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622-642.
Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B.K. (2009). In Blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components
of the Internet among politically interested Internet users. Computers in Human
Behavior, 25, 175-182.
Johnson, T. J., Kaye, B. K., Bichard, S.L., and Wong, W.J. (2007). Every blog has its day:
Politically interested Internet users’ perceptions of blog credibility. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 13, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/
johnson.html.
Johnson, T.J. & Fahmy, S. (2009). See no evil, hear no evil, judge as evil? Examining whether
Al-Jazeera English-language website users transfer credibility to its satellite
network. In G. Golan, T. J. Johnson & W. Wanta (Eds.), International media
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
communication in a global age, p. 241-260 Philadelphia: Routledge/ Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.
Johnson, T. J., Zhang, W., & Bichard, S. L. (2010). Voices of Convergence or Conflict? A Path
Analysis Investigation of Selective Exposure to Political Websites. Social Science
Computer Review.
Jones, D. A. (2002). The polarizing effect of new media messages. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research, 14, 158-174.
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2003). From here to obscurity: Media substitution theory and
traditional media in an on-line world. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 54 (3), 260-273.
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2004). A web for all reasons: Use and gratifications of Internet
components for political information. Telematics and Informatics, 21, 197-223.
Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and

counter-attitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448.
Kushin, M. J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of
online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication &
Society, 13(5), 608-630.
Lavine, H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (2000). On the relationship between attitude
involvement and attitude accessibility: Toward a cognitive-motivational model of
political information processing. Political Psychology, 21, 81-106.
Lee, E.-J. (2007, 2006 2006 Annual Meeting). Deindividuation Effects on Group Polarization in
Computer-Mediated Communication. Paper presented at the International
Communication Association.
Lee, T.-T. (2005). The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing the
perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 43-64.
Lin, C. A. (2001). Audience attributes, media supplementation, and likely online service
adoption. Mass Communication & Society, 4, 19-38.
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology
and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity
and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of
Communication, 56(1), 27-51.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Melican, D.B., & Dixon, T.L. (2008). News on the net: Credibility, selective exposure,
and racial prejudie. Communication Research, 35, 151-168.
Miller, A. G., McHoskey, J. W., Bane, C. M., & Dowd, T. G. (1993). The attitude polarization
phenomenon: Role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences
of reported attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 561
574.
Morris, J. S. (2007). Slanted Objectivity? Perceived Media Bias, Cable News Exposure, and
Political Attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 88(3), 707-728.
Mouw, T., & Sobel, M. E. (2001). Culture wars and opinion polarization: the case of abortion.
The American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 913-943.
Muhlberger, P. (2004). Polarization of Political Attitudes and Values on the Internet. Paper
presented at the International Communication Association.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). How the mass media divide us. Red and blue nation, 1, 223-263.
Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political
difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97-114.
Neuman, W. R. (1996). Political communications infrastructure. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 9-21.
Nimmo, D. (1990). Principles of information seeking in information processing: A preliminary

political analysis. In S. Kraus (Ed.), Mass communication and political information
processing (pp. 3-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nivola, P. S., & Brady, D. W. (2006). Red and blue nation?: characteristics and causes
of America's polarized politics: Brookings Inst Pr.
Olson, J. (2008). Whiteness and the polarization of American politics. Political Research
Quarterly, 61, 704-718.
Pew Research Center for People and the Press. (2010). Americans spending more time following
the news. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/652/.
Prior, M. (2003). Liberated Viewers, Polarized Voters--The Implications of Increased Media

Choice for Democratic Politics. The Good Society, 11(3), 10-16.
Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in
political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3),
577-592.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Rainie, L., & Horrigan, J. (2007). Election 2006 online. Pew Internet & American Life Project
Report.
Singer, J. B. (2006). Journalists and news bloggers: Complements, contradictions, and

challenges. In A. Bruns & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Uses of blogs (pp. 23–32). New York: Peter
Lang.
Stavrositu, C. & Sundar, S.S. (2008). If Internet credibility is so iffy, why the heavy use? The
relationship between medium use and credibility. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(1),
65-68.
Stoker, L., & Jennings, M. K. (2008). Of time and the development of partisan polarization.
American Journal of Political Science, 52, 619-647
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of

Stroud, N. J. (2006). Selective exposure to partisan information. Unpublished Dissertation,

University of Pennsylvania.
Stroud, N., & Lee, J. (2008, May). Politics and cable news credibility. Presented to the
International Communication Association annual conference, Montreal, CN.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in political information processing.
American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-69.
Van Swol, L. (2009). Extreme Members and Group Polarization. Paper presented at the
International Communication Association.
Wanta, W. & Hu, Y. (1994) The effects of credibility, reliance, and exposure on media agenda
setting: A path analysis model, Journalism Quarterly 71, 90-98.
Wanta, W., Craft, S. L. and Geana, M. V. (2005). News media choices and the polarization of
attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, New York, New York.
Warner, B. R. (2010). Segmenting the Electorate: The Effects of Exposure to Political

Extremism Online. Communication Studies, 61(4), 430-444.
Watts, M.D., Domke, D., Shah, D.V., & Fan, D.P. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in
presidential campaigns: Exploring public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication
Research, 26, 144-174.
Webster, J. G. (2005). Beneath the veneer of fragmentation: Television audience polarization in

a multichannel world. Journal of Communication, 55(2), 366-382.
!"#$%&'%"(%)$*#$%&'+% ,-%
Westley, B. H., & Severin, W. J. (1964). Some correlates of media credibility. Journalism
Quarterly, 41, 325-335.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ziemke, D. A. (1980). Selective exposure in a presidential campaign contingent on certainty and

salience. Communication Yearbook, 4, pp. 497-511. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"!Thecomplete NAES cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted with 57,967 respondents from December
2007 through November 3, 2008 (the day before Election Day). However, one of the main variables of interest, the
perception of credibility of more balanced (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, and broadcast television
news) and more partisan (MSNBC and Fox News) news sources, was only included in the survey from February 21
to May 29, 2008. Therefore, this study needed to be restricted to this time period.!
!
"#$%&'(!)*+!,*++(%!-+.#!/%0(1!
2&!3&345($(!+6!7+&8%&8!4$&9(!+&!"37%:++9!
!
"#$%&!"%#'()*!
+&$,'#($-.!/0!1'2%(3!45(-$&!
!
6'7$(!8&$9*-!
+&$,'#($-.!/0!1'2%(3!45(-$&!
!
:5(-$&!;%#<3!=*>:>!
+&$,'#($-.!/0!1'2%(3!45(-$&!
!
?%#/@.&!A%()*5#!
+&$,'#($-.!/0!1'2%(3!45(-$&!
!
!
?/&-%)-B!"#$%&!"%#'()*3!=C!"/2!DEFG3!45(-$&!1H!DIDJK!
FJLMGJKMGJEE!N!OO%#'()*PQ%$@>5-'2%(>'R5!
!
S/#!<#'('&-%-$/&!%-!-*'!T&-'#&%-$/&%@!U.Q</($5Q!/&!C&@$&'!V/5#&%@$(Q3!45(-$&3!1'2%(3!
4<#$@!LEJJ>
! "!
!"#$%&'()*+(,*++'$(-+."(/$0'1(2%(2%345'#'(+6(,+%7$%7(8#%9'(+%(!3:$;++9(
(
<%(=>>?@(7*$(!"#$%&'($)*+",(AB7$47$"@(=>>?C(D.+7$&(3%(.%#&$%7#6#$&(:+44$E$('7.&$%7(
3'('35#%E(7*37(*$(+"('*$(:3%('735(3;"$3'7(+6(7*$(%$0'(0#7*+.7(4++9#%E(6+"(#71(F<6(7*$(%$0'(
#'(7*37(#GH+"73%7@(#7(0#44(6#%&(G$I(AH3"3J(KCJ(L*$(3"7#:4$(&$':"#;$&(3(H"3:7#:$(;$:+G#%E(
G+"$(:+GG+%@($'H$:#3445(3G+%E(5+.%E(H$+H4$1('*3"#%E(%$0'(3%&(4#%9'(7+(3"7#:4$'(
3G+%E(7*$G'$4M$'(3%&@(G+"$+M$"@("$45#%E(+%(7*$#"(:+%%$:7#+%'(7+(9$$H(7*$G(#%6+"G$&J(
B7$47$"(7$"G$&(7*#'('7"37$E5(7*$(F'+:#34(6#47$"I(AH3"3J(NC(3%&(:+%7"3'7$&(#7(0#7*(7*$(;$77$"O
9%+0%(FH"+6$''#+%34(6#47$"I(AH3"3J(PC(7*37(:*3"3:7$"#Q$'(7*$(7"3&#7#+%34("$437#+%'*#H(+6(
%$0'(H"+M#&$"'(7+(7*$#"(3.&#$%:$'J(<%(,435(B*#"95R'(6+"G.437#+%(AS$%7+%@(=>>TC@(F7*$(
3.&#$%:$(#'(%+0(;$#%E(3''$G;4$&(%+7(;5(7*$(H3H$"@(;.7(;5(+7*$"(G$G;$"'(+6(7*$(
3.&#$%:$I(AH3"3J(=KCJ(
L*$(&$':"#H7#+%(+6(7*$(4$''(G$7*+&#:34@(G+"$('$"$%&#H#7+.'('7"37$E5($%:3H'.437$&(
#%(7*$(#:+%#:(D.+7$(3;+M$('H$39'(7+(3(%$0(9#%&(+6(%$0'(:+%'.GH7#+%('7"37$E5@(3(%$0(
9#%&(+6(:+%'.G$"@(3(F'7.G;4$"@I('+(7+('H$39@(0*+(E$7'(%$3"45(344(*#'(+"(*$"(%$0'(
7*"+.E*(#%:#&$%734(+"('+:#3445('$4$:7$&($UH+'."$J(2(H"#G3"5(M$*#:4$(6+"($UH+'."$(7+(
%$0'(#'(7*$('+:#34(%$70+"9('#7$(!3:$;++9@(0*#:*(:43#G$&(V>>(G#44#+%(.'$"'(3'(+6(=>W>(
A!3:$;++9(=>W>CJ(
L*$('*#67(7+(F'7.G;4#%EI(*3'(#GH4#:37#+%'(6+"("$'$3":*$"'(#%(M3"#+.'(6#$4&'J(2%(
+M$"344('*#67(#%(366#%#75(E"+.H'(6"+G(#%'7#7.7#+%'(7+(#%6+"G34('+:#34(%$70+"9'(AS$%%$77(X(
<5$%E3"@(=>>?C(:"$37$'(:*344$%E$'(6+"(7*$+"#'7'(#%('+:#+4+E5@(G$&#3($66$:7'@(3%&(3E$%&3O
! "!
!"##$%&'("!")(*+,'-+"'."!!"('(".$)%*"'/%'0."&)*12'3"4$)'$%!#$#5#$/%!6'$%'7)(#$*5.)(6'*(")#"!'
85"!#$/%!'/9'$%!#$#5#$/%).')5#+/($#1'9/('!/*$/./&$*).'("!")(*+"(!6')%4'#+"'4$!#($:5#"4'
%)#5("'/9'#+"')54$"%*"')%4'#+"';)($"#1'/9'7)#+<)1!'9(/3'7(/45*"('#/'
(")4"(=;$"<"(=.$!#"%"(=5!"('*(")#"!'!$&%$9$*)%#'*+).."%&"!'9/('3"4$)'"99"*#!'("!")(*+"(!,'
>"!")(*+"(!'+);"'#/'7)1'*./!"')##"%#$/%'#/'"3"(&"%#'%"<!?*/%!537#$/%'!#()#"&$"!'3)4"'
7/!!$:."':1'%"<'*/335%$*)#$/%'#"*+%/./&$"!,'@%4'/9'*/5(!"'#+"'85"!#$/%'/9'<+"#+"('
)%4'+/<'#+"'*$#$A"%(1'$!'!#)1$%&'$%9/(3"4'$!')'7"("%%$).'9/('4"3/*()*$"!,'
-+$!'"B7./()#/(1'!#541'"B)3$%"!'#+"'.$%C!'#/'/5#!$4"'*/%#"%#'#+)#'D)*"://C'5!"(!'
7/!#'/%'#+"$('7)&"!,'E#'"B7)%4!'#+"'.$#"()#5("'):/5#'!/*$).'%"#</(C$%&'!$#"!'#/'$%*.54"'
"B#"(%).'$%9/(3)#$/%'D)*"://C'5!"(!'!+)("6')!'/77/!"4'#/'*/%#"%#'F!#)#5!'574)#"!6'
7+/#/!G'5!"(!'&"%"()#"'<$#+$%'D)*"://C'$#!".9,'H%/<$%&'<+)#'.$%C!')("'7/!#"4'/%'
D)*"://C'*)%'&$;"')%'$37("!!$/%'/9'<+)#'/#+"('!$#"!'D)*"://C'5!"(!')("'.//C$%&')#')%4'
#+"'#17"'/9'*/%#"%#'#+"1'4""3'$37/(#)%#6'<+$*+'$%'#5(%'$..53$%)#"!'#+"'!7(")4'/9'%"<!'
)(#$*."!')%4'3"3"!')#'#+$!'"%4'/9'#+"'/%.$%"'%"<!'!1!#"3,'
!"#$%"&'(&)*$+#,&-$.-),%/-0#$
I"(#)$%.1'%"<!'*/%!537#$/%'$!'!+$9#$%&'9(/3')'9"<'4/3$%)%#'!/5(*"!'#/')'3/("'
;)($"4'4$"#,'E%')'("*"%#'J"<'I"%#"('!#541'FJ5(*"..6'>)$%$"6'K$#*+"..6'>/!"%!#$".6'L'
M.3!#")46'NOPOG6'QQR'/9'("!7/%4"%#!'!)$4'#+)#'/%')'#17$*).'4)1'#+"1'&"#'%"<!'9(/3')#'
.")!#'/%"'7.)#9/(3S')'7($%#'%"<!7)7"(6')'#".";$!$/%'%"<!':(/)4*)!#6'()4$/6'/('#+"'
E%#"(%"#,'-+"'57+");).'*/3"!'$%'#+"'4"#)$.!S'T$%"#1?#</'7"(*"%#'!)$4'#+"1'#17$*)..1'&"#'
! "!
!"#$%&'#()&*%+,&,+%#&!"-'&+'#&./-!*+%,0&1$2&$'&!#'&%#).+'3#'!)&4+,5$'#&+'/$'#&-'3&
+**/$'#&)+6%4#)7&-'3&'#-%/8&!(+9!"$%3)&:;<=>&3+'?!&"-@#&-&*-@+%$!#&'#()&(#5)$!#0&
A#)!#%3-8?)&'#()9-5)+%5$'B&%+6!$'#)&-%#&.%#!!8&,64"&B+'#0&C"#%#&+'4#&(#&%#-3&
!"#&'#().-.#%&-!&!"#&5%#-D*-)!&!-5/#&-'3&(-!4"#3&!"#&#@#'$'B&'#()&-*!#%&(+%D7&-'3&
4+')$3#%#3&+6%)#/@#)&*6//8&$'*+%,#37&'+(&EF!G"#&.%+4#))&H,#%$4-')&6)#&!+&B#!&'#()&$)&
5-)#3&+'&*+%-B$'B&-'3&+..+%!6'$),0&I"#8&)##,&!+&-44#))&'#()&("#'&!"#&).$%$!&,+@#)&
!"#,&+%&!"#8&"-@#&-&4"-'4#&!+&4"#4D&6.&+'&"#-3/$'#)J&:K6%4#//&#!&-/07&LMNM7&.0&L>0&O'&
P#4#,5#%&LMNM7&QN=&+*&H,#%$4-')&4$!#3&!"#&O'!#%'#!&-)&!"#&./-4#&("#%#&!"#8&B+!&E,+)!&
+*&!"#$%&'#()&-5+6!&'-!$+'-/&-'3&$'!#%'-!$+'-/&$))6#)JR&!"$)&4+"+%!&$)&NS=&/-%B#%&!"-'&-&
8#-%&#-%/$#%&:K#(&T#)#-%4"&U#'!#%7&LMNN>0&O'&!#%,)&+*&'#()&B#'#%-//87&!"#&+'/$'#&'#()&
-63$#'4#&+6!'6,5#%)&!"-!&*+%&'#().-.#%)R&Q;=&+*&!"+)#&)6%@#8#3&)-$3&!"#8&B#!&'#()&
+'/$'#&-!&/#-)!&!"%##&!$,#)&-&(##D7&-'3&QM=&)-$3&!"#&)-,#&+*&'#().-.#%)0&
V+%-B#3&'#()&4-'&5#&-&"+3B#.+3B#7&/-4D$'B&!"#&4+"#)$+'&-'3&"$#%-%4"8&+*&-&
4+,.%#"#')$@#&'#()&%#.+%!&.%+364#3&58&-&!#-,&+*&.%+*#))$+'-/)W56!&$!&-/)+&!%-4D)&!"#&
$'3$@$36-/?)&$'!#%#)!)&,+%#&4/+)#/8&!"-'&-&'#().-.#%&+%&IX&%#.+%!&3+#)0&O')!#-3&+*&!"#&
!"#$%&'()*7&#-4"&.#%)+'&,-8&-))#,5/#&!"#&EP-$/8&Y#J&:Z-.B++37&N[[<>7&$'*+%,-!$+'&!"-!&
$)&5+!"&).#4$-/$\#3&-'3&$3$+)8'4%-!$40&
I"#&@#%8&'-!6%#&+*&("-!&(#&4-//&'#()&$!)#/*&-..#-%)&!+&5#&$'&-&)!-!#&+*&!%-')$!$+'0&
]+(&!"-!&$'*+%,-!$+'&$)&#))#'!$-//8&#@#%8("#%#W-'8+'#&($!"&-'&O'!#%'#!&4+''#4!$+'&+%&
-&),-%!."+'#&4-'&-44#))&"6'3%#3)&+*&'#()&-'3&$'*+%,-!$+'&)+6%4#)&+'/$'#&($!"$'&
! "!
!"#$%&!'(%)$%"*+,$*!$*#,$$!"!*-()*./"*0"120,"1(33)*(+(1"*$4*2%4$1-(52$%*(!*25*43$+!*
/)6*71(//2%7*25*(5*5,"*127,5*-$-"%5*+,"%*25*2!*-$!5*1"3"8(%56*8(39(/3"6*"%5"15(2%2%76*$1*
2%!27,5493:*;/$)&6*<=>=6*0(1(?*<@?*A,2!*#1"(5"!*%$5*$%3)*(*0$5"%52(33)*12#,*"%821$%-"%5*4$1*
5,"*%"+!*#$%!9-"1*/95*(3!$*(*#,(33"%7"*4$1*"!5(/32!,"&*%"+!*$17(%2B(52$%!?*
.C"7(#):*-"&2('%"+!0(0"1!*(%&*-(7(B2%"!6*AD*%"+!6*(%&*1(&2$',(8"*
(3+()!*"E2!5"&*2%*(*/1$(&#(!5*-$&"3F*G"*5(3H6*)$9*32!5"%?*A,2!*!519#591"*5(H"!*(55"%52$%*
4$1*71(%5"&6*(!!9-2%7*"8"1)$%"*+233*59%"*2%*(!*(*-(55"1*$4*#$91!"*;/$)&6*<=>=@?*
I55"%52$%*2!*5,"*%"+*#911"%#)F*A,"*%"+!*+(5#,"1*2!*%$*3$%7"1*(*#(0528"*(9&2"%#"?*J"+!*
2!*%$*3$%7"1*(*!#(1#"*1"!$91#"?*A$*+2%*2%439"%#"6*$1*")"/(33!*4$1*(&8"152!"-"%5!6*%"+!*
01$&9#"1!*;(%&*&2!512/95$1!6*2%#39&2%7*!$#2(3K-"&2(*!,(1"1!@*-9!5*#$-0"5"*4$1*(55"%52$%*
;L(182!6*<==M@?*
N$%5"%5*2!*%$*3$%7"1*/"2%7*,$#H"&6*/95*32%H!*(1"?*O"$03"*5,1$97,$95*5,"*%"5+$1H*
(1"*9!2%7*5,"*(55"%52$%*5,")*1"#"28"*5$*51(442#*2%*0$2%5"1!*5$*$5,"1*#$%5"%56*!"182%7*
(!*#$%5"%5*-"&2(5$1!?*J9-"1$9!*0"$03"*,(8"*/"#$-"*"E0"15!*(!*2%4$1-(52$%*
%"5+$1H"1!?*;/$)&6*<=>=6*0(1(?*><@*
O91#"33*"5*(3?*;<=>=@*4$9%&*1"!0$%&"%5!*+,$*P1"3)*$%*5,"*0"$03"*(1$9%&*5,"-*5$*
5"33*5,"-*+,"%*5,"1"*2!*%"+!*5,")*%""&*5$*H%$+?*Q(34*$4*I-"12#(%!*;R=S@*!()*5,(5*
&"!#12/"!*5,"-*8"1)*+"33*$1*!$-"+,(5*+"33P*;0?*T=@?*
G"*-27,5*!()6*-"5$%)-2#(33)6*5,(5*5,2!*1"01"!"%5!*(*!,245*41$-*(%*!"#$%&'"'()*5$*
(**!"#$%&'"'()?*U%*5,"*2%H*"#$%$-)6*$%"*,(&*4"+*#,$2#"!*4$1*%"+!F*V%"*$1*5+$*3$#(3*
! "!
!"#$%&%"'$()*+")!,-+*./)*"."0,$,1!)!"#$()'&2,1()!"#$3&-&4,!"$()&!2)5,!).&*"')/"&'$6)
7&8."9*"."0,$,1!)!"#$)7+&!!".$:);+,$)71!*"!*)#&$)8'1&27&$*)#,*+1<*)*+")'"7",0"'=$),!%<*()
&!2),*)#&$)2,>>,7<.*)*1)$+&'"?)@)!"#$%&%"')&'*,7.")71<.2)1!./)8")%&$$"2)&.1!-)%+/$,7&../()
&!2)&);A)8'1&27&$*)!1*)&*)&..()"B7"%*),!)*+").&*")CD*+)7"!*<'/),>)1!")+&%%"!"2)*1)+&0")
'"71'2"2),*)1!)&)8<.E/)58/)*12&/=$)$*&!2&'2$6)0,2"17&$$"**":)
F!)*+").,!E)"71!13/()1!)*+")1*+"')+&!2()$+&',!-),!>1'3&*,1!),$)&$)"&$/)&$)$"!2,!-)
&).,!E),!)&!)"93&,.()1')%1$*,!-),*)1!);#,**"'()1')7.,7E,!-)GH+&'"I)1!)J&7"811E:)@)!"#$)
71!$<3"')#,*+)&771<!*$)1!)J&7"811E)&!2);#,**"')&!2)&77"$$)*1)!"#$)&."'*)$/$*"3$)1')
KHH)>""2$)7&!)'"7",0"),!>1'3&*,1!)71!$*&!*./)&!2)%&$$),*)1!)"&$,./()8"713,!-)&)!12"),!)
*+")$17,&.),!>1'3&*,1!)!"*#1'E:)L&'"><.)7<.*,0&*,1!)1>)1!"=$)J&7"811E)>',"!2$();#,**"')
>1..1#$)&!2)1>>.,!")$17,&.)71!*&7*$)'"$<.*$),!)&)$1'*)1>)&38,"!*),!>1'3&*,1!)">>"7*)
5M"'3,2&()CDDN6),!)#+,7+)*+")<$"')7&!)2,'"7*)+,$)1')+"')&**"!*,1!)*1)!"#$)&*)*+")*,3"),*),$)
!""2"2)1')#&!*"2:)
F!)*+")%&$*)>"#)/"&'$()3"38"'$+,%),!)$17,&.)!"*#1'E)$,*"$)5HOH$6)&!2)&.*"'!&*,0")
7+&!!".$)$<7+)&$);#,**"')+&0")"B%.12"2P)J&7"811E)&.1!")-'"#)>'13)QDD)3,..,1!)<$"'$),!)
@<-<$*)CDDR)*1)&)7.&,3"2)STD)3,..,1!),!)U"7"38"')CDDN)5V<!4()CDDN6)&!2)*+"!)TDD)
3,..,1!),!)CDQD)5J&7"811E()CDQD6()&!2),!)&)W"#)$*<2/)5J1B()X,7E<+'()Y)H3,*+()CDDN6()QN)
%"'7"!*)1>)F!*"'!"*)<$"'$)$&,2)*+"/)<$");#,**"')1')&!1*+"')$"'0,7")*1)$+&'")1')'"&2)
%"'$1!&.)<%2&*"$:)W"1%.")+&0")3/',&2)#&/$)*1)71!!"7*)&!2)7133<!,7&*")#,*+)1!")
&!1*+"')1<*$,2")*'&2,*,1!&.)1!"9*193&!/)3"2,&)7+&!!".$:)
! "!
!"#$%&#'()('%$*)$+"#$,#-(.$#/0(1*/,#/+$%+1*/234$.))#'+$"*5$&#*&3#$2#+$#6&*%#-$
(/'(-#/+.334$+*$/#5%$78##9$:;;<=>$?(+"$%*$,@'"$(/)*1,.+(*/$(/$+"#$#/0(1*/,#/+9$&#*&3#$
,.4$)##3$*0#15"#3,#-9$%*$+"#4$1#34$*/$)(3+#1%>$A/$+"#$&.%+9$3.12#$/#5%$*12./(B.+(*/%$
)@/'+(*/#-$.%$C2.+#D##&#1%E$7%##$#>2>$?"(+#9$F<G;=$%#3#'+(/2$/#5%$)1*,$+"#$%+1#.,$*)$
(/)*1,.+(*/$1#.'"(/2$+"#$*12./(B.+(*/%H$1#&*1+#1%$./-$#-(+*1%>$I*59$5(+"$+"#$)1##J)*1J.33$
?#K9$'(+(B#/%$/##-$+*$D##&$)1*,$K#'*,(/2$*0#15"#3,#-$7L#1,(-.9$:;;<=9$./-$+"#4$.1#$
+@1/(/2$+*$-())#1#/+$D(/-%$*)$2.+#D##&(/2>$
M''*1-(/2$+*$(/+#10(#5%$./-$1#'#/+$%@10#4%9$4*@/2#1$0*+#1%$+#/-$+*$K#$/*+$N@%+$
'*/%@,#1%$*)$/#5%$./-$'@11#/+$#0#/+%$K@+$'*/-@(+%$.%$5#33O%#/-(/2$*@+$#J
,.(3#-$3(/D%$./-$0(-#*%$+*$)1(#/-%$./-$+"#(1$%*'(.3$/#+5*1D%>$M/-$(/$+@1/9$+"#4$
1#34$*/$)1(#/-%$./-$*/3(/#$'*//#'+(*/%$)*1$/#5%$+*$'*,#$+*$+"#,>$A/$#%%#/'#9$+"#4$
.1#$1#&3.'(/2$+"#$&1*)#%%(*/.3$)(3+#1O1#.-(/2$!"#$?.%"(/2+*/$P*%+9$'3('D(/2$*/$
QII>'*,O5(+"$.$%*'(.3$*/#$7R+#3+#19$:;;S9$&.1.>$T=>$
A/$.$%#/%#9$+"#$%*'(.3$)(3+#1$(%$%(,&34$.$+#'"/*3*2('.3$0#1%(*/$*)$+"#$*3-#%+$&*3(+('.3$
+**3U$5*1-$*)$,*@+">$V*1$4*@/2$&#*&3#9$.+$3#.%+9$(+$,.4$".0#$K#'*,#$+"#$-*,(/./+$
,#./%$*)$/#5%$-#3(0#14$7A/21.,9$:;;S=>$
W0(-#/'#$(%$,*@/+(/2$+".+$%*'(.3$/#+5*1D$%#10('#%$.1#$K#'*,(/2$-#$).'+*$/#5%$
%#10('#%>$V.'#K**D$".%$K#'*,#$+"#$3#.-(/2$1#)#11#1$)*1$0(%(+%$+*$/#5%$./-$,#-(.$%(+#%9$
."#.-$*)$+"#$.221#2.+*1$X**23#$Y#.-#19$./-$(%$)*@1+"$*0#1.33$K#"(/-$X**23#$%#.1'"9$
Z."**$./-$[RI$7L*&D(/%9$:;F;=>$I#5$&3@2J(/%$.+$V.'#K**D$.&&#.1$)1*,$#.134$-.+.$+*$
! "!
!"#$%&'"()$%*#'"+"''(,)#-.#.-/"'#0"!)$-")1#")2"&$(,,3#4"5$(#)$-")#67(,5"'8%1#9:;:<=#>/"#
%"0)#(%5#2.,$-$&)#)$-"#>(,?$%*#@.$%-)#A"4.#'"2.'-)#-/(-#!"-0""%#A('&/#9::B#(%5#
A('&/#9:;;#'"+"''(,)#+'.4#C(&"!..?#$%&'"()"5#+'.4#(#%"*,$*$!,"#%D4!"'#-.#E=BF#.+#(,,#
G$)$-)#6A(')/(,,1#9:;;<=#>/"#.%,$%"#2D!,$)/$%*#&.42(%3#H$I$-#69:;:<#&.42('"5#)$-"#G$)$-)#
+'.4#)"('&/1#).&$(,#4"5$(#'"+"''(,)#(%5#.-/"'#J"!#,$%?)#(%5#+.D%5#;B=KF#&(4"#+'.4#
).&$(,#4"5$(L#.+#-/.)"#MMF#0"'"#+'.4#C(&"!..?=#
NH$?")O#.%#C(&"!..?#(%5#.-/"'#).&$(,#4"5$(#2,(-+.'4)#)D&/#()#>0$--"'#('"#
!"&.4$%*#4.'"#$42.'-(%-#+.'#!D)$%"))")#$%#(%5#.D-#.+#-/"#%"0)#4"5$(=#>/"#"P&.44"'&"#
2,(-+.'4#&.42(%3#7/.42Q%#69:;;<#")-$4(-"5#-/(-#N,$?")O#.%#C(&"!..?#('"#"(&/#0.'-/#
RS#+.'#$-)#&,$"%-)#$%#-"'4)#.+#-/"#$44"5$(-"#%"T-#)(,"=##
!"#$%&"'()*+,-./01&*
A.)-#G$"0)#.+#,"('%$%*#+'.4#-/"#4"5$(#&.%&"2-D(,$U"#$-#()#(%#(&-$G"#2'.&"))#$%#
0/$&/#2".2,"#('"#4.-$G(-"5#-.#+$%5#$%+.'4(-$.%#(!.D-#(#)D!I"&-#6>"0?)!D'31#J"(G"'1#V#
A(55"T1#9::;1#2=#EWM<=#XD-#$%&$5"%-(,#"T2.)D'"#/()#'"2"(-"5,3#!""%#+.D%5#-.#*"%"'(-"#
,"('%$%*=#Y%#"(',3#-","G$)$.%#)-D53#6X,D4,"'#V#A&ZD($,1#;B[B<#+.D%5#-/(-#ND%)","&-$G"#
G$"0"')O#.+#-","G$)$.%#%"0)#!'.(5&()-)\-/.)"#0/.#5$5#0(-&/#2.,$-$&(,#2'.*'(4)#!D-#
0$-/.D-#-/"#$%-"%-#-.#,"('%#+'.4#-/"4\0"'"#!"--"'#$%+.'4"5#(%5#4.'"#$%-"'")-"5#$%#(%#
D2&.4$%*#","&-$.%#-/(%#$%5$++"'"%-#%.%PG$"0"')=#]%#-/"#5$*$-(,#(*"1#.%"#.+#-/"#(--'(&-$.%)#
.+#-/"#J"!#+'.4#$-)#"(',3#5(3)#/()#!""%#)"'"%5$2$-3\+.,,.0$%*#,$%?)#(%5#+$%5$%*#
D%"T2"&-"5#)$-")#(%5#$%+.'4(-$.%=#>.#5$)-$%*D$)/#!"-0""%#$%-"%-$.%(,#(%5#D%$%-"%-$.%(,#
! "!
!"#$%&%'()%!&%"*(+",-./0$1("2(#!3(456678(#99!&":(2;"(0.".(#%:('$#2&<&=#2&)%.(>):"!*(
,;&=;(9).&2.(2;#2(9")9!"(0."(>":&#(2)(<0!<&!!(:&<<"$"%2(')#!.?(
@A).2(B%2"$%"2(0."(&.(')#!(:&$"=2":*(#%:(#=C0&$&%'(=0$$"%2(#<<#&$.(&%<)$>#2&)%(&.(
$#$"!1(#(9$&>#$1(')#!3(333(D"(>#1(/"()E"$.2#2&%'(2;"(=#."(#(/&2*(/02(2;"(9)&%2(&.(
2;#2(<)$(>#%1(9")9!"(%",.(.""-&%'(&.(%)2(#(=)$"(>":&#(;#/&23(D"(/"!&"E"(2;"."(
9")9!"(>#1("%=)0%2"$(%",.(>)$"(<$"C0"%2!1()%(2;"(D"/(2;#%(2;"1(,)0!:(
)<<!&%"F(4+",-./0$1("2(#!3*(5667*(993(GHIJGHK83(
+)(!"#$%(>)$"(#/)02(,;#2(#%:(;),(L#="/))-(0."$.(#$"(.;#$&%'(/)2;(%",.(#%:(
)2;"$(219".()<(&%<)$>#2&)%(2;$)0';("M2"$%#!(!&%-.*(2;&.("M9!)$#2)$1(.20:1("M#>&%".(2;"(
=)%2"%2()<(!&%-.(L#="/))-(0."$.(9).2()%(2;"&$(9#'".3(B2(.9"=&<&=#!!1(#.-.?(
NO7?(+)(,;#2("M2"%2(#$"(L#="/))-(0."$.(0.&%'(!&%-.(2)(.;#$"(&%<)$>#2&)%(,&2;(
2;"&$(%"2,)$-()<(L#="/))-(@<$&"%:.FP((
NO5?(D;#2(&.(2;"(%#20$"()<(2;"(&%<)$>#2&)%(4'"%$"(#%:(2)9&=8()<(2;"(!&%-.(/"&%'(
.;#$":(,&2;&%(L#="/))-(<$&"%:(%"2,)$-.P(
NOH?(D;#2(>):".()<(>":&#(#$"(/"&%'(:"9!)1":(<)$(:&.9!#1&%'(2;"(&%<)$>#2&)%(
2;#2(2;"(!&%-.(#$"(#22#=;":(2)P(
NOQ?(D;#2(#$"(2;"()$&'&%#!(.)0$="(219".(<)$(2;"(!&%-.P(
NOG?(D;#2(&.(2;"($".9)%."(2)(2;"(!&%-.(<$)>(L#="/))-(<$&"%:.(,&2;&%(2;"(
%"2,)$-P(
! "#!
!"#$%&'(
!"#$%&"'(")$*$%)+,$)*"+'-./+#$."%"+'-#$-#"%-%01*2*"'("02-3*"4'*#$."51"2-.262./%0"
7%+$5''3"&$&5$)*"8,'",%."%9)$$."#'"%00'8"#,$")$*$%)+,"#$%&"%++$**"#'"#,$2)"7%+$5''3"
4%9$*:"!++$**2-9"%-."$;%&2-2-9"7%+$5''3"/*$)*<"+'-#$-#"4)'6$*"+,%00$-92-9"(')"
)$*$%)+,$)*"5$+%/*$"'("#,$"4)26%+1"'(($)$."#'"*2#$"/*$)*:"=/*#"%*"#,$">-#$)-$#",%*"4/*,$."
)$*$%)+,$)*"#'")$#,2-3"%-."+)$%#26$01")$.$*29-"&$#,'.'0'92+%0"#''0*?"#,$"+,%00$-9$*"(')"
#,2*")$*$%)+,".$&%-.$."%"+)$%#26$"&$#,'."(')"2.$-#2(12-9"7%+$5''3"/*$)*:"@,$"&$#,'."
.)$8"()'&"02#$)%#/)$"2-"*$0$+#26$"*%&402-9"%-."*-'85%00"*%&402-9:"
A$*$%)+,$)*"4$)(')&$."#8'"&%B')"*#$4*"2-"#,$".%#%"+'00$+#2'-"4)'+$**:"C#$4"'-$"
2-+0/.$."+'-*#)/+#2-9"%"*%&40$"&%#+,2-9"D:C:".$&'9)%4,2+*"'("7%+$5''3"/*$)*"
E7%+$5''3?"FGHGI:"!++').2-9"#'"2C#)%#$91J%5*"EFGHGI?"'("#,$"HGK"&2002'-"D:C:"/*$)*?"LMN"
8$)$"($&%0$?"MKN"8$)$"&%0$"%-."KN"8$)$"/-3-'8-:"7%+$5''3"EFGHGI")$4')#$."#,%#"#,$"
0%)9$*#"%9$"9)'/4"'("/*$)*"8$)$"%9$*"KL"#'"LM"EFONI?"('00'8$."51"HPQ"#'"FMQ1$%)Q'0.*"
EFL:KNI?"FLQ"#'"KMQ1$%)Q'0.*"EFM:PNI?"HKQ"#'"HRQ1$%)Q'0.*"EHG:MNI?"%-."LL"%-."'6$)"EO:LNI:"
S-01"HN"'("#,$"/*2-9"4'4/0%#2'-<*"%9$"8%*"/-3-'8-:"A$*$%)+,$)*"$;+0/.$."%00"/*$)*"
/-.$)"#,$"%9$"'("HP"2-"').$)"#'"('+/*"'-01"'-"%./0#"/*$)*:"
@'"%44)';2&%#$"#,2*"4'4/0%#2'-"%-."%++'/-#"(')")%+$?"$#,-2+2#1?"9$'9)%4,2+"
0'+%#2'-?"$./+%#2'-?"%-."*'+2'$+'-'&2+"%-."4*1+,'9)%4,2+*?"#,$")$*$%)+,$)*".$62*$."%"
+,%)%+#$)2T$.?"*#)%#2(2$."*-'85%00"*%&40$"EU')5$##?"FGHGV"W%21%"X"Y$)9$)QZ'0(?"FGHGI"
! ""!
!"#$%&'($%)&*&')($&)%'##&+,#"-.%#/%0"-1%(/))&*,/-1"-.%,&)(&-#'.&*%/0%,')#"(",'-#*%0)/+%
&'($%/0%#$&")%2'(&3//4%0)"&-1*%5"*#*6%%
7$&%)&*&')($&)*%8*&1%2'(&3//49*%1")&(#%+&**'."-.%#//5%#/%*&-1%'-%"-"#"'5%
"-:"#'#"/-%/-%;8-&%<=%>?<?%#/%,')#"(",'#&%"-%'%2'(&3//4%)&5'#&1%*8):&@=%!"#$%'%0/55/!A8,%
)&B8&*#%*&-#%'%!&&4%5'#&)6%C-(581&1%"-%#$&%*8):&@%!'*%'%)&B8&*#%0/)%,&)+"**"/-%#/%
D0)"&-1E%#$&%,')#"(",'-#*%/-%2'(&3//4=%"-%/)1&)%#/%'-'5@F&%#$&")%5"-4*6%7$&%"-"#"'5%
"-:"#'#"/-%!'*%*&-#%#/%>??%(/-#'(#*6%7$&%*-/!3'55%+&#$/1%,)/,'.'#&1%'%#/#'5%/0%G?H%
)&*,/-1&-#*%0/)%#$&%*8):&@6%I0%#$/*&%)&*,/-1&-#*=%JK%)&*,/-1&1%D@&*E%#/%#$&%0)"&-1"-.%
B8&*#"/-=%.":"-.%)&*&')($&)*%,&)+"**"/-%#/%(/-18(#%#$&%(/-#&-#%'-'5@*"*6%
L%2'(&3//4%)&*&')($%.)/8,%,'.&%!'*%*&#%8,%'-1%0)"&-1%)&B8&*#*%!&)&%*&-#%#/%#$&%
)&*,/-1&-#*%!"55"-.%#/%,')#"(",'#&6%7$&%JK%!$/%,')#"(",'#&1%!&)&%)'-1/+5@%'**".-&1%#/%
0":&%)&*&')($&)*%!$/%(/1&1%#$&%(/-#&-#%'-'5@*"*%,/)#"/-%/0%#$"*%*#81@6%7$/*&%"-%#$&%'.&%
.)/8,*%<K%#/%>H=%>M%#/%GH=%'-1%GM%#/%MH%&'($%)&,)&*&-#&1%>MNG?O%/0%#$&%"-"#"'5%*'+,5&=%
!$"5&%#$/*&%MM%'-1%/51&)%(/-*#"#8#&1%<?O6%7$&%"-"#"'5%*'+,5&%!'*%&:&-5@%'5*/%1":"1&1%
3&#!&&-%+&-%'-1%!/+&-6%
L%(/1&3//4%#$'#%"-(581&1%>G%:')"'35&*%!'*%()&'#&1%#/%'-'5@F&%,/*#&1%5"-4*%#/%
&P#&)-'5%!&3*"#&*=%*8($%'*%-&!*%*"#&*=%/).'-"F'#"/-*=%'-1%Q/8783&6%R"-4*%#/%"-#&)-'5%
2'(&3//4%(/-#&-#=%*8($%'*%,$/#/*%/)%2')+:"55&=%'-1%5/('#"/-%*&):"(&*=%*8($%'*%S/!'55'%
/)%2/8)*B8')&=%!&)&%&P(581&16%%
! "#!
!"#$%&'("))$(*$#'+,#'("#$#')-,.&'/%"0'1+%*-(-1+,*&2'3+($4"".'1%"/-)$&5'6"%.-,7'
4+(.6+%#'/%"0',"",'",'8$1*$04$%'9:5';<9<5'=,*-)'$-*>$%'9?')-,.&'1$%'1$%&",'>+#'4$$,'
("#$#'"%',"",'@=,$'95';<9<5'>+#'4$$,'%$+(>$#A'B,*$%("#$%'%$)-+4-)-*C'6+&'*$&*$#'",'+))';D'
E+%-+4)$&'=&-,7'+'F$4G4+&$#'B!H'*"")'H$!+)A'I%-11$,#"%/2&'΅ȱ&("%$#'J:K'/"%'"E$%+))'
("#-,7'%$)-+4-)-*CA'L6$)E$'E+%-+4)$&'6$%$'("#$#'/"%'*>$'%$&$+%(>'M=$&*-",&5'6-*>'
I%-11$,#"%/2&'΅ȱ&("%$&'/"%'N9<+'OJ;KP5'N9<4'OQQKP5'N9<('OJ?KP5'N9<#'OQQKP5'N9<$'
OQJKP5'N9</'OQ;KP5'N99'OJ?KP5'N9;'OJDKP5'N9?'OJ<KP5'N9R'OJ9KP5'N9S'OJDKP'+,#'N9Q'
OJRKPA'N9'*>%"=7>'NJ'6$%$'("#$%5'1+%*-(-1+,*'#$0"7%+1>-(5'#+C'+,#'#+*$'-,/"%0+*-",T'
N9D'+,#'N9:'6$%$'M=+)-*+*-E$'E+%-+4)$&',"*'-,()=#$#'-,'*>$'(",*$,*'+,+)C&-&A'
N9<+U/'$V+0-,$#'HWD5'*>$'0"#$&'"/'0$#-+X*$V*')-,.5'E-#$"5'$*(AX=&$#'-,'=&$%'
)-,.&A'N99'$V+0-,$#'*>$'7$,%$'1"%*-",'"/'HW;5'+,#'N9;'$V+0-,$#'*>$'*"1-('1"%*-",A'N9?'
+,#'N9Q'$V+0-,$#'HW:5'*>$'"%-7-,+)'&"=%($'*C1$&'/"%'*>$')-,.&T'N9R'+,#'N9S'$V+0-,$#'
HW?5',$*6"%.'/%-$,#&2'%$&1",&$&'*"'*>$')-,.&A'
L>$'JQ'1+%*-(-1+,*&'-,()=#$#';<'I"%$+,'3+($4"".'=&$%&'6>"&$'(",*$,*'6+&',"*'-,'
Y,7)-&>A'Z,$'("#$%'("#$#'*>$&$';<'1+%*-(-1+,*&5'>"6$E$%5'*>$&$'1+%*-(-1+,*&'6$%$',"*'
=&$#'/"%'*>-&'[A8AG'+,#'Y,7)-&>')+,7=+7$G($,*%-('1+1$%A'Z,($'*>-&'(=))-,7'6+&'
("01)$*$#5'/%$M=$,(C'*$&*&'+,#'(%"&&G*+4=)+*-",&'6$%$'1$%/"%0$#'*"'+,+)C\$'*>$'#+*+'
/"%'*>$'%$0+-,-,7'SQ'1+%*-(-1+,*&A'
! "#!
!"#$%&'&(
)*&+'",(-.+/0"#$(1'"2&(
!"#$%&'&$()$*+%($,-(,.($/%0,1))'$2&,3&$&+%3,$4.5)36%(4).$(+3)27+$84.'&9$:+43(;<
,47+($)5$(+,$=>$?%3(404?%.(&$@ABCD$?)&(,E$%$()(%8$)5$FG>$84.'&9$H5$(+)&,$F>$?%3(404?%.(&I$GF$
@J#CD$*,3,$*)6,.$%.E$#K$@FBCD$*,3,$6,.99$:+,$)L,3*+,864.7$6%M)34(;$*,3,$84.'&$
(+%($(+,$?%3(404?%.($%??%3,.(8;$5)2.E$).$(+,43$)*.N$).8;$JC$*,3,$3,?)&(&$53)6$%.)(+,3$
/%0,1))'$2&,39$$
O4-(,,.$@AGCD$)5$(+,$?%3(404?%.(&$?)&(,E$%($8,%&($#K$84.'&$E234.7$(+,$&(2E;$?,34)EN$
(+,$3,6%4.4.7$GG$?)&(,E$1,(*,,.$#$%.E$#A$@3,0%88$(+%($AP$?%3(404?%.(&$?)&(,E$.).,D9$:+,$
3,&,%30+,3&$E4E$.)($0)2.($84.'&$?%&($#KI$&)$(+,$?)&(4.7$53,Q2,.0;$)5$(+,$6)3,$?3)84540$
?)&(,3&$*%&$.)($3,0)3E,E9$
:+,$GKRFA$%7,$73)2?$*%&$(+,$8%37,&($73)2?$)5$?)&(,3&I$%($#>$@A=C$)5$(+,$()(%8D9$S($
*%&$5)88)*,E$4.$E,&0,.E4.7$)3E,3$FKRKA$*4(+$##$@GBCDI$#>RGK$*4(+$=$@#BCD$%.E$KK<?82&$
*4(+$G$@KCD9$T4(+$&)$5,*$3,&?).E,.(&$4.$(+,$KK$?82&$%7,$73)2?I$(+4&$73)2?$*%&$6,37,E$
*4(+$(+,$FKRKA$73)2?$5)3$523(+,3$%.%8;&4&9$$
3/"0/(#"4(5*6'7(*8(1'"2&(
:)$%.&*,3$!"GI$*+40+$%&'&$*+%($7,.3,$%.E$()?40$/%0,1))'$2&,3&$&+%3,$*4(+$
(+,43$534,.E$.,(*)3'&I$(+,$3,&,%30+,3&$0)E,E$1)(+$*+%($(+,$?346%3;$0).(,.($)5$(+,$
84.',E$6%(,34%8$*%&$@*34((,.$%3(408,I$L4E,)I$?+)()73%?+&I$%2E4)I$4.(,3%0(4L,I$)3$)(+,3D$
%.E$)(+,3$0).(,.($?3,&,.($12($.)($?346%3;$4.$(+,$84.'&9$!,&,%30+,3&$%8&)$0)E,E$5)3$()?40$
! "#!
!"#$%&%'()*("#+&()*,+&(-./&.+&,%/0./&)*1.,$&1)*&.'1/#$#23)*%/&.+".+(#/,$)*'4++./&*.5./&()*
#&1.+6*,/7*2./+.*!/.8()*9.,&4+.)*'#00./&,+3)*(,&%+.)*'#0.73)*2./.+,$*%/&.+.(&)*"+#74'&()*
#&1.+6:*;/.*#9*&1.*&#"%'(*.<,0%/.7)*("#+&()*8,(*=,+.$3*+."+.(./&.7)*(#*%&*8,(*0.+2.7*
%/&#*&1.*,+&(*,/7*./&.+&,%/0./&*&#"%':*
>1.*$.,7%/2*2./+.(*$%/?.7*&#*8.+.*2./.+,$*%/&.+.(&*,/7*/.8(*!@AB*.,'16)*
9#$$#8.7*=3*"+#74'&(*!ACB6)*'#00./&,+3*!ADB6)*(,&%+.-'#0.73*!EB6)*9.,&4+.(*!CB6*,/7*
,$$*#&1.+(*!AFB6*/*G*H@I:*>#"%'(*8.+.*$.,7*=3*("#+&(-,+&-./&.+&,%/0./&*!JDB6)*'4++./&*
.5./&(*!AFB6)*1.,$&1-&.'1/#$#23*!ADB6)*"#$%&%'(*!EB6*,/7*,$$*#&1.+(*!@CB6*/*G*H@I:*
K#0./*"#(&.7*0#+.*$%/?(*%/*,$$*&#"%'(*,/7*2./+.(*#&1.+*&1,/*"#$%&%'(*,/7*
(,&%+.-'#0.73*!FIB)*/*G*H@D)*"*L*:DDA6:*
M%/?(*%/*&1.*9.,&4+.*2./+.*8.+.*0#(&$3*"#(&.7*=3*8#0./*!IHBN*/*G*@H)*"*L*:DDA6)*
,(*8.+.*$%/?(*&#*/.8(*%&.0(*!CHBN*/*G*OO)*"*L*:DDA6:*M%/?(*&#*"+#74'&(*8.+.*,$(#*04'1*
0#+.*"+.5,$./&$3*"#(&.7*=3*8#0./*!CAB6*&1,/*0./*!/*G*FF)*"*L*:DDA6:*M%/?(*&#*
(,&%+.-'#0.73*8.+.*"+.7#0%/,/&$3*,*0,$.*2./+.*!OOBN*/*G*AD)*"*L*:DDA6:*
* P2.*2+#4"*HF*"$4(*!OJB6*7#0%/,&.7*"#$%&%',$*$%/?()*8%&1*,2.*2+#4"*@F*&#*HJ*,&*
@EB*,/7*AI*&#*@J*,&*CB*!/*G*@I)*"*L*:DA6:*Q"#+&(-,+&-./&.+&,%/0./&*$%/?(*,+.*0#+.*$%?.$3*&#*
=.*"#(&.7*=3*,2.*2+#4"*@F*&#*HJ*!F@B6*&1,/*HF*"$4(*!J@B6*#+*AI*&#*@J*!OBN*/*G*A@C)*"*L*
:DA6:*
>1.*4(.+(*,$(#*8.+.*/#&*4(%/2*$%/?(*&#*"+#0#&.*&1.0(.$5.(N*#/$3*,*9.8*!CB6*8.+.*
&#*0,&.+%,$*'+.,&.7*=3*&1.*",+&%'%",/&(*&1.0(.$5.(:*
! "#!
!"#$%&"'&!$#()&
!"#$%&'()$*+%,$-.)(&$./$-()0%$102(23$,(4,3$50)(.3$6+.,.&3$(,728$,+%,$9%7(:..'$
;&(<&$=0>'$,.2$2$?+($-.&,$>;-(<.;&$6<0-%<@$,@6($./$7.>,(>,$0>$%$=0>'$*%&$,(4,$1ABC83$
/.==.*()$:@$50)(.$1DDC83$6+.,.&$1EEC83$%;)0.$1BC83$0>,(<%7,05($1AC8$%>)$%==$.,+(<&$1FC82$$
G(>$6.&,()$-.<($50)(.$=0>'&$1BHC$./$,+($,.,%=8$%&$%$6<0-%<@$&.;<7($/.<$-()0%$
,@6($,+%>$*.-(>$1>$I$J#3$6$K$2LE82$M.-(>$6.&,()$-.<($6+.,.$=0>'&$1FJC8$%&$%$6<0-%<@$
&.;<7($/.<$-()0%$1>$I$#F3$6$K$LLE82$M.-(>$%=&.$+%)$-.<($6+.,.&$6<(&(>,$0>$,+(0<$=0>'&$
1NAC8$,+%>$-(>$)0)$1>$I$EAA3$6$K$2LLE82$M+0=($*.-(>$+%)$-.<($%;)0.$/0=(&$6<(&(>,$0>$
,+(0<$=0>'&$1J#C$./$,.,%=$%;)0.$/0=(&8$,+%>$-(>$1>$I$#L3$6$K$2LLE83$-(>$;&()$%;)0.$-.<($%&$
%$6<0-%<@$-()0;-$1FJC3$>$I$EB3$6$K$LLE82$O>$%>.,+(<$<(5(<&%=3$-(>$+%)$-.<($0>,(<%7,05($
-()0%P.66.<,;>0,0(&$/.<$,+($<(%)(<$,.$<(&6.>)$.<$0>,(<%7,$*0,+$,+($&0,(3$&;7+$%&$%$
7.--(>,0>Q$/;>7,0.>$.<$0>,(<%7,05($Q<%6+07&P6<(&(>,$0>$,+(0<$=0>'&$1NLC$./$,.,%=$
0>,(<%7,05($=0>'&8$,+%>$*.-(>$1>$I$EAA3$6$K$2LLE83$:;,$*.-(>$+%)$-.<($0>,(<%7,05($
-()0%$%&$%$6<0-%<@$&.;<7($0>$,+(0<$=0>'&$1JEC3$>$I$EA3$6$K$2LLE82$
R0Q>0/07%>,$)0//(<(>7(&$*(<($%=&.$/.;>)$:@$%Q(2$SQ(&$#B$%>)$;6$6.&,()$-.<($=0>'&$
*0,+$6+.,.&$%&$%$6<0-%<@$-()0%$,@6($1JNC8$,+%>$%Q(&$DB$,.$#A$1EFC8$.<$%Q(&$EF$,.$DA$
1NCT$>$I$#F3$6$K$2LLE82$SQ($Q<.;6$#B$6=;&$1NJC8$+%)$-.<($*<0,,(>$%<,07=(&$6<(&(>,$0>$,+(0<$
6.&,()$=0>'&$7.-6%<()$,.$%Q($Q<.;6$DB$,.$#A$1DHC8$%>)$%Q($Q<.;6$EF$,.$DA$1AC8$>$I$AD3$6$
K$2LE3$:;,$%Q($Q<.;6$DB$,.$#A$1BAC8$6.&,()$-.<($=0>'&$*0,+$%<,07=(&$%&$,+(0<$6<0-%<@$
-()0%$,@6($,+%>$)0)$%Q($Q<.;6$#B$6=;&$1#AC8$.<$%Q($Q<.;6$EF$,.$DA$1EDC8$>$I$EAN3$6$K$
! "#!
!"#!$%&'$&()*+$,-$+.*/$0-#12$+)/3'4$5)('$.678/$963:$673'(;<36='$5'46;$+('/'73$;74$;/$;$
+(65;(>$5'46;$3>+'$3:;7$464$;&'$&()*+$?-$3)$,@$0@?12$)($;&'$&()*+$#A$3)$?@$0B12$7$C$
#-AD$+$E$!"#!$%&'/$,-$;74$*+$;./)$+)/3'4$5)('$.678/$3)$+).636<;.$5;3'(6;.$0F@12$3:;7$;&'/$
?-$3)$,@$0?A12$)($;&'$#A$3)$?@$0A12$7$C$?AD$+$E$!"#!$$
!"#$#%&'()*+",-(./0-1(
GH@$;/8'4$9:;3$3:'$)(6&67;.$/)*(<'/$)I$3:'/'$'J3'(7;.$.678/$9'('D$I)($'J;5+.'D$
)7.67'$7'9/$)(&;76K;36)7/$;74$L)*M*N'!$%7;.>/6/$/:)9'4$.678$/)*(<'/$9'('$=;(6'4O$3:'$
('/';(<:'/$<)4'4$I)($<'(3;67$+)+*.;($3>+'/$)I$/)*(<'$0'!&!D$PQQD$Q'9$L)(8$M65'/2D$N*3$
N;('.>$:;.I$I'..$67$3:)/'$<;3'&)(6'/!$R64')$/)<6;.$7'39)(8/$/*<:$;/$L)*M*N'$;74$R65')$
;<<)*73'4$I)($#A1D$)7.67'$7'9/+;+'(/$9'('$#-1D$5*/6<$/:;(67&$/63'/$9'('$B1D$;74$
N();4<;/3$7'9/$/63'/$;74$N.)&/$;<<)*73'4$I)($)7.>$F1O$@S1$9'('$<)4'4$;/$T)3:'(!U$$
V)5'7$)*3W+)/3'4$5'7$67$;..$.678$/)*(<'$<;3'&)(6'/$)3:'($3:;7$=64')$/:;(67&$
/)<6;.$7'39)(8/$0-A1D$7$C$,#SD$+$E$!""#2!$
R64')$6/$3:'$+(65;(>$5'46*5$67$5)('$.678/$N>$5'7$0-S12$3:;7$9)5'7$07$C$B,D$+$
E$!"#2!$X:)3)/$;('$+('/'73$67$5)('$5;3'(6;.$.678'4$N>$9)5'7$0F@12$3:;7$5'7$07$C$#@FD$+$
E$!""#2$;74$;/$3:'$+(65;(>$5'46*5$6/$.678'4$N>$5)('$9)5'7$0AB12$3:;7$5'7$07$C$,AD$+$
E$!""#2!$V)5'7$;./)$+)/3$5)('$)I$3:'$.678/$963:$;*46)$+('/'73$0B,12$3:;7$5'7$4)$07$C$
,"D$+$E$!""#2D$N*3$5'7$+)/3$5)('$)I$3:'$.678/$963:$;*46)$;/$3:'$+(65;(>$5'46*5$0AB1O$7$
C$#-D$+$E$!""#2!$Y7$<)73(;/3D$5'7$;./)$+)/3$5)('$.678/$0F"12$963:$673'(;<36='$+('/'7<'$
! "#!
!"#$%&'()$%*'%+$%,%-../%0%1%233-4/%56!%&'()$%0'7!%('8)%+9-:4%';%!")%<=$>7%=$%&"=?"%
=$!)8#?!=@)%=7%!")%08=(#8A%()*=6(%+$%,%-./%0%1%233-42%
B")%#C)%C8'60%DEF0<67%&#7%('8)%<=>)<A%!'%0'7!%<=$>7%!'%!")%=!)(7%&=!"%0"'!'%#7%
!")%08=(#8A%()*=6(%+9G:4%!"#$%#C)%C8'607%HE%!'%D.%+-I:4%#$*%-I%!'%H.%+E:4%?'(5=$)*%
+$%,%DI/%0%1%233-42%JC)%C8'60%DE%0<67%#<7'%0'7!7%('8)%+EH:4%';%!")%<=$>7%!'%=!)(7%&=!"%
=$!)8#?!=@)%08)7)$?)%!"#$%#C)%C8'607%HE%!'%D.%+.3:4%'8%-I%!'%H.%+I:K%$%,%-../%0%1%23-42%
L$!)8#?!=@=!A%#7%#%08=(#8A%()*=6(%=7%#<7'%;'6$*%('8)%=$%<=$>7%5A%#C)%C8'60%DE%0<67%
+E3:%';%!")%!'!#<4%!"#$%#C)%C8'607%HE%!'%D.%+.D:4%'8%-I%!'%H.%+9:K%$%,%-./%0%1%23-42%
M'()$%08'@=*)*%('8)%';%!")%<=$>7%!'%$)&70#0)87%+9-:4%!"#$%()$%*=*%+$%,%.I/%0%
1%233-4/%#<7'%58'#*?#7!%#$*%?#5<)F$)&7%7=!)7%+9H:/%$%,%-I/%0%1%233-4/%5<'C7%+9H:/%$%,%-I/%0%1%
233-4/%#$*%(67=?%7=!)7%+G3:/%$%,%HH/%0%1%233-4K%()$%<=$>)*%('8)%+GI:4%!'%@=*)'%7"#8=$C%
7'?=#<%$)!&'8>7%+$%,%E9/%0%1%233-42%
B&=?)%#7%(#$A%<=$>7%!'%58'#*?#7!%#$*%?#5<)F$)&7%7=!)7%?#()%;8'(%#C)%C8'60%HE%
!'%D.%+G9:4%!"#$%;8'(%!")%'!")8%#C)%C8'607%?'(5=$)*K%+DEF0<67%HH:/%-I%!'%H.%--:K%$%,%
-I/%0%1%23E42%
!"#$%&#"#'()%*'()+"&,#'
NOE%#7>7%"'&%'!")87%8)70'$*%!'%<=$>7%0'7!)*%'$%P#?)5''>%&=!"%?'(()$!7%#$*%
<=>)72%Q#8!=?=0#$!7%#$*%!")=8%?'$!#?!7%0'7!)*%#%!'!#<%';%933%?'(()$!7%'$%!")%<=$>7%
7!6*=)*/%#%()#$%';%H2-2%R=$>7%0'7!)*%5A%&'()$%C'!%('8)%?'(()$!7%'$%#@)8#C)%+H2G4%
! "#!
!"#$%!"&'(%)*%+($%,-./0%1%2%.3-4.%5"(%67$8'%#6'&%9(:(7;(<%#%!&!#6%&=%>?@%678('A%#%+(#$%&=%3.B.%
CD#7$A%E&+($F'%67$8'%<9(E%+&9(%678('%&$%#;(9#D(%,-.-4%!"#$%+($F'%,.GH0%1%2%.3/4.%%
!"#$%##"&'(
5"7'%(I16&9#!&9*%'!J<*%'&JD"!%7$=&9+#!7&$%#)&J!%E"#!%#$<%"&E%K#:()&&8%J'(9'%
#9(%'"#97$D%)&!"%$(E'%#$<%&!"(9%!*1('%&=%(I!(9$#6%67$8'.%K7$<7$D'%=9&+%!"7'%:&$!($!%
#$#6*'7'%'"&E%!"#!%6(''%!"#$%"#6=%,HBL4%&=%!"(%1#9!7:71#$!'%1&'!(<%67$8'%<J97$D%!"(%!"9((M
+&$!"%1(97&<%!"(*%E(9(%)(7$D%!9#:8(<.%N(!!7$D%#%67+7!%&=%!"(%-/%+&'!%9(:($!%1&'!'%<J97$D%
!"(%!"9((M+&$!"%!9#:87$D%1(97&<A%1#9!7:71#$!'%!"#!%<7<%1&'!%67$8'%1&'!(<%#$%#;(9#D(%&=%-3%
67$8'.%%
O7$8'%!&%+#!(97#6'%E7!"%1"&!&'%E#'%+&'!%19(;#6($!%,P>L4A%)J!%1"&!&'%E(9(%6(''%
&=!($%!"(%197+#9*%+(<7J+%,--L4.%Q97!!($%+#!(97#6%<&+7$#!(<%#'%!"(%197+#9*%+(<7J+%
&=%1&'!(<%67$8'%,H/L4A%)J!%E#'%19('($!%&$6*%,-PL4%&=%!"(%!7+(%E"($%$&!%!"(%197+#9*%
+(<7J+.%R&E(;(9A%;7<(&%'&:7#6%$(!E&98%'7!('%,-?L4%E(9(%67$8(<%!&%+&9(%=9(SJ($!6*%
!"#$%#$*%&!"(9%'1(:7=7:%!*1(%&=%&$67$(%<('!7$#!7&$.%
T(E'%#$<%D($(9#6%7$=&9+#!7&$%E(9(%!"(%!E&%6(#<7$D%D($9('%)J!%
'1&9!'U#9!'U($!(9!#7$+($!%E#'%!"(%197+#9*%67$8(<%!&17:%&=%:"&7:(.%
V&+1#97$D%67$87$D%1#!!(9$'%!&%K#:()&&8F'%D($(9#6%J'(%1#!!(9$'%,7N!9#!(D*O#)'A%
>3-34A%D($<(9%'!#!7'!7:'%&=%J'(9%67$87$D%=&66&E%D($(9#6%J'#D(%'!#!7'!7:'%E7!"7$%!"(%W.N.A%
E7!"%=(+#6(%K#:()&&8%J'(9'%1&'!7$D%+&9(%67$8'%!&%'"#9(%7$=&9+#!7&$%E7!"%!"(79%$(!E&98%
! "#!
!"#$%&'(!!)#"*+',-.#/0%,#1%2'.3#40+.#./5-67.#"+,-+,8.#!"#2+,)#5.%8'#%1!,8#%8'#8*!59.#
-+-#,!/#&!192'/'26#1%/&0#59#:+/0#$%&'(!!)7.#8','*%2#5.%8'#./%/+./+&.#&!,&'*,+,8#%8'#
8*!59.#;$%&'(!!)<#=>?>@3#40+.#%,%26.+.#"!5,-#/0%/#%8'#8*!59#=A#/!#BC#9!./'-#1!*'#2+,).#
/0%,#%8'#8*!59.#!2-'*#/0%,#BA<#:0+&0#+.#&!,/*%*6#/!#8','*%2#5.'#"+85*'.<#(5/#%8'#8*!59#
?D#/!#=C#2+,)#%,-#8','*%2#5.'#./%/+./+&.#:'*'#.+1+2%*3#E"#&!5*.'<#/!!<#/0+.#:%.#%#.1%22#
.%192'#!"#5.'*.3#
$%&'(!!)#!"#&!5*.'#+.#+/.'2"#%,#+,/'*%&/+F'#1'-+51<#:+/0#5.'*.#%(2'#/!#9%..#%2!,8#
%,-#&!11',/#!,#!/0'*.7#2+,).3#G,#/0+.#.%192'<#*'9!./+,8#:%.#(%*'26#%#(2+9H#!,26#IJ#!"#
2+,).#:'*'#*'9!./'-#"*!1#%,!/0'*#5.'*#5.+,8#/0'#,'/:!*)7.#K.0%*'L#"5,&/+!,3#M+/0#
*'.9'&/#/!#&!11',/.#%,-#2+)'.<#,'%*26#0%2"#;CNJ@#!"#/0'#2+,).#8!/#,!#&!11',/.#%/#%22<#%,-#
!"#/0!.'#/0%/#-+-<#/0'#1!-'.#:'*'#?#%,-#=#&!11',/.#;?=J#'%&0@<#(5/#.!1'#-+.&5..+!,.#
*'%&0'-#1!*'#/0%,#?>#&!11',/.<#%,-#!,'#0%-#=I3#O+,).#9!./'-#(6#:!1',#*'&'+F'-#(!/0#
1!*'#&!11',/.#%,-#1!*'#2+)'.#/0%,#/0!.'#(6#1',3#
!"#$%&'("#')
G/#+.#+19!*/%,/#/!#/0'#0'%2/0#!"#%#-'1!&*%/+&#.!&+'/6#%,-#/0'#(5.+,'..#!"#
P!5*,%2+.1#/0%/#:'#),!:#1!*'#%(!5/#/0+.#'1'*8',/#"!*1#!"#,':.#('0%F+!*#%,-#+/.#
+192+&%/+!,.#"!*#,':.#1'-+%<#:0+&0#:+22#0%F'#/!#&!,/+,5'#/!#%-%9/#+,#!*-'*#/!#./%6#+,#
(5.+,'..3#40'#1'-+%#:'*'#!,&'#.'',#%.#%,#K+,/'8*%2#+,./+/5/+!,#!"#8!F'*,%,&'L#;Q',,'//#
R#G6',8%*<#=>>D@#(5/#%*'#2!.+,8#9*!1+,',&'H#9*%&/+/+!,'*.#!"#P!5*,%2+.1#15./#
5,-'*./%,-#/0'+*#%5-+',&'#+,#!*-'*#/!#1''/#+/.#,''-.3##
! "#!
!"#$%#&#'%("#%&$)*&"$+,$#-."'&*/#$+"#$#0.1,%'+,%2$3'+4%#$,5$+"#$.%#&#3+$&+4627$
!"#$%#&#'%("$)'&$(,364(+#6$)*+",4+$'$-,3*+,%2$8469#+$3,%$&,."*&+*('+#6$,31*3#$
'3'12+*('1$+,,1&$&4("$'&$1,99*39$&,5+)'%#$'36$,31*3#$(%')1#%&7$!"#$&+462:$",)#;#%:$
,55#%&$'$91*-.&#$*3+,$+"#$1*3<*39$3'+4%#$'36$(,3+#3+$,5$='(#8,,<$4&#%&$)",$&#%;#$'&$
*35,%-'+*,3$"48&$)*+"*3$+"#*%$='(#8,,<$3#+),%<&7$$
=4+4%#$&+46*#&$-'2$-'<#$4&#$,5$'3'12+*('1$+#("3,1,92$5,%$-,%#$6#+'*1#6$
#0'-*3'+*,3$,5$,31*3#$5%*#36$3#+),%<&$'36$+"#$*35,%-'+*,3$+"'+$51,)&$,3$+"#-:$
#&.#(*'112$+"%,49"$3#+),%<&>$'..1*('+*,3$.%,9%'--*39$*3+#%5'(#&$?@AB&C:$)"*("$'11,)$
'((#&&$+,$+"#$&#%;*(#&$'36$&,-#$6'+'$%#&*6*39$+"#%#*37$!"*&$'11,)&$5,%$-,%#$6#+'*1#6$
#0'-*3'+*,3$,5$("'%'(+#%*&+*(&$,5$*3514#3+*'1$-#-8#%&D+",&#$)",&#$&"'%#6$1*3<&$'%#$
-,&+$1*<#12$+,$8#$.'&&#6$'1,39$54%+"#%7$E#9'%6*39$1,99*39$&,5+)'%#:$'$&+462$*3$.%,9%#&&$
82$F#3("#3G!%#;*3,$?HIJIC$,55#%&$'$-,6#1$5,%$&+462*39$*36*;*64'1$8#"';*,%$*3$+"#$
&,(*'1G3#)&$3#04&7$!"#$%#&#'%("#%$"'&$%#(%4*+#6$.'%+*(*.'3+&$+,$'11,)$(4&+,-*/#6$
&,5+)'%#$('11#6$E,02$+,$(,11#(+$+"#*%$K#8$8%,)&*39$6'+'7$L!"#$(,3+#3+$,5$)#8&*+#&$)*+"$
&#3&*+*;#$.#%&,3'1$*35,%-'+*,3$777$)*11$MN!$8#$1,99#6O$?.'%'7$PC7$!"*&$-#+",6$,55#%&$'$
)'2$+,$+%'(<$'36$#0'-*3#$.'++#%3&$*3$*36*;*64'1$8%,)&*39$8#"';*,%7$
@1,39$)*+"$+"#$&-'11$'36$3,3G9#3#%'1*/'81#$&'-.1#:$'3$*-.,%+'3+$1*-*+'+*,3$,5$
+"#$.%#&#3+$&+462$*&$+"#$%'.*6$#;,14+*,3$#;#3$)*+"*3$+"#$='(#8,,<$3#+),%<Q$+"#$3'+4%#$
,5$+"#$M#)&$=##6$'36$("'39#&$*3$.%*;'(2$('.'8*1*+*#&$(%#'+#&$("'11#39#&$5,%$%#&#'%("#%&$
'*-*39$+,$%#.1*('+#$,+"#%&>$-#+",6&$,%$+,$#&+'81*&"$-#+",6&$5,%$,+"#%&$+,$#-41'+#7$!"*&$
! "#!
!"#$%&#$%$'(%)(*%+,-#'(.-($%/(0.&./#1(/%(23*#4%%56(700(/"#(-3&#'(3$8(.00+&.$3/.%$(%)(/"#(
4+-8(4+/(&%-/08(%!39+#(-%*.30:.$)%,&3/.%$(-8-/#&("#0!-(%+,(+$1#,-/3$1.$;6(<"#-#(
0.&./3/.%$-(1%($%/(/35#(),%&(/"#(=30+#(/".-(#>!0%,3/%,8(;0.&!-#(%))#,-(.$/%(/"#(+-#-(%)(
23*#4%%5(3-(3(&#3$-()%,(1.--#&.$3/.$;($#?-6(
!"#"$"%&"'(
@#$$#//'(A6(B6'(C(D8#$;3,'(E6(FGHHIJ6(7($#?(#,3(%)(&.$.&30(#))#*/-K(<"#(*"3$;.$;(
)%+$13/.%$-(%)(!%0./.*30(*%&&+$.*3/.%$6(!"#$%&'(")(*"++#%,-&.,"%/(01FLJ'(MHM:MNO6(
@#$/%$'(P6(FGHHQJ6(R038(E".,58S(B#/(3(/"%+-3$1()0%?#,-(40%%&(/%(,#!03*#($#?-!3!#,-T(
1%$U/(4+.01(3(!38?300(3,%+$1(3(!+40.*(;%%16(VA#4(0%;(!%-/W6(X#/,.#=#1(),%&(
"//!SYY???6$.#&3$0346%,;YGHHQYHQY*038:-".,58:0#/:3:/"%+-3$1:)0%?#,-:40%%&:/%:
,#!03*#:$#?-!3!#,-:1%$/:4+.01:3:!38?300:3,%+$1:3:!+40.*:;%%1Y(
@0+&0#,'(P6(Z6'(C([*\+3.0'(]6(FOQ^QJ6(23'34,5,"%(,%(6"',.,-57(8.5(#535(&%9(,%)'#3%-36(R".*3;%S(
_$.=#,-./8(%)(R".*3;%(`,#--6(
4%81'(]6(FGHOH'(2#4,+3,8(GaJ6(:.$3&+5(")(-"%.3%./(',+,.39(&..3%.,"%;(X#/,.#=#1(),%&(
"//!SYY+>&3;6*%&Y)#3/+,#-Y-/,#3&-:%):*%$/#$/:0.&./#1:3//#$/.%$(
@+$b'([6(FGHHQ'(]#*#&4#,(GJ6(23*#4%%5(;#/-($#?(!,.=3*8(-#//.$;-c3$1(NaH(&.00.%$(
+-#,-6(VA#4(0%;(!%-/W6(X#/,.#=#1(),%&(
"//!SYY???6;+3,1.3$6*%6+5Y&#1.3Y!13YGHHQY1#*YHGY1.;./30:&#1.3:)3*#4%%5:
!,.=3*8:-#//.$;-:%!#$:0#//#,:&3,5:b+*5#,4#,;:NaH:+-#,-(
! ""!
!"#$%&'()*+,*-,*./010)*2"3*45,*+67%*%"&#3*$"8"*9:6;9*<"=%>66?*@#ABC(9*C(=&%"9C(B*D%>*
9C8%9E*8&"FFC=,*GD%>*#6B*@698H,*I%8&C%J%$*F&67*
:88@KLL;;;,C(9C$%F"=%>66?,=67L/010L04L04L967%M%"&#3M$"8"M9:6;9MF"=%>66?M
@#ABC(9MC(=&%"9C(BM9C8%9M8&"FFC=L*
!:67@N(,*./0115,*D:"8*C9*8:%*J"#A%*6F*"*96=C"#*"=8C6(*C(*6(#C(%*=677%&=%O*I%8&C%J%$*
F&67*:88@KLL;;;,=:67@6(,=67L=:67@6(P96=C"#P"=8C6(PJ"#A%,@$F*
!6&>%88)*Q,*./0105,*<"=%>66?*$%76B&"@:C=9*"($*98"8C98C=9*&%@6&8*/010R1S4T*B&6;8:*C(*1*
3%"&,*I%8&C%J%$*F&67*:88@KLL;;;,C98&"8%B3#">9,=67L/010L01LF"=%>66?M
$%76B&"@:C=9M"($M98"8C98C=9M&%@6&8M/010M1S4MB&6;8:MC(M1M3%"&L*
<"=%>66?,*./0105,*Q&%99*&667K*+8"8C98C=9,*I%8&C%J%$*F&67*
:88@KLL;;;,F"=%>66?,=67L@&%99LC(F6,@:@O98"8C98C=9*
<6U)*+,)*VC=?A:&)*W,)*X*+7C8:)*Y,*./00Z5,*[;C88%&*"($*98"8A9*A@$"8C(B,*Q%;*-(8%&(%8*X*
Y7%&C="(*\CF%*Q&6]%=8,*I%8&C%J%$*F&67*
:88@KLL;;;,@%;C(8%&(%8,6&BLI%@6&89L/00ZL1^M[;C88%&M"($M+8"8A9M_@$"8C(BM<"##M
/00Z,"9@U*
`"@B66$)*<,*.1ZZ45,*[:%*2%$C"*\">*"8*10,*!"#$%&'(.115,*I%8&C%J%$*F&67*
:88@KLL;;;,;C&%$,=67L;C&%$L"&=:CJ%La,11L7%$C"P@&,:87#*
`%&7C$")*Y,*./00Z)*+%@8%7>%&*145,*<6b0Z*8"#?K*[;C88%&*"9*"*9398%7*6F*"7>C%(8*
]6A&("#C97,*GD%>*#6B*@698H,*I%8&C%J%$*F&67*:88@KLL&%@6&8&,(%8L/00ZL0ZL14LF6]0ZM
8"#?M8;C88%&M"9M"M9398%7M6FM"7>C%(8M]6A&("#C97L*
! "#!
!"#$%&'()!*)+,-.-()/0123425)67*)/4801""$)942:0';)&0<')204=02>)?@01)9":)#"';A*)
B0;2%0C0=)D2"E)F;;#GHH<019":'*F%;<%'0*8"EH3'IF04;F02I
F"#$%&'H,-.-H-,HD4801""$J942:0';J&0<'J204=02J.*F;E9)
K&:24E()L*)+,--M()L428F),N7*)OKD);F0)&0<')%')%E#"2;4&;()%;)<%99)D%&=)E0P*)?@01)9":)#"';A*)
B0;2%0C0=)D2"E)F;;#GHH<<<*E4;F0<%&:24E*8"EH<"2$H,--MH-6H,NH%DI;F0I&0<'I%'I
%E#"2;4&;I%;I<%99ID%&=IE0H)
%Q;24;0:5R41'*)+,-.-7*)S0E":24#F%8')4&=)';4;%';%8')20#"2;),-.-*)B0;2%0C0=)D2"E)D2"E)
F;;#GHH<<<*%';24;0:5941'*8"EH,-.-H-.HD4801""$I=0E":24#F%8'I4&=I';4;%';%8'I
20#"2;I,-.-I.TUI:2"<;FI%&I.I5042H)
V42C%'()V*)+,--M()V3&0).M7*)WF0)9%&$)08"&"E5)C*);F0)8"&;0&;)08"&"E5*)B0;2%0C0=)D2"E)
F;;#GHH<<<*13XXE48F%&0*8"EH,--MH-YH.MH;F0I9%&$I08"&"E5ICI;F0I8"&;0&;I
08"&"E5H)
R00()V*)Z*)+,--[7*)K&8%=0&;49)0\#"'320);")&0<'G)R%E%;%&:)D24:E0&;4;%"&)%&);F0)&0<)E0=%4)
0&C%2"&E0&;*)+S"8;"249)=%''02;4;%"&*)]&%C02'%;5)"D)W0\4')4;)^3';%&7*)B0;2%0C0=)
D2"E)F;;#GHH20#"'%;"2%0'*9%1*3;0\4'*0=3H)
R%_%;)+,-.-7*)R%_%;)`0;<"2$')4&&"3&80')20'39;')"D),-.-)#319%'F02);""9')4&495'%'*)B0;2%0C0=)
D2"E)F;;#GHH<<<*9%_%;*8"EH8"E#4&5H#20''H20904'0'H-6-,,-..)
L4%54()^*)Q*()a)b02:02I@"9D()W*)c*)+,-.-7*)!"#$%&'()*+##,'&-.)/-0,*-,01*)B0;2%0C0=)D2"E)
F;;#GHH423&*E4%54*&0;H#4#02'HE4%54J0;49I'4E#8"EE*#=D)
! "#!
!"#$%"&&'()*(!*(+,-../*(0"123445(6(78!(+$419"&(:2;9"(<225$(4=&>/*(?@23(&4<(A4$BC*(
D2B#92E2;(F#4:(
%BBAGHHIII*B"&59=<A49=B$:2:4*14:H"#1%9E2$H,-..H-JHF"123445KBA:K$419"&K:2;
9"K<225$K4=&>K.*A%A(
!2=1%2=L7#2E9=4'(M*(+,-.-/*(721%=4&4<>(6(B%2($419"&*(D2B#92E2;(F#4:(
%BBAGHHIII*2#915"*11H3B1H(
82I(D2$2"#1%(N2=B2#(+,-../*(OB"B2(4F(B%2(:2;9"(,-..*(D2B#92E2;(F#4:(
%BBAGHH$B"B24FB%2:2;9"*4#<H,-..H(
8P#12&&'(Q*'(D"9=92'(R*'(!9B1%2&&'(S*'(D4$2=$B92&'(7*'(6(T&:$B2";'(Q*(+,-.-'(!"#1%(./*(
U=;2#$B"=;9=<(B%2(A"#B919A"B4#>(=2I$(14=$P:2#*(82I(V=B2#=2B(6(S:2#91"=(R9F2(
8#4W21B*(D2B#92E2;(F#4:(%BBAGHHIII*A2I9=B2#=2B*4#<HD2A4#B$H,-.-HT=&9=2L
X2I$*"$AY(
OB2&B2#'(Z*(+,--['(!"#1%(,\/*(09=;9=<(A4&9B91"&(=2I$(4=&9=2'(B%2(>4P=<(A"$$(9B(4=!"#$%"&%'"
()*+"#,-%.!(D2B#92E2;(F#4:(
%BBAGHHIII*=>B9:2$*14:H,--[H-JH,\HP$HA4&9B91$H,\E4B2#$*%B:&(
72I5$3P#>'(]*'(@2"E2#'(S*()*'(6(!";;2Y'(Z*(]*(+,--./*(S119;2=B"&&>(9=F4#:2;G(V=19;2=B"&(
X2I$(2YA4$P#2(4=(B%2(@4#&;(@9;2(@23*(/)0*123,.-"4"52.."6)--01,728,)1"
902*8%*3:;"\['(^JJL^^_*(
@%9B2'(]*(!*(+.`^-/*(7%2(a<"B2(522A2#aG(S(1"$2($BP;>(9=(B%2($2&21B94=(4F(=2I$*(/)0*123,.-"
902*8%*3:;"<='(J[JLJ`b*(
Intrigued, But Not Immersed:
Millennial Students Analyze the
iPad’s Performance as a News Platform
Presented to the International Symposium on Online Journalism

April 1, 2011
Jake Batsell
Assistant Professor, Division of Journalism
Southern Methodist University
PO Box 750113
Dallas, TX 75275-0113
214.768.1915
jbatsell@smu.edu!
@jbatsell!
Intrigued, But Not Immersed:
Millennial Students Analyze the iPad’s Performance as a News Platform
Abstract
The arrival of Apple’s iPad tablet in 2010 was trumpeted as a pivotal, game-
changing moment for the news business. But did the iPad’s initial news applications live
up to the much-hyped promise of delivering a more immersive news experience? The
author, using two iPads obtained through a university pilot program, assigned 28 digital
journalism students to rate and analyze iPad news apps during the fall 2010 semester.
The iPads were rotated among the students, who examined their chosen news app over
a period of at least four days. This study, employing a uses-and-gratifications
theoretical framework, asked students to evaluate each app based on four factors:
immediacy/urgency, non-linear news presentation, multimedia news content, and
reader interactivity. Students were most impressed with multimedia news offerings
(awarding an average of 3.7 points on a 5-point scale), but were less enamored with
the apps’ interactivity (3.3 points) and immediacy (3.1). While many students said they
believe the iPad holds promise as a news platform, they generally preferred existing
news websites and legacy news products to their iPad counterparts. With some 50
million U.S. millennials (age 18 to 29) now forming what could be lifelong news habits,
the study provides early insight into how this crucial demographic is reacting and
responding to the tablet as a news medium.
! "!
Introduction
When Apple released its iPad tablet device in early 2010, the potential
implications for the news business were drenched in hyperbole. As New York Times
media critic David Carr famously put it, “There hasn’t been this much hype about a
tablet since Moses came down from the mountain” (Carr, 2010). The iPad’s portability,
ease of use and tactile interface would combine to provide an immersive Web news
experience that finally would equal – or even surpass – the intimate relationship readers
have had for decades with newspapers, magazines and TV programs (Gross, 2010;
O’Reagan, 2010).
For news organizations, the stakes are incredibly high. The tablet market is
rapidly expanding (Pegoraro, 2010) with the Samsung Galaxy, Motorola Xoom,
Blackberry Playbook and, of course, the iPad 2 now entering the fray, along with
improved versions of e-readers such as the Nook and Kindle. The research firm Gartner
projects that mobile devices will overtake desktop computers (Online Media Daily, 2010)
as the most commonly used Web interface by 2013, and U.S. tablet sales are projected
to reach 70 million this year and next (Doctor, 2011). And this time, instead of simply
giving away their online news content for free, most news organizations are charging a
fee for their iPad apps from day one – perhaps providing a second chance to harness
the Internet as a viable source of revenue.
Because the tablet is so new to the marketplace, little systematic research has
been published regarding the efficacy of the device’s apps as a news platform
(Ferrante, 2010). The University of Missouri’s Reynolds Journalism Institute has
! "!
gathered and published the most comprehensive data thus far with its National iPad
News Survey, but the Reynolds project focuses mainly on the typical survey
respondents: affluent, well-educated men between the ages of 35 and 64 (Reynolds
Journalism Institute, 2010). The author’s study is among the first – if not the first –
research projects to specifically explore how millennials are using the iPad as a news
source. While many students who participated in this study said they believe the iPad
holds promise as a news platform, they generally preferred existing news websites and
legacy news products to their iPad counterparts. This directly contradicts the initial
responses from the older Reynolds survey participants, who overwhelmingly reported
that they prefer newspaper apps to websites. Perhaps paradoxically, the so-called
“digital natives” upon whom this study focuses were decidedly less impressed with the
iPad’s initial news apps than were the Reynolds survey’s GenXers and Baby Boomers.
Admittedly, this study focuses on a small sample of 28 students. It is an
exploratory study that reflects the preferences of only this one sample, and its findings
cannot yet be generalized to a larger group. But with some 50 million U.S. millennials
aged 18 to 29 (Pew Research Center, 2010) now forming what could be lifelong news
habits, the study provides early insight into how this crucial demographic is reacting
and responding to the tablet as a news medium. If media companies are hoping to sell
these news-savvy millennials – potential “change agents” who can influence their peers
– on the merits of the iPad as a news device, they clearly have a lot more work to do.
The results of this study are offered in a constructive spirit, and come with the
expectation that the trailblazing media outlets who created the first iPad news apps will
! "!
adjust to correct their early flaws. “Criticism feels a little cheap at this stage of the
game,” digital media executive Barb Palser recently wrote. “The news organizations that
are pioneering this space and providing lessons for others don’t deserve to be judged
for early missteps” (Palser 2011, 46). Fair enough, but identifying and exploring what
millennials see as the missteps (and strengths) of first-wave iPad news apps can inform
both enterprising media companies and communications scholars.
Overview of the “Active-Audience” Literature
Since the 1940s, mass communication scholars have developed an array of
active-audience theories examining how “availability of a new media service can bring
about widespread changes in what people do with media” (Baran & Davis 2009, 229).
Herzog, Lazarsfeld and Stanton were among the earliest to study this phenomenon,
most notably with Herzog’s 1944 article exploring the motives of women who listened
to radio soap operas. Herzog widely receives credit for pioneering the uses-and-
gratifications approach, which examines how people use media and what specific types
of satisfaction they seek. Schramm refined the approach in the mid-1950s by focusing
on how media consumers constantly weigh the expected rewards of media against the
effort required to obtain those rewards. For the past six decades, as media messages
evolved from print to public airwaves to cable channels to computer screens to mobile
phones, Schramm’s central argument has endured: “we all make decisions of which
content we choose based on our expectations of having some need met, even if that
decision is to not make a choice …” (Baran & Davis 2009, 233).
! "!
The uses-and-gratifications approach seems especially germane when
investigating how users consume news on the iPad, a device that offers an almost
dizzying array of choices. Analyzing user behavior through this lens can help scholars
and professionals better understand how “members of the audience actively select, and
then attend to, specific forms of media content that provide gratifications that fulfill
their needs” (DeFleur 2010, 193).
Millennials will play an especially powerful role in determining the iPad’s ultimate
success as a news medium. As Rogers discovered in the 1960s with his work on
innovation diffusion theory, new technologies unfold in stages and depend on “early
adopters” who form new habits and become “change agents” by influencing their peers
to adopt the new medium (Baran & Davis 2009, 271-2). By analyzing how millennials –
the first generation of so-called “digital natives” – use and seek gratification from the
initial round of iPad news applications, the news industry can begin to discern the
habits of this influential generation and make early adjustments that could be crucial to
the long-term success of tablets as a news platform.
Methodology
From September through December 2010, all 28 students in the author’s two
digital journalism courses at a private university in the Southwest were asked to select
a media organization with an iPad app. Throughout the semester, two iPads were
circulated among the students as part of a university pilot program. Twenty-six of the
students were female and two were male. All students were in their early-to-mid
! "!
twenties, with the exception of one student in her forties.
An iTunes gift card donated by a former student enabled members of the class
to try out paid apps as well as free ones. Selections ranged from ABC News to Esquire
to USA Today. No student could evaluate the same app already reviewed by a fellow
student, with the single exception of two students who reviewed The New York Times
before and after the Times unveiled a redesign of its iPad app midway through the
semester. Students were instructed to find a sample of the legacy news product
(newspaper, magazine, TV news program, or even a good, old-fashioned website)
covering the same four-day period during which they evaluated the iPad, providing the
basis for an apples-to-apples comparison between the legacy product and that same
news organization’s app.
After completing their four-day review period, the students’ first task was to rate
the app on a scale of one to five in four key areas that the author refers to as the “four
pillars” of online news — immediacy/urgency, non-linear presentation, multimedia
content and interactivity. Characteristics of these online news principles had previously
been covered in class. The “four pillars” are a teaching device the author has developed
from a combination of sources including news-industry blogs, several excellent online
journalism textbooks – most notably Foust (2008) and Briggs (2009) – and the author’s
own ideas, experience and research.
Assigning students to rate their iPad news experience through the lens of the
“four pillars” allows us to examine their uses and gratifications of iPad news apps in
! "!
four specific areas:
• Immediacy and urgency. Whatever the platform, a sense of urgency is
imperative for any online news organization. When news breaks, readers
expect to find the latest updates online – and if they don’t find the news
they’re looking for, they’ll simply find it somewhere else. Fresh content
motivates readers to make a habit of coming back. For newspaper and
television news apps, the telltale signs of immediacy are frequent updates
and time-stamped stories. Breaking news matters less for magazine apps,
but iPad users still need a clear sense that a magazine’s app is being
constantly refreshed and curated.
• Non-linear news presentation. Today’s news consumer expects to
absorb the news in whatever form she wants, in whatever order she
wants. The iPad empowers users with a non-linear experience that offers
an endless array of choices, allowing them to tap and swipe from section
to section to seamlessly view stories, photos, graphics, videos, interactive
timelines and outside links – all according to the user’s own desires.
• Multimedia content. Rich media content on the iPad offers the promise
to be more vivid and immersive than when viewed on computers or TV
screens because the tablet is portable, yet technologically elaborate. The
iPad has been described as both a lean-forward (targeted seeking of
information) and lean-back (relaxing in the living room) experience, but its
! "!
lean-back qualities shine best when viewing multimedia content including
video, audio, photo galleries and interactive graphics.
• Interactivity. It is a trite – but still important – Web 2.0 truism that
news has transformed into a conversation, not a one-way lecture. Readers
expect to have a say in the news, whether by commenting on stories,
contributing on-the-spot photos and other forms of “citizen journalism,”
sharing story links through social media such as Twitter and Facebook,
voting on polls, customizing weather forecasts or combing through
interactive databases.
After students rated their chosen apps in each of those four areas, they also
wrote reviews of 250 to 300 words describing their overall assessment of the app,
addressing the following assigned questions:
• Is the iPad fulfilling its promise to create a more compelling news experience for
readers?
• If the app costs money, is it worth it? Does it deliver added value that can’t be
experienced through the legacy product?
• Does the app deserve the reader’s time and attention, or is it merely
“shovelware” for the legacy product?
“Be frank and honest in your review,” the assignment read. “This is not an Apple-
sponsored pilot, so feel absolutely free to speak your mind!” By semester’s end, the
assignment had provided a rare collection of quantitative metrics, as well as candid
! "!
student analyses of the iPad’s performance as a news source.
Exhibit A
Overall summary of results
Of the four elements they were assigned to analyze, students were most
impressed with the iPad apps’ multimedia content, awarding an average score of 3.7
points on the five-point scale. But the students gave lukewarm ratings for non-linear
presentation (3.4) and were largely disappointed with the apps’ failure to apply Web 2.0
! "#!
principles of interactivity (3.3) and immediacy (3.1): “Overall, this app was just like
taking the newspaper and putting it in an app form,” a student wrote in her review of
the New York Post’s app.
It is noteworthy that the highest overall score – a perfect 20 for TIME Magazine’s
app – came from a nontraditional student in her forties, perhaps reflecting her
generation’s enthusiasm for iPad news apps as discovered by the Reynolds survey,
whose core demographic ranged between the ages of 35 to 64. Among this study’s
remaining 27 millennial students, Newsday and Glamour magazine shared the highest
overall rating of 19, while The Economist and New York Post received the lowest overall
score of 8.
Immediacy and urgency (Average: 3.1 out of 5 points)
Since many newsrooms have spent the past decade adopting a “Web first”
culture, it would seem second-nature that media organizations would want to deliver a
sense of immediacy with online journalism’s newest platform. “It’s a given that app
content should be as current as Web content” (Palser 2011, 49). “Outdated information
is a non-starter.”
But many of the millennials who participated in this study found the first-wave
iPad news apps to be surprisingly stale. Consider one student’s take on the People
Magazine app: “Some of the pictures and stories were old news. I expected it to be up
to date with the more current stories I see on the new People magazines on the racks
at the store.”
! ""!
Students were disappointed to discover that even some newspaper apps,
including the Washington Post and New York Post, were updated just once a day. The
iPad has a Safari browser, so students who were seeking breaking news found
themselves bypassing the apps and calling up the website instead. “The daily
newspaper goes up in the morning and the stories on the app are not updated until 24
hours later when the next day’s newspaper is released,” a student wrote in her review
of the New York Post app. “So, if a user wants continual updates on a breaking news
story, the app is not the place to go. Head to the website, which is great at providing
updates.”
The student who evaluated ABC News observed “there weren’t many news
updates over the span of a few days. The application seems to serve the purpose of a
source for feature- and entertainment-based news; there seems to be no urgency for
hard or breaking news.” NPR’s website was updated more quickly than the app, and
some Web articles could not be found on the iPad version. Indeed, the absence of
immediacy was the most common source of frustration cited by students in their app
reviews.
A few apps did deliver a sense of urgency. ESPN’s ScoreCenter provided real-
time engagement for one student who used the app to follow the first two games of the
World Series: “In the videos the anchors told the viewers they could follow the game
live and with a live blog from their ESPN Dallas site … I went to it and was able to
watch viewers and the author of the blog update and comment live. Really cool stuff.”
! "#!
To one student’s delight, Glamour magazine’s app WAS updated daily. And while
GQ’s app followed the magazine pattern of once-a-month delivery, the student who
reviewed the app was excited to receive a push notification when the new issue was
available. Still, high marks for immediacy were the exception rather than the norm.
Non-linear news presentation (Average: 3.4 out of 5 points)
Non-linear news presentation empowers readers with options to navigate and
customize their news experience, a principle that dovetails nicely with the iPad’s native
capabilities. In this category, students generally gave their iPad apps a passing grade –
no better, no worse than they expected.
In her review of ESPN’s ScoreCenter, one student complimented the app’s non-
linear navigation: “What I enjoyed about it is you can tailor the app to fit your personal
choices. You merely have to select your team(s) and under that sidebar on the left,
there is only newsfeed, videos, links, and photos related to that specific team.”
But the student who reviewed the app for Fox4 News, a local Dallas television
station, pointedly awarded no points for non-linear presentation – the only zero score
out of 112 individual category ratings. “Some of the stories have a video or a link, but
most just have the story and picture,” he wrote. “This makes it somewhat awkward to
browse stories because after reading a story, the user has to return to a stories page
rather than continue browsing the site for related articles.”
A key part of the non-linear news experience is including links that provide
background, context and attribution. The Washington Post’s app fulfilled this mission
! "#!
only to a certain degree: “Links within stories only link out to other articles on the
website for The Washington Post,” a student wrote. “Links within stories that provide
additional paths to information or articles outside of this news organization are non-
existent.” The app’s circle of self-referential links left this student feeling that her
options as a news consumer were limited.
But for other students, a limited range of options wasn’t necessarily a bad thing.
“I really liked the limited distractions,” one student wrote of the redesigned New York
Times app. “It felt like I was reading The New York Times as if it were a novel and not
news. The simplistic design was relaxing and I felt like I could really focus on what I
was reading. I don’t know if it was the iPad, The New York Times app, or just the
articles I read using the devices, but everything I read particularly absorbed into my
brain and the content stuck with me.”
Multimedia content (Average: 3.7 out of 5 points)
Many students were dazzled by the apps’ multimedia offerings. “The video
quality is crystal clear perfection,” a student wrote. “It was so neat watching all the
ESPN videos that led up to the World Series Game 1.” Another student found the New
York Times’ video content to be equally mesmerizing: “The picture is unbelievably clear
(much better than that on the iPhone), and the sound isn’t muffled like it can be on the
iPhone.”
The student in her forties loved Time Magazine’s app, declaring herself an instant
convert largely because of the app’s photography. “I actually spent more time reading
! "#!
the Time Magazine app than the print version,” she wrote. “Of course, that may be due
to the novelty of the great gizmo’s gadgetry. The five best pictures of the week are
beautiful, poignant shots.”
In addition to the sharp quality, a number of students were pleased to discover
extra, iPad-only multimedia content that they found to be well worth the apps’
additional effort and price. Ebony Magazine’s special 65th anniversary app featured
“videos from the photo shoots with stars and journalists in the creation of the special
edition, picture slideshows from the past and the present, and audio and video from old
and new interviews.” The Economist received a low overall rating, but the student
reviewer did appreciate the app’s enhanced audio offerings: “the audio feature was a
sophisticated way to tell stories and added a unique multimedia element.”
Still, students were especially disappointed when apps failed to capitalize on the
iPad’s multimedia capabilities. A student wrote of the New York Post app: “Interactivity
and multimedia content were very minimal (huge bummer). There were very few photo
slideshows and I found no videos or polls/comment sections through the app.” The GQ
app, meanwhile, didn’t offer “anything new or special that the magazine doesn’t already
have. Yes, occasionally there is a link to a website you can visit in the stories, but this is
rare. There are no videos, extra pictures, or even audio clips.”
Interactivity (Average: 3.3 out of 5 points)
The first round of iPad news apps also fell short of the students’ expectations for
interactivity. The ABC News app allowed users to share through email, Twitter or
! "#!
Facebook, but that was pretty much it: “the app lacks the ability for users to
communicate with the source and might benefit by providing comment options for
stories, a capability for users to share story ideas, or live Twitter feeds relating to ABC
News.”
One student felt so let down by the MTV News app, she titled her review “Don’t
Bother, MTV. Just Stick to Your Website.” The app’s paltry interactivity was one of the
main letdowns: “I was really disappointed on the limited ways readers can interact with
the application. At the top of each story are links to Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, etc.
Although the bottom of each article asked for comments, I could not find a place to list
my thoughts about the article.” The student who reviewed People Magazine’s app
shared similar frustrations: “There weren’t options to comment on articles or pictures.
Everything was just there to be fiddled with.”
Some apps did take advantage of the iPad’s abilities to deliver an interactive
experience. An interactive map showing the construction progress of the new World
Trade Center buildings enthralled the student who reviewed Esquire Magazine’s app.
“Readers can swipe across the image to see architectural mock-ups of the buildings rise
from the ground up with explanations along the way. Readers can also engage in
interactive quizzes that allow you to fill in your answers and see how you rank against
the average.” And the student who evaluated the New Yorker’s app was delighted to
discover that she could enter the cartoon caption contest directly from the app.
Students gave credit where it was due, but also made themselves clear that iPad
news apps need to provide more interactive options, a point perhaps best exemplified
! "#!
in the review of Ebony Magazine’s 65th anniversary app: “They do an okay job of
connecting to social media networks by using an option to ‘share’ that story via email,
Facebook or Twitter at the top of most of the big stories in the magazine. As far as
interactivity goes in general, I think they should look into expanding readers’ options
even further, and they might consider linking to some of their sources for those readers
who want more.”
Conclusion
Examining these 28 students’ self-reported uses and gratifications (or lack thereof)
with early iPad news apps provided clear answers to the three central questions the
study sought to answer:
• Is the iPad fulfilling its promise to create a more compelling news experience for
readers? As 2010 came to a close, iPad news apps were only partially fulfilling
the promise of a more compelling news experience. The apps occasionally
provided stunning multimedia content and non-linear presentation, but those
benefits were overshadowed by their lack of interactivity and immediacy.
• If the app costs money, is it worth it? Does it deliver added value that can’t be
experienced through the legacy product? Many students said premium apps
aren’t worth the money yet. Consider one student’s bottom-line verdict for The
Economist’s app ($5.99), which offered enhanced audio features but – at least in
the student’s experience – not much else: “If you enjoy listening to people give
you the news, then go for the iPad app. If not, I would stay loyal to their print or
! "#!
online magazine because you just may be getting more bang for the buck.”
• Does the app deserve the reader’s time and attention, or is it merely
“shovelware” for the legacy product? After spending at least four days with an
iPad, most students said they still prefer websites to apps as a news platform.
These mixed reviews from a small sample of millennials largely contradicted the more
enthusiastic early responses of GenXers and Baby Boomers in the Reynolds survey. But
the student reviews did reflect the industry buzz that had emerged about iPad news
apps by the end of 2010 – that news organizations, particularly print media, had
stumbled with their first round of iPad apps. Women’s Wear Daily reported that sales of
magazine apps dropped precipitously after an auspicious debut (Koblin, 2010). In
another industry blog, a technology executive wrote: “Print publishers are screwing up
what could be their biggest opportunity. Many continue to botch their Web strategy,
and are now doubling down by getting their iPad strategy completely wrong” (Koretz,
2011). And in his closely watched “Reflections of a Newsosaur” blog, Alan Mutter
scoured through users’ ratings of the Wired iPad app on iTunes and found four main
themes of dissatisfaction: functionality (the app felt too much like shovelware),
technical glitches (downloads were slow or finicky), price (the cost was too high given
the limited added value) and no availability of subscriptions (Mutter, 2010).
It’s understandable that these pioneering iPad news apps would fall short of
perfection as the news industry scrambled to adopt an innovative news platform. Again,
we should heed Palser’s warning not to dispense cheap criticism in these early stages of
the iPad’s existence. But Palser also offers some salient thoughts on why it is so critical
! "#!
for media outlets to get their iPad apps right. First impressions, she argues, are
particularly important for iPad apps: “Unlike the interconnected Web, serendipity does
not help users stumble upon apps over and over again. Downloading and testing an
app is a conscious, deliberate effort. Each user’s impression should be a great one”
(Palser 2011, 51).
Millennials expect an interactive and immediate news experience, and the first
wave of iPad news apps failed to deliver on those fronts. As Schonfeld (2011) argued in
the influential blog TechCrunch:
… making these media apps social and realtime is the key. It should be
constantly updated like a blog or Twitter. And it should be social like
Flipboard that it shows me what people I follow are reading and
retweeting elsewhere by unpacking their links into full articles, images,
and videos.
For the past six decades, innovation diffusion theory has stressed the critical influence
of early adopters who become change agents for new technological tools. The students
who participated in this study are unlikely to become change agents for iPads as a news
medium unless the apps cater to their expected gratifications of immediacy and
interactivity: “Mere top-down diffusion of innovations [doesn’t] guarantee long-term
success” (Baran & Davis 2009, 273).
However, these students’ attitudes may change as they use apps more
frequently and as news organizations continue to improve and fine-tune their apps. The
recent arrival of the iPad 2 should inspire future research tracking how millennials
respond to the second round of iPad news applications.
! "#!
References
Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis (2009). Mass Communication Theory:

Foundations, Ferment, and Future. 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning.
Briggs, Mark (2009). Journalism Next: A Practical Guide to Digital Reporting and
Publishing. Washington: CQ Press.
Carr, David (2010). “The Media Equation: A Savior in the Form of a Tablet.” The New
York Times, January 3, 2010. Accessed via nytimes.com.
DeFleur, Melvin L. (2010). Mass Communication Theories: Explaining Origins, Processes

and Effects. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Doctor, Ken (2011). “The Newsonomics of Tablets Replacing Newspapers.” Nieman

Journalism Lab, January 6, 2011.
Ferrante, Jonathan (2010). “App Culture.” Paper presented at 33rd Annual Southwest
Symposium, Southwest Education Council for Journalism and Mass
Communication, Round Rock, Texas, November 5, 2010.
Foust, James C (2008). Online Journalism: Principles and Practices of News for the
Web. Scottsdale: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers.
Gross, Doug (2010). “CNN Releases ‘Immersive’ iPad app.” CNN.com, December 14,
2010.
Koblin, John (2010). “Memo Pad: iPad Magazine Sales Drop.” WWD, December 29,
2010.
Koretz, David (2011). “iDiots’ Guide To Publishing on the iPad.” Online Publishing
Insider, January 13, 2011.
Mutter, Alan (2010). “How To Rescue Magazine Sales on iPad.” Reflections of

Newsosaur, December 30, 2010.
Online Media Daily (2010). “Gartner: Mobile to Outpace Desktop Web By 2013.”
MediaPost News, January 13, 2010. Accessed via mediapost.com.
O’Reagan, Rob (2010). “Economist on iPad Seeks to Replicate ‘Immersive’ Qualities of

Print.” Emediavitals.com, August 26, 2010.
! "#!
Palser, Barb (2011). “The Ins and Outs of iPad Apps.” American Journalism Review,
Spring 2011, 46-51.
Pegoraro, Rob (2010). “Apple’s iPad rules tablet market, but Samsung’s Galaxy Tab
Among Other Options.” The Washington Post, December 26, 2010. Accessed via
washingtonpost.com.
Pew Research Center (2010). Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next. Pew Research
Center, February 2010. Accessed via pewresearch.org/millennials.
Schonfeld, Erick (2011). “iPad Mags Need a New Blueprint.” TechCrunch, January 30,
2011.
! "#!
! Public Broadcasters Hyperlocal 1
!
!
Public Broadcasters Venture into Online Hyperlocal News:

A Case Study of NewsWorks.org
By Mark Berkey-Gerard
Mark Berkey-Gerard
Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism
Rowan University
Bozorth Hall 105E
201 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, NJ 08028
856-256-5478
Email: berkeygerard@rowan.edu
Abstract: On November 15, 2010, WHYY Inc., a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) television station
and National Public Radio (NPR) member station serving the Greater Philadelphia area, launched the
interactive news website, NewsWorks.org. The web portal provides regional news and information for
the fourth-largest media market in the United States. In addition, NewsWorks.org features a distinct
"hyperlocal newsgathering” effort in eight zip codes of Northwest Philadelphia, an area comprised of
approximately 190,000 residents and 15 neighborhoods. NewsWorks is a pilot program of the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, designed to test "the possibilities of online hyperlocal journalism, driven by
public media values and skills." This paper is an intrinsic qualitative case study of WHYY. It examines
why decision makers at WHYY chose to embark on the NewsWorks hyperlocal project, how the public
media organization defines hyperlocal newsgathering, and how a public media organization practices
hyperlocal journalism in the newsroom and in the field.
Keywords: case study; hyperlocal; public broadcasting; public media; newsgathering
Public Broadcasters Venture into Online Hyperlocal News: A Case Study of NewsWorks.org
Introduction
In November 2010, WHYY Inc., a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) television station and
National Public Radio (NPR) member station serving the Greater Philadelphia area, launched the
interactive news website, NewsWorks.org. The creation of the news web portal marked a transformation
of WHYY’s online presence and a strategic effort to bolster the nearly 60-year-old public broadcasting
organization’s reputation as a regional news and information source in the digital age.
NewsWorks.org provides multimedia reporting on regional news, government, education, health
issues, science, arts, and culture. It features regular commentary from six staff bloggers. Website content
is generated by reporters at WHYY, freelance contributors, and through partnerships with local online
news operations, weekly newspapers, not-for-profits, cultural and civic organizations, and universities.
The site contains multiple avenues for user-generated content and participation.
In addition, NewsWorks.org features a distinct local newsgathering effort in eight zip codes of
Northwest Philadelphia, an area composed of approximately 190,000 residents and 15 neighborhoods

!
with diverse racial and economic composition. NewsWorks provides these local communities with a
regularly updated resource on events, crime, real estate, schools, and zoning issues. This hyperlocal
newsgathering component of NewsWorks is a pilot program of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB), designed to test “the possibilities of online hyperlocal journalism, driven by public media values
and skills” (NewsWorks, 2010). The CPB provided $300,000 in initial funding to WHYY for the
NewsWorks project to explore how a public media organization might increase local news reporting and
deliver news content to new audiences online. If NewsWorks is successful, other public media companies
in the United States may replicate the hyperlocal effort.
This paper is an intrinsic qualitative case study of WHYY and the strategy, planning, and initial
launch of NewsWorks.org. It focuses primarily on the hyperlocal newsgathering component. To
understand the hyperlocal newsgathering experiment, it analyzes NewsWorks project documents, work
sessions, community meetings, newsroom observations, and in-depth interviews with WHYY staff
members. It examines why decision makers at WHYY chose to embark on the NewsWorks hyperlocal
project, how the public media organization defines hyperlocal newsgathering, and how a public media
organization practices hyperlocal journalism in the newsroom and in the field.
Literature Review
This case study builds on previous research on hyperlocal newsgathering projects and
institutional changes in public media organizations and newsrooms. To provide context, the literature
review also includes a brief overview the Philadelphia news ecosystem, background on WHYY, and the
history of the NewsWorks hyperlocal newsgathering effort.
Hyperlocal News
The origin of the term “hyperlocal” is uncertain, though a 1991 Washington Post article about a
local television news station that created content specifically for viewers in distinct areas of the
Washington D.C. suburbs is thought to be one of the earliest uses of the term (Farhi). No singular
!
definition of hyperlocal journalism exists, but it is often characterized by a focus on a narrow geographic
area or specialized topic (Foust, 2009). The term hyperlocal has been applied to news reporting efforts by
the websites of national newspapers like Washington Post and the New York Times; not-for-profit and
private journalistic organizations like the VoiceofSanDiego.com and MinnPost.com; large media
companies like AOL’s Patch.com; local blogs like BaristaNet.com and WestSeattleBlog.com; and
university reporting projects at New York University and the City University of New York. The term has
also been dismissed as “ill-defined” and too generally applied to be useful (McLellan, 2011). Despite all
of these issues, the term is commonly used in newsrooms and by professional journalists. Scholars have
also use the term to describe locally oriented news that employs technologies as tools for civic
engagement (Kurpius, Metzagar, & Rowley, 2010). In this paper, the researcher uses the term hyperlocal
in an effort to stay consistent with the original language and intent of the CPB pilot project.
Philadelphia News Ecosystem
C.W. Anderson, who has studied the Philadelphia news organizations since 1997, has described the
city’s media ecosystem as “a microcosm of our current journalistic universe, with all its highs, lows,
excitement and uncertainty” (2010). The city’s two daily newspapers, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the
Philadelphia Daily News, are undergoing major transitions after emerging from bankruptcy in 2010. In
2011, the Philadelphia Media Network, the most recent owners of the newspapers, have launched paid
subscription electronic editions of the newspapers and invested new content, marketing, and advertising
efforts in Philly.com, the most visited news website in the market (Cropper, 2011). Philadelphia is also
home to a growing number of emerging journalism ventures and technology companies. Area
philanthropic organizations like the Pew Charitable Trusts and the William Penn Foundation have
demonstrated a record of investment in regional public interest journalism. In 2009, J-Lab: The Institute
for Interactive Journalism conducted research on the state of Philadelphia news organizations and public
affairs reporting. The study, commissioned by the William Penn Foundation, analyzed the content of the
city’s two daily newspapers, four commercial television stations, and 260 blogs and websites. The study
!
concluded that a “vibrant media landscape exists with niche reporting sites, legacy newspapers and an
active community of creative technologists,” but also found that “available news about Philadelphia
public affairs issues has dramatically diminished over the last three years by many measures” (Schafer,
2010).
Overview of WHYY
WHYY Inc. is a public media company serving Southeastern Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey
and Delaware. The main offices and studios are located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A secondary
television studio is located in Wilmington, Delaware, where the station is licensed. The broadcast area
includes nearly 3 million households in the nation’s fourth-largest media market. WHYY produces
several nationally syndicated programs, including the NPR program “Fresh Air with Terry Gross.”
WHYY-TV Channel 12, a PBS member station that began broadcasting in 1957, reaches
approximately 1 million viewers each week. WHYY-90.9 FM, a National Public Radio (NPR) member
station that began broadcasting in 1954, reaches an estimated 410,000 listeners per week. WHYY’s
website Whyy.org, which consists primarily of upcoming schedules, live feeds, and archives of past
programs, generates an average of 130,000 unique users and 450,000 pages views per month (WHYY,
2011).
In 2010, WHYY Inc., reported $29.2 million in revenue; 8 percent from government sources, 42
percent from program funding and underwriting, and 46 percent from member contributions. The same
year, WHYY reported expenses of $26.9 million, with $18.5 million allocated for production and
broadcasting. The company employs approximately 160 people (WHYY, 2011).
History of NewsWorks.org Hyperlocal Project
WHYY’s NewsWorks.org online news web site was several years in the making and had its
origins in the turmoil of the newspaper industry in Philadelphia. In 2006, The McClatchy Company
purchased Knight Ridder, the owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News, and
!
the two newspapers were put up for sale. Philadelphia Media Holdings, a local group of investors,
eventually purchased the two newspapers. In the same time period, Philadelphia-based philanthropic
organizations convened a group of local media executives, editors, and entrepreneurs to strategize ways to
address the decline of local news reporting. Out of those meetings came various proposals for a
Philadelphia-based, online-only news site (Wink, 2010a).
The plans evolved over the course of several years and were eventually scaled back to a project
that would be hosted by WHYY, called Y-Factor. The plan entailed hiring a team of reporters and had the
goal of becoming financially self-sustaining within three years, primarily through revenue from online
advertising. Y-Factor was eventually deemed overly ambitious given the economic climate and financial
realities of the news industry. Between 2009 and 2010, WHYY executives revamped the project idea,
which eventually became the prototype for NewsWorks.org, a regional news and information website with
a pilot hyperlocal, community journalism effort in eight zip codes of Northwest Philadelphia. WHYY
approached CPB, the largest single source of funding for public television and radio programming, to
support the project. CPB awarded WHYY a grant of $300,000 for the hyperlocal component to test the
staffing structures and resources needed to cover an urban area of nearly 200,000 people. WHYY
planning documents call for an additional organizational investment of $500,000 for the initial launch and
hiring of staff for the NewsWorks.org website, although news reports have placed the total initial startup
costs at $1.2 million (Wink, 2010b).
While NewsWorks was in the planning stages, Philadelphia’s daily newspapers filed for
bankruptcy and were acquired by new owners. During this time, many newspaper employees were laid
off or left the publications. Several of the staff hired to create NewsWorks are former employees of the
Inquirer, Daily News, or Philly.com, including the Executive Director of News and Civic Dialogue, the
Chief Marketing Officer, the Senior Web Producer, and a Senior Writer.
NewsWorks is also part of a larger effort by public broadcasters to enhance their presence on
digital platforms (Usher & Riley, 2010). A CPB funding report on growing public radio audiences
recommended “increasing local broadcast and online reporting at a dozen or more stations” and
!
“aggressive experimentation and development of public service content and delivery methods explicitly
designed for a digital, networked environment” (Station Research Group, 2010). As a hyperlocal news
effort, journalists, publishers, and academics are observing NewsWorks because it aims to compete with
regional news websites and web-based hyperlocal news efforts by AOL’s Patch.com and the Journal
Register.
Research Questions
Much of the existing literature on public broadcasting organizations focuses on the national
entities of PBS and NPR; less research has been done on member stations which function as regional and
local news operations for viewers and listeners. The NewsWorks hyperlocal venture is designed to serve
as a model for other similar efforts by public media organizations. Therefore, the following research
questions were developed to provide insight into the strategy and practice of the hyperlocal newsgathering
experiment within a public media organization.
R1: Why did decision makers at WHYY, a public media organization that has traditionally
provided regional news and information on radio and television, choose to launch a hyperlocal
web-based news portal on a specific area of Northwest Philadelphia?
R2: How does the public media organization define hyperlocal journalism?
R3: How does the public media organization practice hyperlocal journalism?
Method
This research project is an intrinsic case study of WHYY to gain insight into a public media
approach to hyperlocal newsgathering. It focuses on a specific case, rather than generalizations (Berg,
2007). The research relies on multiple qualitative data sources, including internal and public documents,
observations, and in-depth interviews with WHYY staff members who have a significant role in the
NewsWorks.org project. Chris Satullo, the Executive Director of News and Civic Dialogue at WHYY,
secured permission and access for the researcher to attend events, meetings, and work sessions, and to
!
interview employees. The research was conducted over a 12-month period from February 2010 to January
2011.
The researcher conducted direct observation at various stages of NewsWorks.org planning and
implementation. Observation sessions include advisory board meetings, neighborhood forums,
community contributor training sessions, regular staff meetings, collaborative work sessions, and staff
work in the newsroom.
The researcher conducted eight in-depth interviews with WHYY executives and employees
between June 28, 2010, and September 17, 2010, a period when the strategies for the project were being
implemented into the NewsWorks.org website architecture and design. Respondents were selected based
on their direct involvement in the NewsWorks.org project and represented a range of authority and job
descriptions, as suggested by Wengraf (2001). The eight respondents included the President and CEO;
the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; the Chief Marketing Officer; the Executive
Director of Member Relations; the Executive Director of News and Civic Dialogue; and two Community
Editors for the hyperlocal sections of NewsWorks.org. All interviews were conducted at WHYY in
Philadelphia and questions were semi-standardized, which allowed for exploration of issues that emerged
in the discussion. Each interview averaged 45 minutes, was recorded with a digital audio recorder with
the permission of the respondent, and transcribed verbatim. The content of the interviews was analyzed
following the five stages outlined by McCracken (1988). Each of the five stages represents a higher level
of generality. The stages include observation of a useful utterance, development of expanded observation,
examination of interconnection of observed comments, collective scrutiny of observations for patterns
and themes, and review of the themes across all interviews for development of themes (McCracken,
1988). Data from all of the sources was coded and analyzed using key themes that emerged from the
research study.
Results
Research Question 1: Public Media Motivation for Hyperlocal Journalism

!
The single recurring theme expressed by interviewed staff members of WHYY was the
experimental nature of the NewsWorks hyperlocal effort. Staff members said that within the organization,
it was understood that the primary motivation was to spur innovation and to test staff structures and
resources for creating an online news publication. One staff member said the organization approached the
project with moderate expectations, but high hopes:
Who would be so stupid to think they were sure this was going to work? I think there is a pretty
strong argument to be made for public media being a place – if it is going to succeed anywhere –
it would be here. It is full of journalists working at a discount because they believe in the mission.
Basically you need talent that will work at a discount. Hyperlocal requires people to “do
windows,” to do things out of a sense of service, not because it is going to be a great or richly
rewarding story or that somebody is going to give them a plaque. There is a sense of service here.
Another staff member said the project was defined by new approaches, not immediate results:
We know that [hyperlocal news] is not a model that has taken off in a lot of places. Everyone is
still experimenting. Success is being able to adapt to the changes, seeing what works, and being
able to make new things.
Respondents placed this concept of experimentation in the context of four primary institutional
and cultural challenges facing public media organizations: moving from a legacy television and radio
organization to a multiplatform organization; identifying new sources of revenue, audience, and
membership; establishing WHYY as a more substantial news brand; and transforming WHYY into a
center for media education and training.
From Legacy to Multiplatform News Organization
In recent years, WHYY executives and staff have made efforts to transform the organization from
a television and radio station into a multimedia organization that produces news and information for a
variety of platforms. This transition is reflected in a variety of ways. In its public messaging, WHYY
!
emphasizes the term “media” over “television” or “radio.” In recent years, union contracts with television
and radio technicians have been modified to create more flexible work rules. Many job titles have been
changed to emphasize content specialty (i.e., “public affairs” or “arts and culture”) rather than the
distribution platform (i.e., “television producer” or “radio reporter”). Increasingly, reporters produce
content for multiple platforms including video, audio, websites, blogs, and podcasts. A WHYY executive
explained this organizational shift in these terms:
If you went back ten years or so, people in the building saw the entity as a TV station and a radio
station, and we have worked hard to change that. With the shift to digital, it was no longer radio
and television, but [a question of], “How are you going to tell this story?” and “How are you
going to distribute it?”
Another staff member echoed that employees within the organization had increasingly adopted this
transition:
This company, its identity, its history is in legacy media. And it seems clear, not just here but
throughout the world, that the future is moving away from those legacies. So three years ago, I
wouldn’t say that this company had much buy-in with that idea. But we have definitely made a lot
of strides, which I think is good news for us.
Respondents said the launch of NewsWorks.org was a key component in this transition. One staff member
explained:
Until the advent of NewsWorks, online was frankly the stepchild of broadcast. There was
recognition that you needed to be online, but there was no big investment in it.
Revenue and Membership
Respondents also placed the NewsWorks project in the context of WHYY’s overall efforts to
identify new sources of revenue and reach new audiences. Government funding for public broadcasters is
an increasingly unreliable source of revenue. In the last year, government funding for WHYY declined
from 15 percent of overall income to about 8 percent, due to cuts in funding from Pennsylvania and
!
Delaware (WHYY, 2011). An executive said given the current economy, securing government funding
for public broadcasting is increasingly difficult:
I think [with state] funding, the change is a sea change. I don’t expect it to come back. We are not
putting a lot of time into getting it back. We have tried and tried and tried … [and the governor]
says my priorities are education, welfare, prisons … [and] staking staffing public television
stations against that is difficult. So that is a sea change that is gone. We are going to have to
figure out other sources.
Another shift in public media revenue is member contributions. Member contributions make up
46 percent of overall revenue for WHYY, the largest single source of income. While WHYY is growing
its FM audiences and in the last year saw its total number of member contributor files grow by 3.5
percent, income from television membership, which accounts for approximately 65 percent of overall
membership revenue, is declining. Respondents said that as audiences increasingly get news and
information from the web and mobile devices, the organization needs to test whether the member-
supported revenue model that has worked for television and radio can also be applied to the web. One
executive noted that initial research suggests that younger, web-oriented news audiences do not respond
to the concept of public broadcasting membership in the same way:
The key [question] for WHYY is, what kind of online experience and real world, flesh-and blood-
experience connected to the online experience creates a sense of ownership and community in a
younger demographic that leads them to give you money in the same way that older people give
to public broadcasting?
Philanthropic organizations that support educational efforts and cultural and science
programming are another significant source of funding for WHYY. Respondents said that as new
journalistic ventures have been launched in recent years, funders are increasingly looking for news
ventures that have the potential to survive and to thrive. One staff member framed it this way:
!
A big piece of this puzzle is to create a success on our own dime. Then [foundations] will feel
like funding and being part of a success. They want to see something built and succeeding before
they invest.
Corporate underwriting is another key source of funding for WHYY, and along with program
funding from philanthropic organizations, accounts for 42 percent of annual revenue. Respondents said
that while efforts to generate revenue underwriting for television and radio are sophisticated, the website
is an underutilized platform. With the advent of NewsWorks, a staff member said the organization is
beginning to budget for additional underwriting revenue from the website:
On the underwriting side, what I’ve tried to grapple is the value proposition of online
sponsorship. There are 130,000 unique visitors per month, half a million-page views, so in
comparison to Philly.com the numbers are very small. But for a public broadcasting website they
are healthy. They are dedicated listeners and viewers, highly educated, very affluent. The
demographic is very appealing to underwriters.
WHYY staff hope to increase its underwriting revenue by offering clients packaged sponsorships
that will appear simultaneously on television, radio and the website. The creation of the hyperlocal
section also creates potential for underwriting from local merchants, private schools and universities, and
not-for-profit organizations that operate in the Northwest Philadelphia.
Stronger News Brand
Respondents also cited the need for WHYY to create a stronger identity as a news provider for
the area, particularly on the Web. Staff members interviewed said that audiences do not necessarily
associate WHYY with news, but with the national programming of PBS and NPR.
One person said the need for a strong online news presence was a key consideration in the
branding strategy for NewsWorks, which has a distinct name, identity, and messaging:
!
The WHYY brand is not a really a news brand, even for people for whom there are positive
associations. For many, WHYY is not a news organization. It’s where they see Sesame Street or
arts programming. And on 90.9 FM, it’s NPR. For our purpose, NPR is the more significant set of
letters than WHYY. Part of our message is that we are taking everything you love about NPR to
the web for a local news venture.
A Center of Media Education and Training
In May 2010, WHYY opened the Dorrance H. Hamilton Public Media Commons, a $12 million
media training and event center. The building is equipped with digital editing studios and classrooms and
offers courses in digital storytelling, audio and video production, documentary workshops, and media
literacy and training for high-school teachers. WHYY describes it as a “state-of-the-art media facility that
embodies WHYY’s commitment to sharing the institutional knowledge it has acquired over more than 50
years of media production” (Public Media Commons, 2011).
One executive said the NewsWorks hyperlocal project, which will also train and employ local
community members to report on their own neighborhoods, is connected to the organization’s larger
mission of becoming a center for media education and training:
NewsWorks is really is part of the future, like the Public Media Commons and what we are doing
there. So if you look at what WHYY is becoming . . . online distribution is its own platform.
That is a huge piece. The Commons is a huge piece. We think what distinguishes us quite a bit
going forward is the fact that we focus so much on the local community. It is not an afterthought
to the national news here. So that is a distinguishing factor. NewsWorks fits into that and the
Commons fits into that. And that is a much better future for a public media organization than
simply being a PBS and an NPR member station.
Research Question 2: Public Media Definition of Hyperlocal Journalism

!
Respondents were asked how they defined hyperlocal journalism within the public media
organization’s mission and within the NewsWorks.org website. In several cases, staff members expressed
ambiguity about the term “hyperlocal,” stating that they preferred to use terms “local” or “community”
which mean more to audiences. WHYY staff interviewed described Philadelphia as “a city of
neighborhoods,” where residents strongly identify with the name and identity their local community, and
less with the city or region.
For the specific hyperlocal section of NewsWorks.org, WHYY staff selected eight zip codes in
Northwest Philadelphia as its coverage area. The area is home to approximately 190,000 residents and 15
distinctly named neighborhoods. Respondents said the area was selected because it contained largely
residential neighborhoods that do not garner significant citywide news coverage from regional news
outlets. Overall, average household income in the eight zip codes is higher than Philadelphia’s as a whole.
Many of the neighborhoods are known for their strong civic life, prominent houses of worship, and
community organizations. Several state and local politicians also live in the area.
The eight zip code area also represent a significant geographic area of support for WHYY.
Approximately 3.6 percent of WHYY’s current membership file live in the eight zip codes; about 1.8
percent of the total population are in WHYY the current member file. In April and May 2010, WHYY
staff held four neighborhood forums in the Northwest to introduce residents to the project, solicit
feedback, and to invite potential contributors.
Individual neighborhoods in the coverage area vary widely in demographics. For example, the
19118 zip code of Chestnut Hill is predominantly white with an average annual gross income of
approximately $120,000. In contrast, the 19138 zip code of West Oak Lane is predominantly African-
American with an average annual gross income of approximately $28,000.
Respondents stated several themes that connected the news service to the demographics of the
selected neighborhoods. Several of the zip codes and neighborhoods like Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy
represent particularly strong bases of member support for WHYY. One staff member said that part of the
mission of the hyperlocal effort is to provide enhanced news service for its most dedicated audience:
!
The reality of the hyperlocal side is that in Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill we have a strong member
base in those communities. It is no coincidence that that is part of the hyperlocal zip codes
because we already know there is a strong following there. How we strengthen that and enrich the
service that we provide through NewsWorks is all part of it.
In strategizing the areas to cover, one WHYY executive noted that the organization is also
seeking to reach residents of neighborhoods like Manayunk and East Falls, which in recent years have
seen an influx of residents that match the target demographic for public radio – educated, civically
engaged professionals in their mid-30s:
When I think of NewsWorks and WHYY’s future, it is to continue to make a play to find a new
generation of stewards and of audience members for public media. It is young and well educated.
You can look to the types of individuals who flock to a public media experience, [and] it is
people who have a zest for lifelong learning.
The hyperlocal coverage area also contains neighborhoods like Germantown and West Oak Lane,
predominantly working and middle-class African American neighborhoods with average annual gross
incomes of less than $30,000. These neighborhoods contain a larger total number of current WHYY
members than in the neighborhoods of Manayunk, East Falls and Roxborough, but the percentage of the
total population who are WHYY members is less than in other neighborhoods of the Northwest. Several
staff members defined the hyperlocal effort in these areas as a public service. One executive said they
expected a range of content and responses from neighborhood to neighborhood:
We fully expect that the outcome from that effort is going to be slightly to vastly different from
one socio-economic group to another because their interests and access to various forms of
technology.
!
Executives and staff said that metrics of web traffic, user-generated content, underwriting
income, site-generated memberships, and reader response would be tracked in the first year of publication
to guide future strategies for the project.
Research Question 3: Public Media Practice of Hyperlocal Journalism
The researcher also explored how the WHYY practices hyperlocal journalism in the newsroom
and in the selected coverage area. NewsWorks staff described areas of interests that would focus its
hyperlocal news content: crime, real estate, schools, religious and civic events, zoning and development,
open space and recreation, and local history. NewsWorks.org reporting and content is generated by
WHYY staff, content partners, paid freelancers and community contributors, and online participants.
NewsWorks Community Editors
On the NewsWorks website, the Northwest Philadelphia coverage area is divided into three
distinct web pages which are grouped by geography. These three sections are Germantown/West Oak
Lane, Roxborough/Manayunk/East Falls, and Chestnut Hill/Mt. Airy. Each page is assigned a full-time
WHYY staff member with the job title Community Editor, who is responsible for the local news coverage
in that area.
The Community Editors perform a range of editorial and outreach tasks, including conducting
original reporting in the neighborhood, writing web articles, assigning articles to freelance reporters,
posting content to the website, producing multimedia features (audio, photo, and video), maintaining a
calendar of events and crime blotter, and using social media to generate content and traffic. Community
editors also conduct weekly “office hours” in a local café or business in the neighborhood where they
meet with residents. Community editors said they spent approximately 20 to 30 percent of the time in the
neighborhood and approximately 70 to 80 percent of their working week in the WHYY’s Center City
Philadelphia offices.
!
WHYY Reporters and Producers
News content for the hyperlocal sections of NewsWorks is also created by a team of WHYY
correspondents or producers who, in addition to creating content for radio and television, file stories for
the website. Correspondents include several general assignment producers; reporters for health and
science, arts and culture, and government desks; and staff bloggers. The news content created by these
reporters and producers tends to be more regional, but if a story has a particular connection to a
neighborhood in the Northwest area or a reporter finds a particular connection, it will appear on the
hyperlocal section of the NewsWorks.org website as well. Likewise, if a local story from the Northwest is
deemed newsworthy for a regional audience it will appear more prominently on the NewsWorks
homepage. The concept is to continually connect the actions of government or regional issue to the local
community. One staff member said the hyperlocal section is less about covering every breaking news
story than framing neighborhood issues to the larger context of what is happening in the city:
It’s covering the whole city and connecting it to Northwest Philadelphia through the prism of
what the audience cares about most. That will be the real added value.
Content Partners
NewsWorks content is created not only WHYY reporters and producers, but by a network of 18
partner organizations. Content partners include The Philadelphia Public School Notebook, a nonprofit
news service focused on Philadelphia's public schools; PlanPhilly, a web site that covers planning, zoning
and development issues; Azavea, a company that developed a mapping tool for NewsWorks; City Howl
and It’s Our Money, two blogs run by the Philadelphia Daily News; G-Town Radio, an all-volunteer
Internet radio station in Germantown; weekly newspapers in East Falls, Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill;
journalism programs at LaSalle University and Temple University; and College of Media and
Communications students at the University of the Arts, who create multimedia projects for the website.
Agreements with each of these partner organizations were formed on a case-by-case basis. A staff
!
member described the partnerships as a practical necessity and a way to appeal to philanthropic
foundations that are more willing to fund collaborative projects:
There is no way we are going to generate enough content by ourselves to sustain this kind of web
play. So we have no choice but to partner. Partnerships are both a good idea, and clearly
something that foundations are looking for.
Freelance Journalists and Contributors
In contrast to some hyperlocal news projects that use volunteers or “citizen journalists” who work
without compensation, the NewsWorks staff made a conscious decision to pay freelance journalists and
members of the community for significant news content contributions. Editors said the goal was to attract
committed contributors and maintain a standard of quality and accuracy. Pay rates range from $10 for a
short news brief on an upcoming event to $300 for a multimedia story that includes at least two forms of
media (text, audio, photos, videos, or slide show). In the months leading up to the website launch, WHYY
staff solicited community contributors from residents in the Northwest, held forums to gauge community
response, and hosted basic trainings for interested contributors in writing, photography, audio, and video
through the Public Media Commons educational programs. All content created by freelancers or
community contributors is edited before it appears on the website.
Participatory Features
NewsWorks also features numerous ways for users to participate and to submit news tips, essays,
photos, and comments to discussion areas. The site employs a virtual reward system, called Ben Bucks,
by which participants are rewarded with points and privileges for contributions. Online forums are
moderated to maintain a standard of civility.

!
Discussion
Conclusions
While several months of observation, a review of internal documents, and interviews with eight
individuals cannot be generalized to an entire news operation or to other media organizations, this
research offers insight into how employees at one public media organization strategized and implemented
a discreet local online news reporting project. Over the course of several years, executives and staff of
WHYY pared down numerous ambitious proposals into a concrete, scalable project. During the initial
planning and launch of the site, the organization valued experimentation over measurements of web
traffic or revenue generation, but at the same time placed the project within the larger institutional
challenges facing the organization. Within the organization of WHYY, the NewsWorks project created a
new platform for multimedia reporting; established local reporting as a higher priority; led to hiring of
additional newsroom staff; helped establish the web platform as equal companion to radio and television;
and created an outlet for projects created in WHYY’s media training facility. In defining its hyperlocal
newsgathering coverage area, the organization focused on three approaches: providing a service to a
dedicated audience and source of member support, reaching potential audiences and younger
demographics, and providing a public service to an underserved area. In the practice of hyperlocal
newsgathering, WHYY employed experienced journalists as editors, reporters, and freelance contributors,
and conducted outreach efforts to engage members of the community who were paid for contributing to
the coverage of their own neighborhoods. The project also placed a high priority on user participation in
moderated forums that aim to spur civic dialogue.
This research project included a three-month period after the NewsWorks.org website launch, too
narrow a timeframe to draw conclusions about the site or the hyperlocal experiment. However, early in
the development of the online publication, the staff cited some early criteria for future strategies. In
January 2011, NewsWorks.org generated approximately 136,000 page unique visitors and 344,000 page
views, comparable to Whyy.org, which dates back to the late 1990s. Executives reported several meetings
with philanthropic foundations and new grant applications to the CPB as the organization seeks additional
!
funding. The staff is also planning for an initial redesign and is seeking funding to add mobile phone
capabilities to NewsWorks.
Future Research
This research focuses on solely on the initial strategy and implementation of the NewsWorks.org
hyperlocal project. As it matures, there are multiple avenues for exploring the project further, including
measurements of web traffic, responses from community, and content analysis of NewsWorks.org’s
hyperlocal sections compared to news reporting performed by other hyperlocal ventures covering the
same areas. In addition, this research does not focus on the economic viability of NewsWorks. In research
of funding models for hyperlocal media, Kurpius concludes that the long-term sustainability of hyperlocal
media operations is in question, but suggests that projects that have a mixed funding model with revenue
from varied sources may be more likely to survive (2010). Research into the financial viability of
NewsWorks could further understanding of how hyperlocal newsgathering projects function and how, and
if, they can be sustained.

!
References
Anderson, C. W. (2010, April 29). Why Philly matters: The intersection of bankruptcies, Pulitzers,
networks, foundations, and geeky edglings [Web log post]. Retrieved on April 29, 2010 from
http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/why-philly-matters-the-intersection-of-bankruptcies-
pulitzers-networks-foundations-and-geeky-edglings/
Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Cropper, C. M. (2011, February 23). Philly locals take on new digital challengers. NetNewsCheck.
Retrieved February 23, 2011 from http://www.netnewscheck.com/article/2011/02/23/9357/philly-
locals-take-on-new-digital-challengers
Farhi, P. (1991, March 11). Taking local coverage to the limit: 24-hour cable news. Washington Post.
Retrieved August 12, 2010 from http://www.washingtonpost.com
Foust, J. C. (2009) Online journalism: principles and practices of news for the web. Scottsdale, AZ:
Holcomb Hathaway.
Kurpius, D. D., Metzagar, E. T., & Rowley, K. M. (2010). Sustaining hyperlocal media: In search of
funding models. Journalism Studies, 11(3), 359-376.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McLellan, M. (2011, January 4). Two phrases I hope will disappear in 2011 [Web log post]. Retrieved
January 4, 2011 from
http://www.knightdigitalmediacenter.org/leadership_blog/comments/20110102_two_phrases_i_h
ope_will_disappear_in_2011/
NewsWorks. (2010). (Internal memo from WHYY Inc).
Public Media Commons. (2010). (Course catalog).
Schafer, J. (2010). Exploring a networked journalism collaborative in Philadelphia:

An analysis of the city’s media ecosystem with final recommendations. Retrieved from J-Lab: The
Institute for Interactive Journalism website: http://www.j-
lab.org/publications/philadelphia_media_project/
Station Research Group, Grow the Audience Task Force. (2010). Public radio in the new network age.
Retrieved from http://www.srg.org/GTA
Usher, N., & Riley, P. (2010, April 23-24). Reshaping the public radio newsroom for the digital
future. Paper presented at the 2010 International Symposium on Online Journalism. Retrieved
September 22, 2010 from http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/papers.php?year=2010
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wink, C. (2010, April 12a). NewsWorks: WHYY will announce new hyperlocal news initiative for
northwest Philadelphia [Web log comment]. Retrieved on April 13, 2010 from
http://christopherwink.com/2010/04/12/NewsWorks-whyy-will-announce-new-hyperlocal-news-
initiative-for-northwest-philadelphia/
Wink, C. (2010b, November 22b). NewsWorks: WHYY online news brand launching means a lot to these
legacies [Web log comment]. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from
http://christopherwink.com/2010/11/22/NewsWorks-whyy-online-news-brand-launching-means-
a-lot-to-these-legacies
WHYY Inc., Financial Statements (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.whyy.org/about/insidewhyy/financials.html
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
"
!"#$%&&'()*+,),"-$.'($/,0"(-,)12$$
3#,))"(4$5'*(+67,-)-$6+8$3(68,),'+6771$9+8"(-"(0"8$:';;*+,),"-$
"
This study explores the opportunities offered by Twitter for news organizations seeking to
connect with communities often underrepresented as both sources and as audiences for news. A
recent study by Pew Research Center found that minority Internet users are more than twice as
likely as white Internet users to utilize Twitter, and that young Internet users are also significantly
more likely than older Americans to adopt the still relatively-new social network. Through in-
depth interviews, this study examines how young people and minorities are using Twitter and its
potential to allow news organizations to reach and engage with younger and minority audiences.
For many, it is not only a site used for entertainment and connection with like-minded others, but
also for keeping up with news and giving them a voice on national or local issues they may not
have previously perceived they possessed.
"
"
"
"
"
"
<1$/(=$:6((,"$<('#+4$9+,0"(-,)1$'>$?";&@,-4$/(=$A7,B6C")@$D"+8(,EF-'+4$9+,0"(-,)1$'>$3"++"--""4$6+8$
/(=$5"(";1$G,))6*4$G"@,H@$9+,0"(-,)1$
I+)"(+6),'+67$J1;&'-,*;$>'($%+7,+"$5'*(+67,-;$
K&(,7$LMNN$
:'+)6E)2$:6((,"$<('#+4$LMLOLPNOPQNR$'($E6((,"7,-6C('#+SH;6,7=E';$
!"
"
!
"#$!%&&'()*+,),#-!.'(!/,0#(-,)12!!
3$,))#(4!5'*(+67,-)-!6+8!3(68,),'+6771!9+8#(-#(0#8!:';;*+,),#-!
Twitter use continues to grow rapidly, although it still attracts just eight percent of
American Internet users (Smith & Rainie, 2010). However, minority Internet users are more
than twice as likely as white Internet users to utilize Twitter. Young Internet users ages 18-29
are also significantly more likely than older Americans to adopt the still relatively-new social
network (Smith & Rainie, 2010), launched in 2006.
This paper explores the hypothesis that Twitter represents a new opportunity for news
organizations to connect with underrepresented communities as both sources and audiences for
news. As newspaper readers and viewers of national television news broadcasts age (Project for
Excellence in Journalism State of the Media Report, 2010) and the nation rapidly diversifies
(Ortman & Guarneri, 2010), it is essential that journalists attract a new generation of loyal
audience members.
Research has found that Twitter may be uniquely suited among social networks to offer a
venue for the purveyors of news and information. More so than Facebook, where people go
primarily to connect with their friends made offline (Urista et. al. 2009; Steinfeld et. al. 2007),
Twitter users find the site especially valuable as a source for news and information (Johnson and
Yang, 2009). Minorities appear more likely than whites to identify social media as an important
way to keep up with what is going on in their neighborhoods (Smith, 2010). Minority adults are
also significantly more likely than whites to believe that government outreach using social media
!"
"
“helps people be more informed about what government is doing” and “makes government more
accessible” (Smith, 2010).
Through in-depth interviews with Twitter users between the ages of 18-29, this study
examines opportunities for journalists to use Twitter for reaching and engaging underrepresented
communities. Subjects were recruited from a diverse population and results analyzed by
race/ethnicity and other variables. This study shows how Twitter has become an emerging
source of news and information for young people, and explores whether Twitter can foster a
more dynamic process engaging active participants in the news process. It also examines how
Twitter affects credibility of and level of engagement users have with mainstream news
organizations.
Literature Review
As social networks have boomed in popularity, numerous studies have explored who is
using these sites, how they use them, and what motivates them. Yet few have focused on the
implications for journalism. Most social networking studies are aligned with the active audience
paradigm of mass communication theory, in which people actively shape meaning from media
instead of passively consuming it. This body of theory is particularly relevant to social media,
given its interactive nature, and the relative ease and low-cost means of amateur media
production (Ito et. al., 2010). Within this paradigm, uses and gratifications has often been
applied to the study of social networks, seeking to understand how audience members use media
and the fulfillment they get from their media choices (Wimmer and Dominick, 2003). Uses and
gratifications theory is relevant for journalists as a way to understand and target their audience’s
needs, ultimately ensuring the best return on investment with social media.
!"
"
Because Twitter is relatively new, much of the current published work focuses on
Facebook, its massive predecessor, or on MySpace, which also preceded Twitter but is now
declining in popularity. However, there is a small and growing body of literature on Twitter, a
social network that allows users to broadcast information to others using just 140 characters,
interact with each other publicly or privately, and “follow” other users. Unlike Facebook,
reciprocity is not required on Twitter; users can follow others even if others do not follow them
in return. Although Twitter attracts a relatively small percentage of Internet users, its growth has
been rapid. In 2010, Twitter added 100 million new users (O’Dell, 2010). While many new
users check the site infrequently or never, one-third check for new material posted by others on a
daily basis or even multiple times per day (Smith & Rainie, 2010). Twenty-one percent of
Twitter users follow more than 100 people, up 7 percent over last year, and 16 percent now have
more than 100 followers (Sysomos Inc., 2010). People are also becoming more willing to
disclose personal information. In 2010, users were significantly more likely to provide a bio (69
percent), full name (73 percent), location (82 percent) and website URL (44 percent) as part of
their public profiles than they were in the previous year (Sysomos Inc., 2010). Edison Research
also found awareness of Twitter has exploded in the past two years. The percentage of
Americans who say they are familiar with Twitter rose from 5 percent in 2008 to 87 percent in
2010 (Webster, 2010).
Twitter uses and gratifications
Research on Twitter uses and gratifications has found people are using Twitter as an
important source of news and information, even though social needs remain an important aspect
of user motivation (Johnson & Yang, 2009). Johnson & Yang (2009) found Twitter users are
most satisfied with the ability to pass the time, meet new people, communicate with many people
!"
"
at the same time, participate in discussions, express themselves freely, and see what others are up
to. Numerous studies have confirmed that the dominant use of social networks more generally is
for communication with others and maintaining or developing personal relationships (Raacke &
Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Subrahmanyam et.al., 2008; Urista et. al., 2009; Sheldon, 2008; Stern,
2007; Nyland, 2007). Especially where Facebook is concerned, more relationships move offline
to online rather than vice versa. Study after study finds social networks provide a convenient
and immediate way to maintain contact with family and friends and facilitate weak-tie
relationships with acquaintances (Albarran, 2010, Raacke & Bonds-Raacke , 2008; Urista et. al.
2009). Users of social networks also utilize them to explore shared interests and build
relationships among others with similar hobbies or passions (Ito et. al., 2010). While this use of
social networking is less relevant to news organizations, it suggests users of social networking
sites are conditioned to engage with others and build relationships, not just passively consume
broadcasted messages. As a result, niche communities have congregated around particular
interests within social networks that may be tapped as sources or consumers of certain types of
news stories.
Although connecting with others is one of the uses and gratifications of Twitter identified by
Johnson & Yang (2009), subjects reported they had less fun using Twitter than they expected upon
signing up, and that their primary gratifications ultimately came from its ability to serve as a “one-stop
shop” for obtaining information. Subjects reported that Twitter served as a filter, allowing them to
easily access information recommended by friends or trusted contacts. Aberran et. al. (2010) found
similar results among Latinos. When young adult Latinos singled out uses of Twitter from Facebook
and MySpace, Twitter emerged as the clear leader for accessing news and information.
Johnson & Yang (2009) noted in analyzing their results that Twitter appeared to take on some
!"
"
characteristics of both an interpersonal and a mass medium. Indeed, social networks have become key
drivers of traffic to Web sites through shared links. Pew Research Center reported 55 percent of Twitter
users share links to news stories, and about one in ten do so at least once a day (Smith & Rainie, 2010).
Facebook passed Google News as a driver of traffic to news sites in early 2010 (Hopkins, 2010.)
Similarly, search-based ad network Chitika conducted a study that found news is important to
Twitter users (2010). They looked at all of the Web sites in the company’s network that received traffic
from Twitter and found 47 percent of those sites were news-related; technology and
celebrity/entertainment sites accounted for 10 percent, movies six percent and how-to articles four
percent. A study by Barracuda Networks, a Web security company, described Twitter as “more news
feed than social network,” finding the majority of Twitter users follow others but do not post messages
themselves (Pepitone, 2010). However,uses may be shifting. More recent research indicates people are
becoming more active on Twitter (Sysomos Inc., 2010). A survey by market research firm Kamaron
Institute (Ross, 2010) found more people use Twitter for business or professional purposes than for
social reasons.
Another use of social networks relevant to news organizations is creative production, or the
desire to share information with others to gain visibility, establish a reputation, or simply for enjoyment
(Ito et. al. 2010). Creative production includes posting self-created articles, essays, blog posts, photos,
video, or other media. Urban youth (40 percent) are somewhat more likely than suburban (28 percent)
or rural (38 percent) to be media creators, and young women, especially teens, are more likely to engage
in creative production than young men (Jenkins et. al., 2006). A study of Latino youth’s social network
use found high levels of uses and gratifications around sharing music and video content, both personally
and professionally made (Alberran et. al., 2010). Pempek et. al. (2009) found many people use
Facebook to share content created for their friends, including videos and other self-produced material.
!"
"
While much of this creative production may serve an identity-building or self-expressive purpose –
Pempek et. al (2009) described it as being “the star of their own life,” – this drive to create content may
be harnessed by news organizations looking for citizen contributions to their work that not only help to
report breaking news but tell stories about the community and its people.
Twitter and diversity
A number of studies have examined the demographics of Twitter, which reveal relatively large
segments users who are typically underrepresented as news sources and consumers. In its recent study,
the Pew Research Center found that minority Internet users are more than twice as likely as whites to
use Twitter; one-quarter of all online African Americans use the service, compared to 15 percent of
whites. Additionally, Twitter use spans income levels. Ten percent of Internet users with middle-class
household incomes between $54,000 and $74,999 use Twitter, the same proportion as those with less
than $30,000 household incomes (10 percent). In addition, urban residents are twice as likely to use
Twitter as their rural counterparts. Women and those with a college degree are slightly more likely than
average to use the service (Smith & Rainie, 2010).
Much of the rise in Twitter use may be part of a broader trend of more diverse and widespread
Internet and broadband adoption, as well as the proliferation of mobile technology that makes Tweeting
easy. Between 2000 and 2010, the proportion of Internet users who are African American or Latino
nearly doubled, from 11 percent to 21 percent. Additionally, African Americans and Latinos are more
likely to own a mobile phone than whites (Smith, 2010). African Americans have surged in laptop
ownership; 51 percent own a laptop compared to just 34 percent in 2009 (Smith, 2010). Twitter’s 140
character limit was conceived as a text message service, and today it remains closely connected to
mobile technology for many (Ellison et. al., 2010; Webster, 2010), with a proliferation of applications
!"
"
available for smart phone users and lower technology options for regular mobiles. An Edison
Research/Arbitron study found a significantly greater number of users access and update Twitter from
their mobile phone compared to the average user of other sites and services. Americans in general are
also becoming more wired and more mobile; 85 percent have a cell phone (Smith, 2010); one-third of
households have a smart phone; 68 percent have a laptop or netbook; and many utilize these
technologies to multitask while watching television or doing other activities (Parr, 2011). This growth
in technology adoption has been rapid. In 2006, just 30 percent had laptops (Smith, 2010). Young
adults are among the most mobile, with 95 percent of 18-29 year olds owning a cell phone of some kind.
Minority Americans outpace whites when it comes to actually using cell phone non-voice data
applications and features like Twitter (Smith, 2010). On average, whites use 3.8 of 13 non-voice apps
measured by the Pew Center, while African-American cell phone owners use 5.4 and Latinos 5.8
(Smith, 2010). These trends may help explain the rapid growth in Twitter use and may bode well for its
future rate of adoption.
In terms of types of use, research generally shows minorities use social networking sites in
similar ways as whites. For example, maintaining friendships and connecting with others is the primary
use (Raacke & Bonds Raacke, 2008; Albarran et. al., 2010). Edison Research/Arbitron data indicate
African-American Twitter users may be using the medium more conversationally than other
racial/ethnic groups, although more research is required (Webster, 2010). In addition, racial, ethnic, and
income stratification between sites such as MySpace and Facebook has been observed (Hargittai, 2008;
Subrahmanyam et. al. , 2008). Hargiattai (2008) suggests users from different racial and ethnic groups
may be drawn to different social networking services given the real-life stratification between these
groups and the power early adopters to shape who comes after them on social networking sites.
Although Twitter users are more diverse than those on other social networks, some have speculated self-
!"
"
segregating within the service itself, with many people only choosing to follow or interact with people
of a similar racial or ethnic or income background (O’Brien, 2010). However, this has not yet been
empirically studied. Hargiattai (2008) warns each social network is different and making
generalizations across them are difficult, which is why this study examines Twitter specifically to see
how diverse communities use the service. It is also important to note a number of factors, including
gender, context of Internet use, and online experiences all shape the level of each individual’s intensity
of engagement with social network sites, further confirming the difficulty of making generalizations in
the study of social networking uses (Hargittai, 2008).
Among the most interesting statistics for journalists hoping to find new and diverse audiences
hungry for public interest information, minorities were active technology users during the 2008 election
campaign (Smith & Rainie, 2010). Minorities were significantly more likely than whites to place a high
value on government outreach via social media and to use tools like social networking sites to stay
informed with local issues (Smith & Rainie, 2010).
The popular and industry press have described and debated about what some call “Black
Twitter,” a term that has engendered its share of controversy. Slate magazine’s Farhood Manjoo (2010)
argued that young African Americans use Twitter differently, forming tight clusters who follow each
other and engage in more conversation and message amplification through replying and retweeting
others’ messages. He suggests this allows them to more easily dominate the trending topics with
popular hashtags, sometimes called “Blacktags,” that often comment on race, love, sex, and stereotypes
of black culture (Manjoo, 2010). Indeed, Brendan Meeder, a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon
interviewed in the piece, said network effects do predict that hashtags can rise faster in popularity when
they start in dense communities of highly connected people. Meeder also says early research suggests
African Americans who start top trending topics are using Twitter as a kind of public instant messenger
!"
"
service, talking to others but doing it in public. In his piece, Manjoo offers the caveat that these
hashtags are popularized by a subgroup of African Americans on Twitter, are not representative of black
culture more generally, and clearly not all African-American Twitter users are participating in these
tags. His piece sparked controversy (Sanders, 2010) with others arguing there is nothing unique about
how African Americans use Twitter, and questioning the impetus to look at uses of Twitter through a
racial or ethnic lens. For example, Jessica Faye Carter (2010) wrote “the tendency to focus on ethnic
heritage as the definitive aspect of a person’s identity presents a major challenge to discourse on culture
and social media, because it ignores the layered existences in which most people reside.” She argues that
people replicate memes for a variety of different reasons and focus on blackness in the rise of some
popular memes because they mirror stereotypes about blacks, even though whites, most notably the
large Justin Bieber fan base, also propagate memes in similar ways (Carter, 2010). The academic
literature in this area remains thin, but most studies have revealed that when looking at social networks
generally, the tendency for relationships to move from the offline world to the online one means groups
that limit their interaction with others in the real world will continue to do so online (Boyd & Ellison,
2008). However, some have suggested that highly engaged Facebook users “crystallize relationships
that might otherwise remain ephemeral (Steinfield & Lampe, 2007: 20),” facilitating greater interaction
with people from different backgrounds (Steinfield & Lampe, 2007; Steinfield, Ellison & Lampe, 2008).
Writing for the Atlantic, Jackson (2010) argued that in fact, social media in some ways allows us to
escape these large demographic groups because they allow people to organize around interests instead.
One interesting study by Yardi and Boyd (2010) found that Twitter conversations are unique in that
people often do not come into a discussion intentionally but rather witness a conversation and get drawn
into it, Twitter are public and easily visible using hashtags and replies. However, the speed in which
these topics ebb and flow can make meaningful conversation difficult, they also found.
!"#
#
If indeed, densely-connected groups of Twitter users from previously underrepresented groups
have the ability to raise the popularity of certain hashtags globally, it could follow that important issues
neglected by the mainstream media could be surfaced via Twitter. This happened in January 2011 when
an Ohio mother was convicted of a felony for falsifying her residency to get her children into a better,
safer school district (Wise, 2011). Propelled in part by Twitter and other social networks, the story
spread widely and made headlines around the country, attracting the attention of national outlets like the
New York Times. This is one case of a story that might not have spread without the amplified reactions
via social networks of lower-income groups, who are most affected by struggling schools.
In terms of gender, few studies have identified significant differences between men and women
in use of social media, although women generally have larger networks and spend more time
communicating with others (Acar, 2008). Women are more likely to value the maintenance of existing
relationships and ability to pass the time on social networks, while men are more likely to value the
ability to meet new people (Sheldon, 2008).
Twitter and journalism
Few studies so far have explored the ways in which Twitter could benefit news organizations,
despite the growing numbers of journalistic efforts on Twitter. For example, NBC recently
acknowledged Twitter’s importance in local news coverage by launching a program for its affiliates
called “The 20,” which will tap local influencers’ Tweets to learn what people are talking about and
identify the most important local issues (Melanson, 2011). Many reporters and editors from numerous
organizations from CBS News to the New York Times have Twitter accounts they use regularly.
Twitter provides one opportunity for traditional news organizations remain viable among
young and diverse communities. According to the State of the Media Report 2010 by the Project
!!"
"
for Excellence in Journalism, young people and minorities are significantly less likely than older
people and whites to consume mainstream news sources. For newspapers, the youngest age
bracket had the lowest readership levels; fewer than two out of three 18-34 year olds said they
had read the previous day’s daily newspaper. Twenty-six percent of Latinos, 32 percent of
Asians, and 37 percent of African Americans reported reading the newspaper, compared to 44
percent of whites. And readership numbers across all age groups, races and ethnicities dropped
between 2008 and 2009. Similarly, the report found network television news is failing to attract
younger viewers; the median age in 2009 for viewers was 62.3. These media consumption
trends dovetail with a population that is rapidly diversifying. Recently-released Census data
show about 48 percent of Americans born last year were members of minority groups (Tavernese
& Gebeloff, 2010).
Twitter offers journalists opportunities to reach out to people of color, not just by sharing links
to news stories, but also by engaging in dialogue (Chuang, “How Social Media Can Help,” 2010). “In a
multicultural society, people pay attention to media that pay attention to them,” as professor of
journalism and American studies and ethnicity at the University of Southern California Félix Gutiérrez
said (Chuang, “The Future of Ethnic Media,” 2010). If journalists can join the conversations going on in
communities of color online, it may “not only improve the quality of dialogue about tough subjects, but
also provide news organizations with a much-needed infusion of new audience members who reflect the
America we’re becoming,” Cheng wrote in a column for the Poynter Institute (“How social media can
help,” 2010).
Methodology
This study consisted of 19 in-depth interviews conducted with regular Twitter users ages 18-29 at
!"#
#
three universities. Interviews are a useful methodological tool for an exploratory study, allowing
researchers to gain an in-depth understanding of how people use Twitter (Yin, 2002). Students selected
for these interviews utilize Twitter on a daily or near-daily basis, outside of any specific requirements
for university coursework. Therefore, their responses can be used to ascertain the motives of frequent
Twitter users, as opposed to those who may have an account but use it rarely. Interviews sought to
answer the following research questions:
1. How do people, ages 18-29, use Twitter? Is Twitter used as a source of news and
information?
2. Are there any differences in how whites and minority groups use Twitter?
3. Are journalists who utilize Twitter to a) share news and information and b) to engage
with their audiences credible to younger and minority audiences?
Interviews lasted between 30 and 50 minutes and began with general open-ended questions about
how the subjects use Twitter, allowing the subjects to describe their uses in their own words rather than
utilizing pre-determined categories. Answers were then probed to elicit greater detail, and subjects were
asked for more specific details about when they use Twitter, how often they utilize specific functions,
such as replying to or retweeting messages of others, what kinds of technology or applications they use
to access the service, how many people they follow (and who follow them) that they know offline, how
often they engage in conversation with others on the service, whether (and if so, how) they use the site
for news and information and if they ever interact with reporters or news organizations.
The three participating schools were the University of Memphis, the University of Tennessee,
and Lehigh University. These schools vary not only in geographic location but in demographic
composition as well. Memphis is a public, urban commuter school in western Tennessee with 22,000
!"#
#
students; about 46 percent of those students are racial/ethnic minorities and 40 percent are African
American. University of Tennessee is a large state university on the other side of the state with 29,000
students, about nine percent of which are minority. Lehigh is a small private school with 6,000 students
in a city with a 31,000 population; about 13 percent of those students are minorities. Though researchers
chose these schools primarily as a matter of convenience, their demographic variation allows for
insightful comparisons to be explored between respondents.
When the data was collected, researchers utilized analytic induction to scan the transcriptions
for themes and categories. The emphasis was on thematic and category construction rather than
enumeration. The study’s results focus on theme description and variations within the emergent
categories, with relevance to the uses and gratifications framework. Participant identification is
denoted alphabetically, with city university participants A – F, state university participants G –
M, private liberal arts university participants N – S (see Appendix A).
Results
In-depth interviews revealed a number of key themes in how young people ages 18-29 utilize
Twitter and the potential for journalists to use the medium to reach new audiences.
To begin, this study supports industry data regarding young adults’ use of mobile devices.
All study participants reported utilizing their mobile devices as their primary source of social
media due to the tool’s portability and convenience. Laptops and personal computers were also
used, but to a lesser degree.
R1: How do young people, ages 18-29, use Twitter?
Social tool for informal communication
!"#
#
The majority of those interviewed claimed their primary use of Twitter was for informal
communication with others and networked amusement. Among this sample of regular users,
many reported engaging in nearly constant conversation throughout the day, especially during
the evening hours, both by replying to others and by updating their followers on the minute
developments and observations of daily life. For example, participant R states,
“It’s mostly my university name friends. So I like to post what I’m doing and keep
up with friends during the day, or when we’re at different parties. Most of my
posts are where I am, what I’m doing, or making funny comments during classes.
My friends and I, we all reply to each other when a class is going bad and it’s
funny. It keeps me entertained in classes. I feel like it’s a good way for us to be
together even when we’re going about our days.”
Inherent to the student’s response is the notion the tool is for 24/7 usage, or as illustrated by
participant E, so long as the phone is within reach,
“I Tweet a lot, so I’m on there the majority of my day, because it just gives, me, I don’t
know, it’s enjoyment, but it’s informational, and I love that I can interact and talk with
people all day about common interests and common viewpoints all day, so I’m generally
on there all the time, sharing thoughts, and you know.
Many participants, and particularly the African American students interviewed, reported
that, as the literature has found for Facebook, they know the majority of their followers and
people they followed offline, indicating that Twitter may be used in similar ways to the larger
social network for some students, a way for young people build and maintain relationships with
friends. Indeed, some students suggested that while they also used Facebook, Twitter had
become the preferred outlet for connecting with others they know. Of course, it’s important to
!"#
#
recognize that this finding represents a subset of social networking population that has
enthusiastically adopted Twitter and probably does not represent younger people more broadly.
While many participants cite Twitter as a means to continue and enhance previous
relationships, others claimed the tool helped initiate new relationships away from their
hometown and strengthen dynamic bonding with individuals involved in their daily collegiate
interactions. For example, participant R responds,
“Twitter seems like a big party to me with my friends, sometimes several parties
at once. I like how we talk about serious stuff, silly stuff, and it reflects a lot of
my daily life I get with my friends. I think it has deepened my friendships,
especially with my friends in the BSU (Black Student Union). I’ve gotten to know
them as thinkers and as people. We trade reading lists and ideas on there and it
has really opened my mind up a lot. The BSU is a group that has a lot of haters
here. Whites hate it because they don’t think university name has a race problem.
And some of my black friends don’t want to be associated with it because it’s
controversial with whites. So the BSU group is pretty tight and Twitter has helped
me reach out to them and get to know them I guess.”
Although some students seem to use Twitter within this collegiate subculture, bonding within
a supportive minority environment, several participants said this was not necessarily intentional,
noting that any segregation on Twitter was simply a mirror of that in the real world. For
example, participant S notes, “I don’t not follow white people because of a race thing or
anything. It’s just because Twitter is really my close friends and that’s it.
With few exceptions, all communicated primarily with a similar demographic in terms of
age. Many expressed reservations about parents or other family members joining Twitter and/or
following them. Typical replies to questions about their connections are illustrated by participant
A, “I have 256 followers. I probably know maybe 50 of them, or about 25 or 30 percent,”
!"#
#
participant C, “I just reached about 600-something, and out of that, I’d say I know about half of
them,” participant E, “I know, generally, about 90 percent of the people I follow, and that makes
it better, that makes it easier to communicate, you know,” and participant M, “I probably know
about half of the 150, and probably half of those are people from home. Probably about 50 are
from here and the others are in different parts of the U.S.”
Many participants voiced their desire to be part of a social network that allows users more
anonymity than more popular platforms, such as Facebook, and the ability to talk only with their
friends rather than a larger circle of acquaintances, family members, and authority figures that
now use Facebook. For instance, according to participant N, “My family doesn’t know I’m on
there and I don’t tell them. I talk about a lot of stuff that probably would freak them out if they
knew. A lot of our hashtag chats are about drugs or sex and they wouldn’t like it.” Similarly,
participant P notes, “My friends and I like it a lot. I haven’t told my non-university name friends
about it so I don’t know what they’d think. I don’t want my parents to see it. That’s what
Facebook is for.”
Several individuals claimed to have an affinity for categorizing elements of their posts via
hashtag, either for whimsy’s sake, such as participant N (first), or for curating specific
information and fostering conversation, such as participant R (second),
“I’m a hashtag all-star. I love the ones that my friends start to use a lot. Lots of
inside jokes. My favorite one lately was #sidechickgifts and my bros and I were
joking about things we’d get our imaginary side chicks for Valentine’s. I use them
to joke around, pretty much, and only after my friends have started using them.”
Participant M demonstrates also informal communication with her example,
!"#
#
“I tweet songs more than anything else. Song lyrics. I love music and if I’m
feeling some way I’ll tweet a song lyric. But it’s also like a diary for me, because
if anything happens and I can’t write it down I’ll just tweet it. And my phone has
a twitter app so I’ll just tweet from it. I tweeted once, when financial aid was
making me mad, that I was going to blow up the financial aid office. That might
have gotten me in trouble if something would have happened. (But) people were
like, they’re going to blow it up, too. So it wouldn’t have just been me (laughs).”
While participant M cited her moment of fictitious civil disobedience as one tinged with
possible danger, she mentioned another friend’s Twitter activity to explain how using Twitter as
a form of self-expression can also connect you to others:
“My best friend goes to Howard and she has like 2,000 followers and 100,000
tweets. I think she’s a celebrity. She pretty much says everything she’s thinking,
she doesn’t have a filter. But people enjoy that, when you’re free to say
everything you feel or think. Because they’re probably thinking it but don’t want
to say it. And she says it, so it’s like, “oh my god, she said what I was thinking,
but I’m not going to say it because it’s kind of vulgar or provocative.”
Fun and entertainment
Many of the participants reported using Twitter just for fun and to consume entertainment
in a participatory environment where they could also interact with what they were hearing or
watching. Many reported following one or more celebrities, and several, such as participant L,
describe their ability to directly interact with celebrities as a benefit of Twitter’s communication
democracy,
“Initially I got it two years ago because all the celebrities are on twitter and I
wanted to stalk them. The first celebrity that I followed was Trey Songz because
I’m like in love with him. And it’s like you get to see another side of him, because
he like tweets things that my best friend would say and I’m like, “Oh my god,
you’re not supposed to say that, you’re a celebrity.” So it makes him more human,
I guess. I try to mention them so they can mention me back. One time I tweeted
something about Dawn Richards from Dd Dirty Money’s new song and she
!"#
#
retweeted me, and I’m like, “Oh my god, she retweeted me.” The other day my
best friend, it was his birthday, and he is like the biggest Brandi fan ever. And she
tweeted happy birthday to him and he almost fell over.”
In addition to the absence of traditional celebrity gatekeeper, numerous participants, such as
participant Q, mentioned aspects related to Twitter as an agent of authenticity,
“I feel like I understand famous people more. Their Twitter is really real, you
know? They don’t have their thoughts being edited by the media so you have like
access to their thoughts and their mind. I find myself caring more about what’s
going on with them and thinking about things from their point of view so I think
Twitter has taught me a lot about what famous people go through. My friends, I
feel like it’s more of a way to keep up with them than get to know them. Although
I have learned some really interesting and embarrassing things about them.”
Many of those interviewed said they often Tweeted about what they were
watching on television or what music they were listening to, and often engaged in
conversations with others about the shows, combining traditional passive entertainment
with the interactive capability to discuss it with their friends.
“It’s a lot of random stuff, just basically what’s going on, if it’s a TV show, like
tonight is a big show that everyone watches, so it’s, you know, tune in tonight at 9
o’clock at this channel.
Professional networking
A subset of participants used the site to develop contacts and learn about their future careers.
The distinction between the personal and professional are best illustrated participant L’s separate
responses,
“If I’m going to use it for professional reasons I want to make sure that my tweets
are professional. So if I’m going to follow professional leaders I’m going to make
!"#
#
sure that my tweets are professional. So if I’m going to follow professionals I’d
like professionals to follow me back and then respect what I put on Twitter.”
The participant subsequently noted,
“But with Twitter, my friends and also athletes just post what they’re doing
nonstop. I think because you can do it from your phone, it just makes it easy to
say you’re eating a bowl of cereal or running to Kroger or whatever. And it’s very
self-centered, so it’s very this is what I’m doing, this is where I am, this is who
I’m with.”
Perhaps an equally reflective example is participant M, who manages the Twitter
account of student organization focused on women’s issues. The participant reported she
tweets professionally from the organization account, then uses her own account for
personal interaction.
Some participants within this subcategory discussed their transition from personal to
professional Twitter uses, and thus, their current use reflected elements of both. For example,
participant P noted,
“All my brothers are on Twitter because we all joined after a Tech House seminar
on Twitter and marketing. So it took off for us and it’s like we haven’t left
college. For me though Twitter is different than it used to be because I’m
connecting with a lot of other people who weren’t in that original circle of friends.
I’m studying for my master’s in engineering and so I’m following a lot more grad
students in engineering all over the world now. I went to a conference to present
research last summer and was surprised at how many people doing engineering
were finding Twitter useful, so I just started following people like crazy. So I used
to use Twitter for guy talk more but now it’s all kinds of stuff, including
conversations with people about education and things going on in my field. I also
think I’ve had to tone it down a little bit because I’ve realized that the way I used
to use it, with lots of inside jokes and sex humor and stuff, wouldn’t make me
look good to people I might want to hire me.”
!"#
#
Yet for others, such as participant B, thinking about future employment figures into their
maintaining authenticity to their Twitter content,
“There’s a really popular Twitter account, been trying to get them to follow me
since July, and they finally did, after I posted a video. Last week, it was really late
at night, and I noticed there were not that many people on Twitter. So thought it
was a good time to reach out to some people I wanted to follow me. There is a big
record company in Pittsburgh that I really want to be signed with. So I Tweeted
“If I don’t get signed by @ThatCompany, I’m going to quit rapping. And they
actually responded to me and said don’t give up and stuff. And so I sent them a
link to my stuff, and they even DMed me and asked if I had thought about
sending them a demo, and I said I hadn’t. Now I’ve been tweeting every day, sign
with them or die.”
Information
Although news and information was a less important use for Twitter than to connecting
with others for these participants, it did emerge as one of the ways young people use this social
network. Twitter users seek out information specific to their interests, general and local news,
and a hybrid of the two. Participant Q (first) illustrates uses related to interests, participant D
(second) exemplifies news uses and participant E (third) embodies hybrid gratifications,
I use it to stay connected with my friends and people who care about some of the
things I care about. I got involved early on from a university name friend who’s
active with me in the Black Student Union, and so most of my friends early on
were people who were working with me to promote events and things. I felt like I
made some great friends and they were all on Twitter so it was a natural place to
go.”
“People retweet the traffic in the morning. I’ve clicked on several links, several
from Katie Couric, and I’m like, this is really cool, it’s instant, it’s right there in
my face, so I don’t have to try to find a television or a radio station if I’ve got my
Wi-Fi and my computer everywhere. I’ve got it right here, in my hand, what I
!"#
#
need, even the Egypt stuff, it was constant, so I got an update, I knew what was
going on.”
Um, it’s just random things, you know, what’s going on on campus, at the UC
[University Center], there may be a meeting about, you know, whatever, so I’ll be
like, okay, I want to go to that.”
R2: Are there any differences in how whites and minority groups use Twitter?
It is important to note that no generalizations can be made from this small sample, but the
interview data allows us to examine in greater depth whether any of the differences between how
different racial and ethnic groups use Twitter discussed in the popular press are valid.
Some participants said they didn’t notice any differences in how racial or ethnic groups used
Twitter, but also noted that many of the people they follow or who follow them tended to be
primarily people of same racial or ethnic group. Several others, for example participant N, noted
a distinct difference in how different races utilize its functionality,
“My new followers are different. They don’t play with hashtags or just post
whatever’s on [their] mind. Most of them are white, but some of them are adults
too so they always posting news links. I feel like my non-black friends on there
are really serious sometimes and don’t know how to just mess. I feel like when
I’m on Twitter I’m hanging out with my friends, but I don’t think my white
friends do that. It feels like they always have a reason they’re on there, does that
make sense? Like they’re always trying to accomplish something or get
something done. They don’t chill enough.”
Participant Q further articulated this dissimilarity by citing authenticity of use,
I feel like black folks are more real on Twitter, maybe? But in a different way. Like
they’re talking about what’s going on in life, and white folks are usually trying to post
deep thoughts or news they think is important. I don’t like it when people try to act all
!!"
"
smart on Twitter.
Minority students interviewed also appeared more likely to be part of dense networks of
Twitter users who know each other offline than white students. For example, one minority
student described meeting new people and asking them if they were on Twitter and exchanging
user names instead of phone numbers.
Perhaps the most illuminating difference in usage pertained to hashtags, which all
African American participants reported using to some extent. The variety of examples illustrated
a collective cultivation of creative input, which produced trending topics intended to both amuse
and bemuse. In nearly a half dozen cases, groups of friends attempted to create topics that might
manifest an indelible 24-hour blip on the Twitter trending topics. Participant L’s example lends
context to this collaborative contest,
“I know it’s kind of weird, but I see the black community here as like a family
and we all kind of each lunch together and we’ll all go in on a certain trending
topic or we’ll make our own. We’ll just come up with a trending topic and start
tweeting. Like there’s a song called “Shake Life,” and about two or three weeks
ago we were sitting there and we made #UTKshakelife and we talked about the
party life at UT. And then other schools started making their own, like
#MTSUshakelife. I eat at the UC about three days a week and those three days we
talk about Twitter. But they’re always funny. I’ve never participated in a serious
trending topic. It’s all goofy.”
R3: Are journalists that utilize Twitter to a)share news and information and b)to engage with
their audiences credible to younger and minority audiences?
!"#
#
While the majority of participants did not mention news as their primary use for Twitter,
several individuals did suggest that they do get news from the service and that journalists who
engage with audiences and share stories via Twitter could see their audience and credibility get a
boost. For example, participant D (first) and participant C (second), said,
“It would be a little more effective (if journalists engaged with people more on
Twitter instead of just publishing links to articles) and built relationships, instead
of that person just throwing out articles.”
“I know some people who haven’t picked up a newspaper in years, so I think if they
[journalists] were to get on Twitter, it would help keep news alive. Journalism is kind of
dying. If people did that more often, people would feel like people had a closer
relationship with the person that is delivering the news.”
Others noted that they sometimes use hashtags to find news and information relevant to
them that may not be as likely to be available through mainstream sources:
“There’s a #universityname Diversity tag that people post to every once in a while
when something bad happens on campus that is race related. So I read that. I like
hashtags in general because they let me follow certain discussions I’m interested,
and I see them pop up in a friend’s posts and they are interesting at times.”
Discussion
While it’s important to reiterate that results of this study can’t be generalized to all of
minority youth Twitter users, these in-depth interviews allow for a deeper exploration into the
motivations and gratifications for using this social network than a survey would allow, and offer
a number of insights for journalists and news organizations seeking to attract more diverse
!"#
#
audiences and sources by tapping into a social network that has proved to be especially popular
among minorities.
Of most interest to journalists, this study found that news and information was not the
primary motivation for in using Twitter among participants, but it was an important one. Several
participants said that it was a convenient way to stay updated on the news, making it easy to
quickly scan a headline. Most said they followed at least a few news accounts or journalists, and
that they occasionally posted news links or read news links posted by others. Many said they
rarely sought out news through traditional media such as a printed newspaper or by going to a
news organization’s website, but enjoyed having the news come to them through their feed,
provided it wasn’t dominating messages from their friends. For example, participant C said,
I also use it as a news source because I realize that the older I get the less interested I am
in watching the news, because sometimes I find it can be a little depressing. And so,
what I can do, I can follow different media outlets like Fox 13 or New York Times and
get little, like, quick feeds and just by reading the little 140 characters, if I read something
that sparks my interest, then I can click and read more, but if it’s one of those things
where, uh, I really don’t want to read about that, I just keep going down my timeline. But
I definitely see it as a source of news. I read newspapers every now and then, but I kind
of stray away from those too, so I believe Twitter can be used as a good news source for
people who want to – as a filter I guess you could say, for what they want to read and
what they don’t want to read.”
Another participant, L, said she used Twitter to stay connected with hometown news while
at college.
Well I follow some news stations from back home to get news from home, since I can’t
watch the news from home, so I can see tweets. Like when the 90 girls were pregnant in [at a
local high school] or wherever, I saw that on [trending topics] before I read the articles and
stuff… I retweeted the pregnant girls one, because a lot of the people I’m friends with here
!"#
#
are from [my home town]. So I retweeted that one and the big storm that hit them, I retweet
those so that everybody knows, or like that.
The primary use of Twitter by study participants, however, was not for news and
information, but to connect with others and to build and maintain relationships. While this use of
Twitter may seem less relevant at the outset to journalists, participants expressed openness to
news mixed in with their interactions with friends, and also noted that they expected more
engagement and a conversational tone in this space. In many ways, this data suggests a possible
move from Facebook to Twitter, at least among a subset of the youth population, particularly
minority students, who want to converse with their friends online in a space that, at least for now,
is not dominated by their family members and authority figures in their lives in the way
Facebook has become.
Celebrities, athletes, music, movies, and television programs were popular entertainment-
related topics of discussion on Twitter, respondents said, with Twitter serving as the proverbial
virtual water cooler where they could discuss what they were listening to or watching with their
friends. For example, one participant noted that after she and several female friends Tweeted
about how they were watching Craigslist Killer, a movie on Lifetime, they got several of their
male followers to turn on the show, and soon a wide-ranging discussion was ongoing on Twitter
during the rest of the show, especially during the commercials.
News organizations have now ceded their role as the primary gatekeepers for celebrity
news, especially as more famous people take to Twitter and other networks to communicate
directly with their followers. However, this appetite for not only entertainment information but
also interaction around it could be an opportunity for enterprising news organizations who could
!"#
#
help to initiate conversations around popular local shows or events, such as concerts or festivals.
Twitter discussion can also be useful for feature reporters to tap a wider breadth of perspectives
by tapping the chatter around local personalities and popular events. Of course, some journalists,
particularly in broadcast, are local celebrities in their own right, and respondents indicated that
hearing more intimate details from celebrities and even the possibility of interaction with them
deepened their sense of connection, loyalty, and trust with these individuals. Twitter thus can be
a vehicle for journalists to develop and maintain a trusted personal brand.
This study offers a detailed snapshot of how some minority youth between 18 and 29
who are heavy Twitter users utilize the service, and suggests that it may differ from what
previous research shows about how the majority of people taken as a whole use the service. As
Hargittai (2008) and others have found, real-world racial and ethnic stratification plays out
online, although in the case of Twitter, instead of occurring between two different social
networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace, its occurring within the service itself. Many
of the respondents said they used Twitter to communicate within their large but tightly knit real-
world groups of friends. Minority respondents described how they post their own Tweets,
respond to others, and read their entire feed regularly throughout the day and into the evening,
joking around, sharing what they are doing in a diary-style manner, and participating in existing
hashtags or working with their friends to get their own to become popular or even trend locally
or nationally.
Further research is needed to expand on and quantify the results presented here. The
second phase of this study will include a survey that will allow us to examine these phenomena
on a broader scale, exploring how a larger sample of youth ages 18-29 uses Twitter, and
especially its potential for journalists. This research will also allow researchers to design better
!"#
#
surveys that more accurately measure Twitter use by testing some of the assumptions that guide
question choice and wording.
APPENDIX A
Participant School Sex Race Age

City university: CC African American: AA
State university: SU White: W
Private university: PU Mixed race: M
A CU M AA 27
B CU M AA 19
C CU M AA 22
D CU F AA 21
E CU F AA 2O
F SU M AA 26
G SU F AA 22
H SU M W 20
I SU M W 22
J SU F M 22
K SU F W 20
L SU F AA 22
M SU M M 22
N PU M AA 22
O PU F W 20
P PU M AA 24
Q PU F W 22
!"#
#
R PU M AA 22
S PU F AA 21
REFERENCES
Acar, A. (2008). Antecedents and Consequences of Online Social Networking Behavior: The Case of
Facebook. Journal of Website Promotion, 3(1), 62-83.
Albarran,A.B. Dyer, C, Hutton, B, Valentine, A. (2010). Social media and young latinos: A cross-cultural
examination. Presented at the Association in Journalism and Mass Communication conference,
Denver, CO.
boyd, D.M. & Elllison, N.B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
boyd, D. (2007). Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace. Retrieved
March 31, 2010 from http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html
Carter, J. F. (2010). A response to Farhad Manjoo’s how black people use Twitter. Women, Culture,
Social Media. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from http://jessicafayecarter.com/a-response-to-farhad-
manjoods-how-black-people-use-twitter/
Chitika Research. (2010). Twitter and Facebook are for news, MySpace is for leisure. Retrieved March
31,2010 from http://insights.chitika.com/
Chuang, A. (2010). The future of ethnic media depends on generation that sees color differently.” Poynter
Institute. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-
storytelling/diversity-at-work/110295/the-future-of-ethnic-media-depends-on-a-new-
generation-that-sees-color-differently/
Chuang, A. (2010). “How social media can help journalists reach ethnically diverse groups.” Poynter
Institute. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-
!"#
#
storytelling/diversity-at-work/104224/how-social-media-can-help-journalists-reach-
ethnically-diverse-groups/
Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., Steinfeld, C. and Vitak, J. ‘With a Little Help from My Friends: How Social
Network Sites Affect Social Capital Processes,’ in Z. Papacharissi (ed.) (2011). A Networked Self:
Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, pp. 124 – 145. Routledge: New York.
Hargittai, E. (2008). Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276-297.
Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y.P. ‘From Dabblers to Omnivores: A Typology of Social Network Site Usage’,
in Z. Papacharissi (ed.) (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social
Network Sites, pp. 145 - 168. Routledge: New York.
Hopkins, H. (2010). Facebook largest news reader? Experian Hitwise. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/us-heather-
hopkins/2010/02/facebook_largest_news_reader_1.html
Ito, M, Baumer, S, Bittanti, M, boyd, d, Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B, Horst, H.A., Lange, P.G.,
Mahendran, D., Martinez, K.Z. Pascoe, C.J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L, Sims, C. & Tripp, L. (2010).
Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning in New Media.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackson, N. (2010). “Social media and the end of age, race, and gender.” The Atlantic. Retrieved March
15, 2011 from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/social-media-and-the-
end-of-age-race-and-gender/67969/
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M. and Robinson, A.J. ( 2006) Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: Media cducation for the 21st century. Retrieved September 17,
2010 from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-
E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF
!"#
#
Johnson, P. & Yang, S. (2009). “Uses and gratifications of Twitter: An examination of user motives and
satisfaction of Twitter use.“ Paper presented at meeting of the Association for Journalism in
Education and Mass Communication, Boston, MA.
Manjoo, F. (2010). How black people use Twitter: The latest research on race and microblogging. Slate
Magazine. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from http://www.slate.com/id/2263462
Melanson, M. (2011). NBC’s “The 20” brings Twitter influencers to local news.” Read Write Web.
Retrieved March 15, 2011 from
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/nbcs_the_20_brings_twitter_influencers_to_local_ne
.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+readwritew
eb+%28ReadWriteWeb%29&utm_content=Twitter
Nyland, R. (2007). The gratification niches of internet social networking, e-mail, and face-to-face
communication. Master’s Thesis. Brigham Young University.
O’Brien, C. (2010). “Twitter users may be diverse, but are they talking to each other?” San Jose Mercury
News. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_16859223?nclick_check=1
O’Dell, J. (2010). Twitter celebrates 100 million new accounts in 2010. Mashable. Retrieved March 4,
2011 from http://mashable.com/2010/12/09/twitter-vips-2010/
Ortman, C. and Guarneri, C. (2010) United States Population Projections: 2000 to 2050 United States
Census. Retrieved December 14, 2010 from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/analytical-document09.pdf
Parr, B. (2011). The rise of digital multitasking. Mashable. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from
http://mashable.com/2011/02/01/deloitte-survey/
Pepitone, J. (2010). Twitter users not so social after all. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/10/technology/twitter_users_active/
!"#
#
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students' social networking
experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227-238.
Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2010). State of the media report. Retrieved March 4, 2011
from http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications
theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169-174.
Ross, M. (2009). The majority of people on Twitter Tweet for business, poll shows. Retrieved March 15,
2011 from http://kamaron.org/majority-people-twitter-tweet-business-poll-shows
Sanders, S. (2010). How black people may or may not use Twitter. National Public Radio. Retrieved
March 15, 2011 from http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2010/08/16/129235517/how-
black-people-may-or-may-not-use-twitter
Sheldon, P. (2008) Student favorite: Facebook and motives for its use. Southwestern Mass
Communication Journal. 23(2), 39-53.
Smith, A. (2010). “Technology trends among people of color.” Pew Internet and American Life Project.
http://www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2010/September/Technology-Trends-Among-
People-of-Color.aspx
Smith, A, and Rainie, L. (2010). “Who Tweets?” Pew Research Center. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1821/twitter-users-profile-exclusive-examination
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social
network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 434-
445.
Steinfield, N. & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college
students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (4),
1143-1168.
!"#
#
Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of Communication, 20, 9-20.
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social
networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29(6), 420-433."
Sysomos, Inc. (2010). Twitter statistics for 2010. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from
http://www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/twitter-stats-2010/
Tavernese, S. & Gebeloff, R. (2010). “Immigrants make path to suburbia, not cities.” New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15census.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a23
Urista, M., Dong, Q., Day, K. (2009). Explaining why young adults use MySpace and Facebook through
uses and gratifications. Human Communication, 12 (2), 215-229.
Webster, T. (2010). Twitter usage in America: 2010. Edison Research/Arbitron Internet and Multimedia
Study. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from
http://images.publicaster.com/ImageLibrary/account2782/documents/Twitter_Usage_In_Am
erica_2010.pdf
Wimmer, R.D., & Dominick, J.R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Wise, C. (2011). Mother jailed for trying to get her kids a better education. King5.com Retrieved March
15, 2011 from http://www.king5.com/community/blogs/education/Mother-jailed-for-trying-to-
get-her-kids-a-better-education-114755139.html
Yardi, S. & boyd, D. (2010). "Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization over Time on
Twitter." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5), 316-327
Yin, R.K. (2002). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage.
!!"
"
!"#
#
News on New Devices:
Examining Multiplatform News Consumption in the Digital Age
Hsiang Iris Chyi, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Austin, TX 78712
Phone: (512) 471- 0553
Fax: (512) 471- 7979
E-mail: chyi@mail.utexas.edu
Monica Chadha
Doctoral student
1 University Station, A1000
Austin, TX 78712
Phone: (914) 589-3530
E-mail: mchadha@mail.utexas.edu
Paper presented at the 2011 International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, Texas,
April 1-2, 2011
Abstract
The average news consumer in the United States has never had as many choices for news
consumption as now. Technological advances have allowed them to access the news on multiple
devices such as computers, smartphones, e-readers, and/or tablets. This study empirically
examined whether multiplatform news consumption is a reality and the extent to which people
own, use, and enjoy multiple electronic devices. Data was collected via a web-based survey from
a random sample of the American adult population in August 2010. The results suggested that,
despite the excitement about newer, more portable devices, the computer still is the dominant
day-to-day electronic platform for news access, and most people use only one electronic device
for news purposes on a weekly basis. We identified the predictors of device ownership and
multiplatform news consumption. Managerial implications are discussed.
1
!
Introduction
The American newspaper industry has been experimenting with online delivery for more
than a decade. The New York Times launched its Web edition in 1996; since then, most news
organizations have been delivering content through the Internet. Propelled further by
technological advances such as smartphones (e.g., the iPhone) and e-book readers (e.g.,
Amazon’s Kindle), news publishers started experimenting with news delivery through mobile
devices.1 More recently, the launch of the computer tablet—the iPad—by Apple Inc. in 2010 has
renewed the excitement (CNet, 2010) and newspaper publishers are scrambling to create new
versions of their paper especially for this device (PostMedia News, 2010; Carr, 2010). Rupert
Murdoch’s company recently released “The Daily,” a subscription-based electronic newspaper
created specifically for the iPad (Sandoval, 2011).
Newspapers are knee-deep in explorations of various online delivery channels and have
shifted a substantial amount of their dwindling resources from their print edition to these new
devices, believing that younger readers will embrace these devices as new sources of news and
information. Overall, most American media companies have adopted a 360-degree strategy that
incorporates taking content decisions “shaped by the potential to generate consumer value and
returns through multiple platforms of expression of that content and via a number of distributive
outlets” (Doyle, 2010, p. 432). Despite investments in these new platforms and consciously
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"
!For example, The New York Times created a social news application for the iPhone that allows people to follow the
news being followed by their friends on various social networks (Schonfeld, 2011).!
2
!
diverging their product portfolios, it is not clear whether media corporations will reap the kind of
profits they envision or news consumers will adopt their new products with the readiness they
expect and forecast. Take their Web operation for example—after 15 years of experimentation,
only 10% of the newspaper’s total ad revenue comes from the Web operation (Newspaper
Association of America, 2009). As newspaper companies explore newer ways of delivery with
the same excitement, are they really gaining new ground? At the end of the day, it is consumer
demand that will determine the future of the news industry. The purpose of this study, therefore,
is to investigate whether multiplatform news consumption is a reality and the extent to which
people own, use, and perceive multiple electronic devices. Based on a random-sample online
survey of American Internet users, this study examines the ownership of and news use on these
devices, and whether news companies ought to focus their limited resources on these new
avenues rather than their traditional/legacy media platforms.
Literature Review
Multiplatform News Enterprises & Multiplatform News Consumption
The average American news consumer has never had nearly as many choices for news
consumption as today. More people in the United States now own wireless devices such as
computer notebooks and netbooks, smartphones, e-book readers, and tablets compared to before.
A recent study by Pew Internet research stated that 59 percent of American adults used a wireless
connection by means of a computer or cell phone to access the Internet (Smith, 2010a). With so
many gadgets permeating the market and offering a myriad of platforms and options for people
to access media, news businesses have begun targeting this fragmented market through
convergence and adoption of a 360-degree strategy towards content production.
3
!
Digitization of news content and processes have led to easy flow and facilitation of data
files across various platforms such as print, radio and television, thus leading to “media
convergence” (Garcia Aviles & Carvajal, 2008). In other words, contemporary audiences are
cross-platform consumers who consume media through various channels (Albarran, 2010). No
longer are they restricted to a newspaper, a television channel or a radio. They can now get the
same content via their computer tablets, cell phones, podcasts, e-readers and other mobile
devices. Media scholars have found it difficult to come up with a conceptualization of
convergence which is agreed upon by all (Daily, Demo & Spillman, 2005). Researchers have
either defined it as a coming together of disparate media entities such as print, broadcast and
online news organizations and their consequent converged outputs or an internal integration of
broadcast or print and online newsrooms within the same organization (Thurman & Lupton,
2008). In his book Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide, author Henry Jenkins
(2006) wrote that convergence encouraged news consumers to seek new information across
different platforms and make sense of it for themselves despite the content’s dispersed state and
this is how we have also approached the concept for the purpose of this paper.
Propelled by technological advances, media companies have had to keep up with the
changing times and transform themselves into multiplatform media enterprises (Albarran, 2010),
producing and offering more than one product in the market. Spreading themselves across
various platforms and developing “cross-media product portfolios” (Picard, 2005, p.1) not only
help media companies reduce their risk of loss from events such as product failure, decreasing
demand and changing business cycles but also help them explore new revenue streams.2
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"
!Cross-media portfolios are best understood as the phenomena when say a newspaper enters the broadcasting
market or when an online site and news magazine join hands to provide more products.!
4
!
However, managing cross-media portfolio also creates new challenges because it becomes
increasingly difficult to enumerate user demand.
Multimedia platforms and cross-media portfolio approaches have led to what is known as
the 360-degree strategy that involves strategic decisions related to content from the conceptual
stage that are focused toward generating consumer value and returns through multiple forms of
expression of that content via a number of distributive outlets such as online, mobile and games
(Doyle, 2010). For example, the New York Times not only offers a paper product, but also a news
site on the Web as well as news applications (apps) for various smartphones such as iPhones and
Android-based phones and tablets such as the iPad. As a result, the content created by the
company, while similar, is produced keeping each individual platform in mind. However, in
order to gain any success in expanding across platforms and operate the cross-media portfolios, it
is important for media companies to regularly re-evaluate and analyze their product offerings and
adapt to changing market conditions so as to direct their resources towards those that are
important to the company (Picard, 2005).
In an attempt to evaluate and analyze media companies’ product offerings bearing the
introduction of new technological devices and platforms in mind, we propose the following
research questions:
RQ1: What are the penetration rates of various electronic devices (e.g., computers, smartphones,
e-readers, and the iPad)?
RQ2: To what extent do people access news through their owned devices?
The underlying logic of media companies adopting multiplatform strategies is based on
the belief that these are new ways of ensuring they don’t lose their audiences and continue to
5
!
reach out to them. Consumers may choose to read the news online instead of on paper but the
idea is they should continue to read the news. It would seem natural to assume users of new
devices that allow for Internet access might also use it to read the news, but such an assumption
may be oversimplifying the reality. According to David Mindich (2005), author of Tuned out:
Why Americans under 40 don’t follow the news, most young people go online “for anything but
news” (p.4). The same complexity may characterize the use of mobile devices. Smartphones, e-
readers, and tablets are all multi-functional devices that are not designed specifically for news
purposes. Smartphones, despite being highly portable devices, have relatively small screens. A
recent Pew study shows only 11% of the American adult population reported having an app on
their smartphones or tablets for local news and information and only 1% pays for these apps
(Purcell, Rainie, Rosenstiel, & Mitchell, 2011). E-book readers such as the Kindle, often
described as “more suited to reading,” to date still lack color displays. The New York Times, the
most popular newspaper title on the Kindle (Benton, 2008b), had only 10,000 subscribers in late
2008 (Benton, 2008a). A 2009 story in Time magazine asked, “Will Amazon's Kindle Rescue
Newspapers?” (Quittner, 2009), implying that just as the e-reader gave a new lease on life to the
trade books, the same outcome could be expected for newspapers. Such high (and false?) hopes
were soon replaced by expectations for something newer: the iPad.
To differentiate various devices’ applicability for news consumption, this study
introduces a new concept, “newsfulness,” to measure the likelihood that a device or gadget is
used for news. The analysis sought to determine how “newsful” each electronic device is by
addressing the following research question:
RQ3: For a particular multi-purpose device, what is the likelihood that it is used to access news?
6
!
Technology Clusters
Media researchers have found that simultaneous use of multiple news media is common
among Internet news users, thus leading to complementary use of news products (Chyi & Huang,
forthcoming; Chyi, Yang, Lewis, & Zheng, 2010; Nguyen & Western, 2006). The researchers
also found that those who relied on the Internet for news and information still used traditional
sources quite substantially. These results are in keeping with Everett Rogers’ idea that adoption
of one idea could lead to the adoption of others and conceptualized technology clusters as, “one
or more distinguishable elements of technology that are perceived as being interrelated,” (2003,
pp. 249). These studies underscore the relationship between online and traditional or legacy
media use—consumers of one medium were highly likely to use the other.
Technologies that form a cluster would then have similar functional characters or satisfy
the same underlying needs (LaRose & Atkin, 1992). For example, iPods3 can be perceived as
compatible with personal computers and therefore, belong to the same technology cluster; an
individual who owns a personal computer is more likely to buy an iPod compared to an
individual who does not own a personal computer (Vishwanath & Chen, 2006).
Media scholars have found a positive relationship between previous use of technologies
and early adoption of a new innovation that is similar. Westlund (2008) examined news use
specifically on mobile devices by analyzing data from five national surveys carried out during
2005, 2006 and 2007 in Sweden and found that usage of mobile devices was higher among those
who went online often, thus pointing to a technology dimension related to the use of mobile
devices for news services. Further analysis showed that frequent users of online newspapers have
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"
!a portable audio and video player produced by Apple Inc.!
7
!
adopted a mobile device as a news medium to a higher extent than the general public. The author
concluded that use of mobile devices for news was more common among people who possess
other technologies such as MP3 players, laptops, home theater systems and more. Kang (2002)
found that people who watch television, have premium channels and evaluate their cable
operator as innovative towards technology were more likely to upgrade to new cable services,
sooner than their counterparts who did not display these behaviors. Vishwanath & Chen (2006)
found that early adopters tend to perceive innovations as complementary as they relate to
technologies based on their functional similarity. They are therefore likely to adopt related
technologies.
Since previous research has found a relationship in adoption between mobile phones and
online access as well as grouped iPods with computer use, our study expanded this set to include
e-readers and the iPad, proposing the following hypotheses:
H1a: There is a positive relationship between the use of one device for news and the use of other
devices for news.
H1b: There is a positive relationship between the use of one device for news and the use of other
devices for news, after controlling for news interest.
A recent Pew survey (Smith, 2010b) revealed that from an array of devices (cell phones,
desktop computers, laptop computers, mp3 players, game consoles, e-book readers and tablet
computers), eight in ten American adults (78%) owned two or more of these devices. The study
also showed that, while adults under the age of 45 tended to own up to four devices, those
between the ages of 55 and 64 years owned two devices and those aged 65 years and older
tended to own one device. However, they did not specify whether, how, or from what devices
8
!
news and information was accessed. Thus the information relevant to journalism researchers and
the news industry is how many people actually access news on multiple devices. In other words,
to what extent is news use through new devices a reality? In addition, this study sought to
examine what factors account for the ownership of as well as news use on multiple devices,
addressing the following research questions:
RQ4: To what extent do people access news across multiple platforms?
RQ5: What are the predictors of ownership of multiple electronic devices?
RQ6: What are the predictors of news access through multiple electronic devices?
Media Enjoyment
While consumption is important, as is usage of different platforms to consume media,
past research has also identified attitudinal variables as key factors driving the media selection
process (Chyi & Chang, 2009). For example, previous research shows that online news is
perceived as less credible (Amsbary & Powell, 2003), less likeable (Chyi & Chang, 2009), less
useful (De Waal, Schoenbach, & Lauf, 2005), and less preferred (Chyi & Lasorsa, 2002) when
compared with traditional media.
Specifically, this study seeks to examine media enjoyment, which has primarily been
studied as a pleasurable response to entertainment media (Tamborini, Bowman, Eden, Grizzard,
& Organ, 2010). Most communication researchers use the term of ‘enjoyment’ to explain
positive reactions towards media (Vorderer, Klimmt & Ritterfeld, 2004; Raney & Bryant, 2002)
and have explored the relationship between people’s exposure to certain kinds of content and
their reported level of enjoyment (Denham, 2004). In journalism research, however, “enjoyment”
as a concept has remained understudied. As new and old media co-evolve, cross-media
9
!
differences, as perceived by users, carry important implications regarding the competitive
advantage of news delivered through various devices. Therefore, this study seeks to address this
research question:
RQ7: How do users evaluate different devices in terms of enjoyment? How do new devices fare
in comparison with the legacy format (e.g., print newspaper)?
Method
Data Collection
A randomly selected sample of 776 U.S. adults (18 years and older) were administered an
online survey between August 3-6, 2010. The sample was provided by Survey Sampling
International (SSI), a research firm specializing in survey research with more than 30 years of
experience. SSI provides survey samples (telephone, online, and mobile) in more than 70
countries and its North American online panel consisting of more than 1.4 million active
households.4 The panelists were recruited from Web communities, databases, mailing lists, or
other collections that have opted-in to participate in online survey research. Working with
thousands of partners, SSI seeks to reach both highly visible and hard-to-reach groups on the
Internet, such as ethnic minorities, young people, and seniors, to ensure that the sample is
representative of the U.S. online population.
Online panel surveys have increased dramatically during the last decade because of
obvious benefits such as the speed, the elimination of interviewer bias, and lower cost (Fisher,
2005). Compared with Random Digit Dialing (RDD), online surveys allow respondents to
choose when and where to complete the survey, lowering the intrusiveness associated with
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"
!An “active” panelist is defined as someone who has taken a survey within the past six months.!
10
!
telephone surveys and the social desirability effect, but response rates tend to be low (Fisher,
2005).
Like most panel-based surveys, a random sample of panelists was selected and the
sample was invited to participate in the study. The sample size of 776 yielded a standard
sampling error of ± 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.5 The response rate was
four percent. This represents a low, but not unusual response rate for an online-based survey. The
overall sample size—in this case, 776 respondents—plays a critical role in the stability of the
findings as larger sample sizes tend to produce more reliable sample estimates (Shih & Fan,
2009).
Survey Instrument
The survey took an average of 10 minutes to complete and focused on the use of and
attitudes toward traditional and online news platforms and devices. The questionnaire was
developed based on the results of a focus group comprising 14 college students and several
rounds of pretests.
Conceptual and operational definitions
The penetration rate of a particular electronic device is defined as the percentage of
people who own or have regular access to the device.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
The sampling error is calculated as the square root of p(1-p) divided by sample size and multiplied by 1.96 (for the
95% confidence level).
11
!
A multi-purpose device’s “newsfulness” is defined as the likelihood of the device being
used for news access, which is calculated by dividing the numbers of user who use the device for
news access by the total number of owners of that device.
Weighting
When the sample was compared to the American Internet population in terms of gender,
age, income and education, we found it over-represented females and those in the lower income
categories. To ensure that the sample demographics closely matched that of the population for
more generalizable results, we weighted the data to correct for the differences in gender and
income.
Results
Table 1 compares weighted and unweighted sample distributions to population
parameters on gender, age, income, and education. The weighted sample is reasonably
representative of the U.S. Internet population.
12
!
Table 1
A Comparison of the Sample and the U.S. Internet Population
Internet Sample Sample

populationa unweighted weighted
(%) (%) (%)
Gender
Male 48.4 35.7 50.7
Female 51.6 64.3 49.3
Age
18-34 33.0 29.9 28.8
35-54 41.2 45.2 44.6
55+ 25.8 24.9 26.6
Income
Less than $50,000 36.6 64.3 35.8
$50,000 to $74,999 21.0 18.0 20.9
$75,000 to $149,999 30.7 14.7 31.0
$150,000 + 11.7 3.0 12.4
Education
Did not attend college 40.2 35.3 28.0
Attended college 29.8 33.4 31.3
Graduated college plus 30.0 31.3 40.7
N 223,672,000 776 776

a
Source: Mediamark Research & Intelligence data published by the U.S. Census Bureau, based on adults 18+ years
old with Internet access as of fall 2008.
RQ1 sought to compare the penetration rates of various electronic devices. Table 2 shows
that almost all respondents (98.8%) owned or had regular access to a desktop or laptop computer,
which is not surprising given that this was a Web-based survey. About a quarter of the
respondents owned a smartphone (10.1% owned an iPhone and 14.9% other smartphones). Some
12.9% owned an iPod Touch. Ownership of newer devices such as e-readers and the iPad was
under 6% at the time of the study.
13
!
RQ2 asked to what extent people access news through their owned devices. Results
showed that the desktop/laptop computer is the most used device for news access—74.9% of the
respondents used it to get news at least once a week and 46% did so everyday. The smartphone
was a distant second—about 19.6% accessed news through either an iPhone or other
smartphones on a weekly basis, and 6.3% on a daily basis. As for the other devices (the netbook,
iPod Touch, e-reader, and iPad), less than 10% of the respondents used them for news at least
once a week and less than 5% did so everyday (Table 2).
RQ3 asked, for a particular multi-purpose device, what is the likelihood that it is used to
access news. Table 2 presents the “newsfulness” ratio for each device in the last two columns.
When the radio was calculated by including users who used the device for news purposes at least
once a week (column D in Table 2), the most “newsy” multiple devices are the iPad (1.31),6
followed by e-readers (.93), and the iPhone (.90)—suggesting that these relatively new portable
devices, despite low penetration rates, were very much likely to be used for news access on a
weekly basis.
When the ratio was calculated by including everyday users only (column E in Table 2),
the desktop/laptop computer ranks the highest (.47), followed by the netbook and the iPad (.35
each), and the iPhone (.33)—suggesting that the computer is a more frequently used platform
through which people access news and information. About one-third of iPad and iPhone owners
use these portable devices to access news everyday.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
It is noted that the iPad received an unusually high ratio that exceeds 1.0, the plausible reason being that some non-
owners played with one that is not their own and tried to access news.
14
!
Table 2
Ownership, News Use, and Newsfulness of Devices
A B C D E
Ownership Use for Use for
or regular news at least news Newsfulness Newsfulness
access once a week everyday weeklya dailyb
(%) (%) (%) (B/A) (C/A)
Computer
Desktop or laptop 98.8 74.9 46.1 0.76 0.47
Netbook 12.4 9.4 4.3 0.76 0.35
Smartphones
iPhone 10.1 9.1 3.3 0.90 0.33
Other smartphones 14.9 10.5 3.0 0.70 0.20
iPod Touch 12.9 6.9 2.1 0.53 0.16
e-reader (e.g., Kindle, Nook, etc.) 5.7 5.3 1.6 0.93 0.28
iPad 5.1 6.7 1.8 1.31 0.35
Note. N = 776.
a
Newsfulness on a weekly basis is the percentage of owners who access news on this device at least one day a week,
calculated as column B divided by column A.
b
Newsfulness on a daily basis is the percentage of owners who access news on this device everyday, calculated as
column C divided by column A.
H1a predicted that there is a positive relationship between the use of one device for news
and the use of other devices for news. Table 3 shows that this is indeed the case—all correlation
coefficients are positive. In other words, the more often one uses an electronic device to get
news, the more often one would use other devices to get news. H1a is supported.
H1b!predicted that there is a positive relationship between the use of one device for news
and the use of other devices for news, controlling for news interest. The partial correlation
analysis produced highly consistent results after controlling for news interest. Overall, the
relationships are only slightly weaker than the zero-order correlations. H1b also is supported
(Table 3).
15
!
Table 3
Correlations/Partial Correlations Between Uses of Devices for News Access
Desktop/ Other
Netbook iPhone iPod Touch e-readers iPad
laptop smartphone
Desktop/
.149** .172** .126** .113** .089** .104**
laptop —
.107** .154** .083* .076* .069* .088**
.562** .589** .556** .600** .564**

Netbook —
.558** .583** .550** .598** .562**
.434** .485** .545** .671**

iPhone —
.429** .481** .542** .670**
Other .571** .538** .395**

—
smartphone .565** .535** .392**
.704** .502**
iPod Touch —
.703** .500**
.582**
e-readers —
.580**
iPad —
Note. N = 776. The value on the top is Peason’s zero-order correlation coefficient. The value at the bottom is the
partial correlation efficient (controlling for news interest).
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
RQ4 asked to what extent people access news through electronic devices. In other words,
how many devices are employed by an individual user for news access on a weekly basis?
Results showed that 24% of the respondents did not use any electronic device to get news on a
weekly basis. The majority (57%) used only one such device to access news, 10.4% used two,
and only 8.5% used three or more such devices to get news. The average number of devices used
for weekly news access is 1.2, compared with 1.6 for the three traditional platforms (print
newspapers, television, and news magazines). Therefore, despite the growing number of new
electronic devices available to Americans, traditional formats are still used more for news access.
16
!
RQ5 sought to identify the predictors of ownership of multiple electronic devices. Table
4 shows that age negatively predicts the ownership of electronic device (! = -.390, p < .001),
while education, income, occupation (being a student), and news interest are positive predictors.
RQ6 sought to identify the predictors of news consumption on multiple electronic
devices. Results of the regression analysis showed that income and occupation (being a student)
dropped out of the model (Table 4). In other words, while income and occupation predict
ownership of devices, they do not have an impact on news use through the devices.
Table 4
News Consumption on Multiple Electronic Devices
Predictors Number of devices Number of devices

owned used for news at least
one day a week
Gender (being female) -.038 -.048
(.070) (.095)
Age -.390*** -.373***
(.003) (.003)
Education .122*** .089*
(.027) (.036)
Income .163*** .042
(.016) (.022)
Full-time student .112** .062
(.120) (.164)
News interest .136*** .245***
(.029) (.040)
Observed cases 771 771

Model F(6, 764) = 43.30 F(6, 764) = 31.89
p < .001 p < .001
R2 .254 .200
Note. Cell entries are beta weights and standard errors.
*p < .05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.
RQ7 asked how users evaluate different devices in terms of enjoyment and how new
devices fare in comparison with the legacy platforms (e.g., print newspapers, TV, and news
17
!
magazines). Table 5 shows the results. Among the new devices, the desktop/laptop computer is
the most enjoyable and other smartphones the least. The average score for the new devices is
5.28, trailing behind the average (5.73) for legacy platforms (i.e., print newspapers, TV, and
news magazines).
Table 5
Enjoyment Level: New Devices vs. Traditional Platforms
Enjoyment level Enjoyment level

Electronic Devices among users (0-7) Traditional Platforms among users (0-7)
Computer Print newspapers 5.94
Desktop or laptop 5.89 TV 6.09
Netbook 5.19 News magazines 5.16
Smartphones
iPhone 5.52
Other smartphones 4.72
iPod Touch 5.12
e-reader (e.g., Kindle, Nook, etc.) 5.07
iPad 5.46
Average 5.28 5.73
Discussion
Overall, this study examined how users access and perceive news on new devices and
presented a comprehensive picture regarding multiplatform news consumption. The findings
challenge a number of assumptions about news use on new devices. Broadly speaking, our
results have three implications: 1) not all devices are equally “newsful,” 2) news consumption on
multiple devices is not yet a reality, and 3) newer platforms are not more enjoyable for news
consumption in comparison to the traditional platforms.
18
!
Not All Devices Are Newsful
With many media companies investing a significant amount of their budgets in creating
news applications to reach out to the increasing number of adopters of new technologies such as
netbooks, smartphones, e-readers, and iPads, it is important to question the underlying
assumption that owners or users of these devices would access online news on these platforms.
Our results showed a modest adoption rate of smartphones—a fourth of the total sample owned
either an iPhone or a similar kind of smartphone. And ownership of e-readers and the iPad was
much lower—under 6% each.
Moving beyond adoption, this study introduced the concept of “newsfulness,” a new
concept that helps evaluate the applicability of new technology to news consumption. The
analysis showed how “newsful” each new electronic device is. Among the owners of the
technology, 5% or less used a netbook, iPod Touch, e-reader and iPad for news everyday.
Overall, the everyday news access rate for all but one electronic device (desktop/laptop computer
being the exception) is below 0.35, which means, of all who own these devices, only a third or
less use them for news everyday. This leads us to believe that these devices (netbooks,
smartphones, iPod Touch, e-readers, and iPad) are not very “newsful” or conducive to accessing
online news. Coupled with the modest to low penetration rates of these devices, actual news
consumption that occurs on these new devices is limited.
According to the latest Pew study on local news access through mobile devices, nearly
half of American adults (47%) reported getting at least some local news and information on their
cellphone or tablet computer (Rosenstiel, Mitchell, Rainie & Purcell, 2011). However, 42% of
19
!
mobile device owners said they sought weather updates while 37% said they looked for
information related to restaurants and other local businesses.
These findings suggest that media companies should exercise some caution or skepticism
when adopting a technological deterministic approach towards the future of news. Introduction
of new technology is almost always accompanied by excitement about its myriad possibilities
and capabilities. But our results showed that there is low adoption of these new devices and they
may not necessarily be used for news purposes. In comparison, respondents are most likely to
access the news through the desktop/laptop computer—the oldest, least-fancy electronic
“device.” This reiterates our previous conclusion that newer devices may not necessarily be as
“newsful.” It also shows that the launch of a new and elaborate device will not necessarily
translate into people using it to access news.
News on New Devices: Not Yet a Reality
Support for our hypothesis, based on technological cluster adoption, suggests that
adoption of new electronic devices is, in general, restricted to a particular group of people and
may not translate into wider access amongst the population. This would only aggravate the
existing digital divide—the phenomenon that “might exacerbate inequality rather than ameliorate
it” amongst those who have internet access and those who do not (Dimaggio, Hargittai, Celeste
& Shafer, 2004). For media companies, creating product portfolios on multiple platforms may
result in their pursuing a relatively small group of consumers who own and access news through
multiple devices—i.e., those who are younger, better educated, and more interested in news.
Indeed, our results showed that more than half of the respondents used just one electronic
device to get the news. Less than 10 percent used three or more such devices to get the news.
20
!
Overall, from the seven news devices included in this study, an average user used 1.2 such
devices. Interestingly, when the same analysis was run on three traditional platforms—namely
print newspapers, television and news magazines—the average number of platforms used for
news access is 1.6. This is a fairly strong indication that traditional news platforms, despite a
shrinking user base, still play an important role in providing information to the news consumer.
This is yet another reiteration of the fact that media companies must approach new technologies
with a mix of enthusiasm and caution; they must not do so at the cost of their traditional
offerings, which remain their core products and primary revenue drivers.
Traditional Platforms Remain Enjoyable
Despite the growing audience adoption and usage of new devices, our analysis showed
that, compared with traditional platforms, newer devices do not yield a more enjoyable user
experience. On a scale of 0 to 7, the three traditional media fared 5.73—TV ranked the highest at
6.09, with newspapers coming in second at 5.94. In contrast, the seven electronic devices fared
5.28, with the computer (desktop or laptop) ranked the highest at 5.89. The results showed that
new devices may be fancier but are not perceived as more enjoyable for accessing news.
Traditional platforms still play an important role in the changing media scene.
In summary, our findings suggest that media companies, while adopting 360-degree and
multiplatform approaches, must continue to invest in their core products on traditional platforms.
Clearly, traditional platforms have not reached the end of their road just yet. Despite online news
delivery through a variety of new devices, most respondents enjoyed accessing the news on
traditional platforms more than they did via the new electronic gadgets. This corresponds to
findings from previous research that people felt news received online was less credible (Amsbary
21
!
& Powell, 2003), less likeable (Chyi & Chang, 2009), less satisfying (Online Publishers
Association, 2008), less preferred (Chyi & Lasorsa, 2002), less useful (De Waal, Schoenbach, &
Lauf, 2005), or inferior (Chyi & Yang, 2009), compared with the news received via a print
newspaper.
Taken together, adoption of these new devices is still fairly low and while this number
may increase in the future, our study indicates that ownership of these devices may not translate
into their being “newsful.” We believe that while new technologies do seem promising and may
possibly hold some effective solutions for the struggling news industry, traditional or legacy
media will continue to play an important role in providing news to the interested consumer.
In the latest “State of the News Media” report, Rosenstiel and Mitchell (2011) carried a
word of caution about multiplatform news distribution from the economics perspective: “Each
technological advance has added a new layer of complexity—and a new set of players—in
connecting that content to consumers and advertisers.” This is because multiplatform news
organizations increasingly rely on aggregators (Google, Yahoo!) and social networks (Facebook,
Twitter) to help draw audiences and must follow the rules of device manufacturers (Apple) and
software developers (Google) to get their content delivered. What’s worse, each new player takes
a share of the revenue and in many cases also control audience information (Rosenstiel &
Mitchell, 2011).
From the portfolio management perspective, false hopes often lead to bad decisions such
as killing or deprioritizing existing products that generate most of the revenue. Since portfolio
expansion does not always improve company performance (van Kranenburg, 2005), media firms
22
!
should evaluate how users respond to their cross-media product offerings with reality-based data
to develop proper portfolio management strategies.
Limitations of This Study
The data were collected through an online survey. As a result, all respondents were
computer users with Internet access and people without Internet access were not included in the
sample. In addition, because all respondents were computer users, they may favor the computer
as a news platform. Despite the limitations of the online survey, this study served as a timely and
systematic examination of multiplatform news consumption, taking into consideration all
electronic devices that granted news access at the time of the survey. Future studies should
continue monitoring the adoption rate of these devices, their “newsfulness,” as well as each
platform’s cost-effectiveness and ROI (return on investment) as media companies keep rolling
out new services.
23
!
References
Albarran, A. B. (2010). The media economy. Hoboken: Routledge.

Amsbary, J. H., & Powell, L. (2003). Factors influencing evaluations of Web site information.
Psychological reports, 93(1), 191-198.
Benton, J. (2008a, November 25). NYT’s 10K subscribers on Kindle: The start of something
bigger? Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from
http://www.niemanlab.org/2008/11/nyts-10k-subscribers-on-kindle-the-start-of-
something-bigger/
Benton, J. (2008b, November 26). More on Kindle: Seattle, San Jose doing well; Houston not so
much. Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from
http://www.niemanlab.org/2008/11/more-on-kindle-seattle-san-jose-doing-well-houston-
not-so-much/
Carr, D. (2010, November 21). A News Corp. newspaper, but not in print. New York Times.
Retrieved December 11, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/business/media/22carr.html
Chyi, H. I., & Chang, H. (2009). Examining the use of and preference for online news in the
context of intermedia competition. In Embedding into our lives: New opportunities and
challenges of the Internet (pp. 101-123). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
Chyi, H. I., & Huang, J. S. (forthcoming). Demystifying the demand relationship between online
and print products under one newspaper brand: The case of Taiwan and the emergence of
a universal pattern. Asian Journal of Communication.
Chyi, H. I. & Lasorsa, D. L. (2002). An explorative study on the market relation between online
and print newspapers. Journal of Media Economics, 15(2), 91-106.
Chyi, H. I., Yang, M. J., Lewis, S. C., & Zheng, N. (2010). Use of and satisfaction with
newspaper sites in the local market: Exploring differences between hybrid and online-
only users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(1), 62-83.
CNet News (2010, April 3). Apple iPad launch today. CNet News. Retrieved December 11, 2010
from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20001601-37.html
Dailey, L., Demo, L., & Spillman, M. (2005). The convergence continuum: A model for
studying collaboration between media newsrooms. Atlantic Journal of Communication,
13(3), 150-168.
Denham, B. E. (2004). Toward an explication of media enjoyment: The synergy of social norms,
viewing conditions and program content. Communication Theory, 14(4), 370-387.
De Waal, E., Schoenbach, K., & Lauf, E. (2005). Online newspapers: A substitute or
complement for print newspapers and other information channels? Communications,
30(January), 55-72.
Dimaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C. & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal
access to differentiated use. In Kathryn Neckerman (Eds.), Social inequality (pp. 355-
400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Doyle, G. (2010). From television to multi-platform: Less for more or more for less?
Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies,
16(4), 431-449.
Fisher, L. (2005, July). Random sampling versus panel-based research. MRA Alert Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.synovate.com/research-services/online-panel-
24
!
research/pdf/Synovate-Random%20Sampling%20versus%20Panel-Based%20Research-
Article56.pdf
Garcia Aviles, J. A. & Carvajal, M. (2008). Integrated and cross-media news convergence: Two
models of multimedia news production—The cases of Novotecnica and La Verdad
Multimedia in Spain. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New
Media Technologies, 14(2), 221-239.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Kang, M-H. (2002). Digital cable: Exploring factors associated with early adoption. Journal of
Media Economics, 15(3), 193-207.
van Kranenburg, H. (2005). Product portfolios, diversification, and sustainability of media firms.
In R. G. Picard (Ed.), Media product portfolios: Issues in management of multiple
products and services (pp. 23-40). Hoboken: Routledge.
LaRose, R. & Atkin, D. (1992). Audiotext and the re-invention of the telephone as a mass
medium. Journalism Quarterly, 69(2), 413-421.
Mindich, D. T. Z. (2005). Tuned out: Why Americans under 40 don't follow the news. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Newspaper Association of America. (2009, February 20). Advertising expenditures. Retrieved
from http://www.naa.org/TrendsandNumbers/Advertising-Expenditures.aspx
Nguyen, A., & Western, M. (2006). The complementary relationship between the Internet and
traditional mass media: The case of online news and information. Information Research,
11(3), 259.
Picard, R. G. (2005). The nature of media product portfolios. In R. G. Picard (Ed.), Media
product portfolios: Issues in management of multiple products and services (pp. 1-22).
Hoboken: Routledge.
Postmedia News (2010, December 11) Papers launch apps for Apple’s iPad. Calgary Herald.
Retrieved December 11, 2010 from
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Papers+launch+apps+Apple+iPad/3961929/st
ory.html
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Rosenstiel, T., & Mitchell, A. (2011, March 14). How mobile devices are
changing community information environments. Pew Internet & American Life Project, .
Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Local-mobile-
news/Summary-of-findings.aspx
Quittner, J. (2009, May 5). Will Amazon's Kindle rescue newspapers? Time. Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1895737,00.html
Raney, A. A., & Bryant, J. (2002). Moral judgment and crime drama: An integrated theory of
enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 402-415.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rosenstiel, T., Mitchell, A., Rainie, L. & Purcell, K. (2011). The state of the news media 2011:
An annual report on American journalism. Survey: Mobile news & paying online.
Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/mobile-survey/
Rosenstiel, T. & Mitchell, A. (2011). The state of the news media 2011: An annual report on
American journalism. Overview. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from
http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/overview-2/
25
!
Sandoval, G. (2011, February 2). Daily iPad newspaper debuts. CNET News. Retrieved February
15, 2011 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20030385-
261.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody#ixzz1Cp9MF2Dm
Schonfeld, E. (2011, February 1). Exclusive: An early look at News.me, the New York Times’
answer to The Daily. TechCrunch. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/01/news-me/
Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-
analysis. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 26-40.
Smith, A. (2010a, July 7). Mobile access 2010. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access-2010.aspx
Smith, A. (2010b, October 14). Americans and their technology devices. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report.aspx?view=all
Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining media
enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758-
777.
Thurman, N. & Lupton, B. (2008). Convergence calls: Multimedia storytelling at British news
sites. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies,14(4), 439-455.
Vishwanath, A. & Chen, H. (2006). Technology clusters: Using multidimensional scaling to
evaluate and structure technology clusters. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 57(11), 1451-1460.
Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media
entertainment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 388-408.
Westlund, O. (2008). From mobile phone to mobile device: News consumption on the go.
Canadian Journal of Communication, 33(3), 443-463.
26
!
Experiments in Location-Based Content:
A Case Study of Postmedia’s Use of Foursquare
Timothy Currie
Assistant Professor
University of King’s College
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
tim.currie@ukings.ca
Paper presented at the International Symposium in Online Journalism,

University of Texas at Austin, April 2011
Abstract
In 2010, a number of North American news organizations began integrating editorial content with
Foursquare, the mobile service that builds social communities around physical locations. Canada’s
Postmedia Network, the company that owns many big-city dailies in the country, including the National
Post, was one of the most active adopters. This paper examines Postmedia’s integration of its editorial
content with the location-based service. It takes a case study approach, using in-depth interviews with
staff at Postmedia news outlets to explore roles, tasks and strategies for pairing content with location. The
results provide insight for other news organizations looking to tailor content for the growing audience of
smartphone-equipped news consumers.
Introduction
The New York Times, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, Metro — and Canada’s
Postmedia Network — were among the major news outlets to begin experimenting with the location-
based social media service Foursquare in early 2010. In January, Metro Canada became the first news
organization to partner with Foursquare (Metro Canada, 2010). In March, the Wall Street Journal issued
its “check-in heard round the world” that broke news of a Times Square evacuation (Garber, 2010).
These newspapers have been part of a growing number of news outlets trying to crack the
triumvirate of journalism, location and social media. The three elements should be a natural fit: News
organizations produce a stream of content filled with geographic addresses. Mobile phone users are
increasingly buying smartphones and using them to access news (Pew Research Center, 2011). In
addition, news consumption is increasingly becoming a shared social experience (Pew Research Center,
2010).
Journalists have noted that Foursquare can be an important tool for news organizations. The
social media service offers the promise of targeting news distribution, finding on-the-scene human
sources to interview during breaking news events, finding story ideas and building social capital with
users (Snow & Lavrusik, 2010; Jenkins, 2010; Bradshaw, 2010).
However, the number of Americans who use a location-based service with their mobile phone
remains low at 4% (Zickuhr & Smith, 2010). Further, while mobile users have heard of Foursquare, they
tend to view the service as a fun experience more than a source of useful information (Invoke, 2010).
Yet news organizations continue to experiment with the service. Most of those that do, use the
service to publish restaurant reviews as tips at Foursquare venues. Some have also left news stories as
tips. Still, all of them put only a tiny sliver of the content they publish daily into Foursquare.
The purpose of this study is to better understand the criteria online editors use to select content
for this location-based social media service. The study also seeks to uncover the tasks editors undertake to
integrate their content with Foursquare. The research is exploratory in nature, as existing research into
news organizations’ use of Foursquare is scant.
This study focuses on Foursquare use within Canada’s Postmedia Network. Postmedia is a chain
of 12 big-city dailies operating in most of Canada’s major urban markets. The study involved interviews
with online editors at the three member newspapers that were placing content into Foursquare in early
2011 — the National Post, the Vancouver Sun and the Edmonton Journal.
It uses the theoretical framework of gatekeeping, which offers a model for understanding how
news editors choose some stories for publication and reject others.
RQ1: What criteria have Postmedia editors used to select content for Foursquare?
RQ2: How have editors managed their editorial workflow to produce this content?
Figure 1
About Foursquare
Foursquare is a relative newcomer to the social
media big leagues. It was launched in March 2009 and had
more than 6.5 million users in February 2011 (Foursquare,
2011).
Users can download the Foursquare app for their
smartphone and use it to explore the world around them.
They check in at virtual locations called venues, where they
can leave a 140-character note to friends in their network.
They can also leave 200-character tips for others that suggest
things to do at that location. The smartphone’s GPS acquires
nearby venues and presents tips from the user’s friends automatically as the user travels (Figure 1).
The social media service offers a game-like experience whereby users collect points and virtual
badges as they explore. Users can bookmark the things they have done and create lists of things to do in
the future. Merchants can use Foursquare to offer deals to users who check in frequently.
News organizations have typically used the service to post tips at venues and provide links to
articles on their websites.
Literature Review
Gatekeeping theory is a useful framework for understanding how online editors choose certain
content to put into a location-based service such as Foursquare. As smartphone use grows, news
audiences are likely to shift their consumption to mobile channels. If a traditional gatekeeping function
governs editors’ selection of news generally, there are strong indications separate gates have evolved for
content in specific delivery platforms.
Gatekeeping theory was proposed by psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1947 and first applied to news
processes by David Manning White (1950). White conducted a case study involving a wire editor from a
small morning newspaper in the U.S. midwest and examined the editor’s reasons for rejecting news
stories for publication. White concluded that the decisions made by this “Mr. Gates” were “highly
subjective value-judgments” — ones “based on the ‘gate keeper’s’ own set of experiences, attitudes and
expectations.”
Snider (1967) duplicated White’s study with the same Mr. Gates and found the editor “still picks
the stories he likes and believes his readers want” (p. 427). Bleske (1991) repeated White’s study with a
Ms. Gates from a southern U.S. daily and found she and White’s Mr. Gates classified news stories in
“predictable ways” with gender playing no discernable role.
Early in the Internet age, Singer (1997) surveyed journalists in three newsrooms that were
involved in publishing online and concluded that journalists saw specific value in their roles as selectors
and interpreters. Further, “the gatekeeping function continues to gain strength as a vital part of journalists’
self-perception (p. 87).” Singer (1998) suggested readers’ increasing preference for interactive content
could affect the gatekeeping role of journalists who work online. She cited limited evidence that
journalists were re-evaluating their gatekeeping function as they increased the volume of their online
work. Singer (2003) saw little change in journalists’ roles as they increased their online publishing.
However, Singer (2006) found an “evolution in online journalists’ thinking” that had them
“reconceptualizing their gatekeeping role … toward a partnership between users and journalists (p. 275),”
a view shared by Robinson (2005).
It is important to note that much of this newer gatekeeping research focused on journalists
working with audience members in a “citizen journalism” function. This is not the exact role of the
Foursquare editors in this study. However, the research sheds valuable light on the change in online
journalists’ conception of their roles over all.
Cassidy (2005), in his survey of role perceptions of newspaper and online journalists, found that
online journalists ascribed a lesser importance to “traditional” news values of interpretation and
investigation. Reflecting on Boczkowski (2004), he suggested this could be due to the greater role played
by the audience in online news practices. Online journalists, he stated, “may place greater importance on
[audience] goals and values” when assessing newsworthiness (p. 273).
Shoemaker and Reese (1991) conceived of a hierarchy of influences on media content —
individual, routine, organizational, extra-media and ideological as concentric circles. The influence at the
centre is the individual one, with the suggestion that others are progressively weaker (Keith, 2011).
Scholars in recent years have begun combining gatekeeping theory with this hierarchy, focusing
specifically on individual and routine influences as factors in gatekeeping (Cassidy, 2006; Lewis,
Kaufhold & Lasorsa, 2010).
Routines are what Shoemaker and Reese (1991) called the "patterned, repeated practices and
forms media workers use to do their jobs (p. 85)." One of routines pointed to by Shoemaker & Vos (2009)
is “journalists’ reliance on ‘news values’ as an abstraction of what the audience values (p. 53).”
The determination of newsworthiness in the age of mobile is a key area for research. Researchers
have conceptualized different dimensions of newsworthiness (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009), including
proximity — which is likely to play a significant role for mobile — and Foursquare — editors.
Keith (2011) has suggested “routines remain so unsolidified” for online journalists that it “allows
individuals to have greater influence on newer media than was originally foreseen.” She has re-envisioned
the model of concentric circles, imagining instead: “a dynamic system of layers, any one of which can be
‘breached’ by (individual) forces bubbling up from below.”
The literature suggests a gatekeeping function that is evolving with the changing roles of online
journalists.
Method
This paper takes a case study approach to investigate the practices of a small group of people
doing a very specific task. The research involved telephone interviews with six employees at four
newspapers within Canada’s Postmedia Network.
Telephone interviews were chosen over participant observation for two reasons: the distance
between participants, who were spread across the country, and the narrow task being studied, which was
expected to be only a minor part of the participant’s daily job function.
Postmedia was selected because it was one of the most active news organizations using
Foursquare at the end of 2010. The author made a list of major North American news organizations
reported on blogs and websites to be active on Foursquare. The author also conducted specific searches
within Foursquare for major North American news organizations. Postmedia was, by far, the most active
news organization using Foursquare, measured by numbers of tips created. In addition, four different
Postmedia newspapers were found to have a presence in Foursquare. This offered the prospect of
interviewing the largest number of individuals, resulting in the most diverse range of perspectives.
Participants were identified by phoning each of the four organizations and asking for the names
of people either overseeing or producing Foursquare content. These people were then contacted by email
and invited to participate in the study. All of the people contacted agreed to participate in the study. All
were granted anonymity in order to ensure candid responses. All of the participants were male.
The interviews took place between January 31 and March 9, 2011. Each interview lasted between
30 and 55 minutes. In one case, a followup query was made via email.
Participants were asked 12 questions about their roles, tasks and goals regarding Foursquare use.
They were asked to talk about their own experiences at the news organization, not to represent the views
of their employer.
The interviews were then transcribed and coded. In the process of analysis, one interview was
excluded, as the news organization was not using Foursquare for news distribution, which was the focus
of this study. The resulting data source was five participants from three different newspapers — the
National Post, the Vancouver Sun and the Edmonton Journal.
All Foursquare screenshots that appear as images in this paper were taken using the iPhone
Foursquare app.
Bulleted responses in sequence represent comments from different participants.
Findings
Participants
Participants described themselves using the terms “digital producer,” “online producer,” “social
media strategist” and “community newsroom editor”. Two identified themselves as managers overseeing
digital content. All of them were responsible for maintaining their organization’s presence in other social
networks such as Twitter and Facebook. One said he also edited website news content.
Three of the five participants said they worked in the newsroom. The other two said they worked
in a department that straddled the newsroom and marketing departments. Three identified themselves as
journalists. Of the remaining two, one cited a background of journalistic work at a college newspaper.
The interview subjects are referred in this paper as participants or editors. While all five identified
themselves as online editors distributing news content, only three considered themselves newsroom
editors.
Overview of Foursquare Content & Audience
The three news organizations were all involved in creating Foursquare content relating to
restaurant reviews. In all cases, these reviews appeared originally in the newspaper. Editors posted the
reviews to their website usually the same day the review appeared in the paper. Following that, they
synthesized the reviews into tips they posted to the Foursquare venues for those eateries. A typical tip
looks like Figure 2, authored by the Edmonton Journal.
Figure 2
In this instance, smartphone users who had friended the Edmonton Journal and launched their
Foursquare app at or near 11762 106 St. NW in Edmonton, Alberta, were immediately shown a tip on the
Northern Alberta Institute of Technology venue (see Figure 1 for a representation). This tip contained a
teaser to an article about the institute’s School of Hospitality and Culinary Arts program. If users chose to
click on the link at the bottom of the tip, they were taken via Foursquare’s built-in web browser to Journal
food columnist Liane Faulder’s account (at right) of a bread-making class she attended there. Users could
also add the tip to their Foursquare To-Do list, indicate they had Done the action mentioned in the tip or
share the tip via email.
In addition to creating tips directing users to restaurant reviews, two Postmedia outlets also
posted tips related to events. Editors left these tips at existing Foursquare venues or they created new
venues to represent the event. The National Post, for example, created a venue called Toronto Blackout!
as a “location” for a tip pointing to the Post’s coverage of a major downtown power outage. The use of
events, which lack GPS co-ordinates, as venues expands on Foursquare’s original conception of a social
network tied to physical locations.
Number of Tips Posted
As of March 13, 2011 the number of tips left by each news organization was as follows:
! National Post: 1,704

! Edmonton Journal: 165
! Vancouver Sun: 31
These figures, however, do not necessarily represent the total number of tips left by each
Postmedia outlet. Foursquare allows users to delete their tips; editors at three outlets said they do this
occasionally (see Workflow below).
Frequency of Postings
The frequency with which each news organization posted tips to Foursquare varied. In the month
leading up to March 13, 2011 (beginning February 13, 2011), the number of tips left by each news
organization was, by week:
Feb. 13-19 Feb. 20-26 Feb. 27- March 7-13 Total

March 6
National Post 29 26 16 10 81
Edmonton 4 1 9 2 16
Journal
Vancouver 0 2 3 1 6
Sun
Popularity
A simple overview of the most popular tips on March 13, 2011, as determined by Foursquare
based on users’ Done mentions, are represented in Figure 3, showing left to right, the Edmonton Journal,
Vancouver Sun and National Post.
Figure 3
The Edmonton Journal had 6 on its most popular story, Vancouver Sun also had 6 and the
National Post had 605.
The number of people who click Done in Foursquare after having viewed the tip is listed at the
bottom of each tip, beside the checkmark. This number may differ from the number of people who
actually click the link and read the article; this metric is usually counted independently as unique page
views by each news organization’s website analytics software. It is also likely significantly lower than the
number of people who view the tip in the first place. Foursquare users who view the tip can click Done,
view the full story, do both or do neither.
Followers
The number of users (“Friends” in Foursquare) following each news organization on March 13, 2011
was:
! National Post: 44,948
! Vancouver Sun: 2,828
! Edmonton Journal: 2,701
Friends in Foursquare, like most social networks, are users who joined a network at some point in
time. Being a Friend doesn’t necessarily mean a user reads a Friend’s tips, checks Foursquare regularly or
uses Foursquare at all anymore.
All of the editors interviewed said they considered the data reported by Foursquare to be only a
broad measure of user activity. Most said they were more interested in the interaction carried over from
Foursquare to other social networks such as Twitter or Facebook (see Goals below).
Successful Content
Editors at the three news organizations were asked to describe one or two examples of their
Foursquare content that they viewed as successful. The responses showed a range of applications:
National Post:
! “One that has done exceedingly well is: We had one of our columnists write about airport
screening. His line was: ‘At some point — maybe now — we have got to amend airport security
and start profiling those likely to blow the damn plane up — not patting down three-year-old
children’. I took that line and I dropped it onto all of the top 20 major U.S. airports. We’re pretty
much the top tip at all of those airports. People are checking in, they see that and they go
‘Yeah!’”
Figure 4
! “Our big coming out party was really TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival), where we had a
very specific event. We wanted to cover it in a different way. So we got reporters and editors to
submit (to us) their insider guide to TIFF. Then we planted this information at the most relevant
locations — the places where we thought it would be most likely to be seen and used by people
who were checking in.” (Figure 4)
Edmonton Journal:
! “What we noticed is that when we have major events — people coming in from out of town, for
example the Grey Cup (Canadian football championship) — there’s a lot of people coming in
from places like Toronto, Vancouver and the U.S. who are used to that location-based platform.
We thought: let’s see what the uptake is and start putting up more Foursquare posts during these
events. Our Foursquare click-through and interactivity rates went up 1500%. That just means it
went from, you know, 5 to 50. But the potential is there.”
Figure 5
! “One that actually worked out really well was David Staples’ guide for LRT (light rapid transit)
riders, which was humorous and bullet-form enough that it would be an interesting read. It was
also eye-catching enough that it would work for Foursquare coverage. We tagged that at every
LRT station and it’s gotten a surprising number of people pinging back on it. They see a quick-
humourous quote, they click through, they read the rest.” (Figure 5)
Vancouver Sun:
Figure 6
! (Describing a tip pointing to a review at a hip downtown restaurant): “The clientele is generally
plugged in. So the information that comes into that channel will be more engaged. Of the things
we do on Foursquare, that one has been our biggest referral, I think. But getting into numbers
isn’t necessarily what it’s all about. It’s more the interaction and the feedback.” (Figure 6)
Roles
Asked to describe their role in the organization, most editors classified themselves broadly as
social media editors, whose job is to engage the audience, keep abreast of new technology and help
colleagues use it effectively:
! “My role is to assess emerging technology and to find best practices. And to work with the
newsroom to use them.”
! “I provide editorial and development direction for our web, mobile and social media products.”
! “We have pockets of individuals who are very smart in social media but we didn’t have any
departments that were moving in the right direction. That’s kind of what my role is.”
! “It’s just been to, initially, learn about it, figure out how it works and then find the pieces in the
paper to put up.”
! “A lot of what we’re doing is drawing in new readers — people who wouldn’t necessarily pick up
a newspaper, but who are nevertheless interested in our news, our sources and our accuracy.”
Only one participant classified himself as an online news editor. None of the participants
mentioned Foursquare specifically, likely indicating the relatively minor function Foursquare updates
play in their job duties. Many of the respondents said their job was to experiment with Foursquare and
social media generally. They described their jobs with phrases such as “throwing things to the wall and
seeing what sticks,” “being active and trying new things,” and finding out “what works and what
doesn’t.”
None of the editors called their job function newsgathering or reporting. They framed their role as
being part of the process of news delivery or news distribution. Most said their role was to foster
engagement or further a conversation with readers through other social media channels.
All of the participants acknowledged a marketing function inherent in their role — to spread the
brand of the news organization in different social media channels and build readership (see Goals below).
Asked to characterize the relationship between this function and the news organization’s journalistic
function, respondents cited new means of distribution, presentation and engagement:
! “I try really hard not blur the line between marketing and news. I’m a newsroom staffer and my
background is in journalism … I try not to bring any marketing into what I do, so my impetus for
getting information out there is: what I would want to know as a reader.”
! “I think in a lot of ways it’s an extension of journalism in that it’s presenting news at a different
access point. We’re not selling the paper so much as we’re selling the content. We’re selling a
reliable source of information that you can’t get anywhere else.”
! “It’s a certain level of marketing of the news. It’s always interesting — that (issue). It’s not
directly like you’re creating a story. I mean it’s taking something that has already been written.
But it’s taking what we have on the website and dicing it up and sending it out into the different
venues or places that people are online.”
! “With us, it’s always been an editorial focus. It’s always been about creating something people
find useful, not trying to sell them stuff or get them to enter contests. It’s really about having
meaningful things to say to them and for them to interact with.”
! “I’m not a journalist by background. I don’t try to dictate the content or say what were putting out
through social media. It’s more a way of how we’re using it or what audience we’re trying to
reach.”
Goals
Respondents phrased their goals variously as “brand exposure,” “getting our stories out there” and
“showing that we’re out in these places.” One participant likened his organization’s use of Fourquare to
street corner newspaper boxes in the virtual sphere.
Others referred to an organizational mission to be active in emerging social media channels or spaces.
Two said they were specifically looking to find new audiences on mobile devices.
Three respondents mentioned attracting readers who haven’t traditionally read the newspaper. Most
talked about simply being present in social spaces where young and technologically savvy people are
active.
! “People who use social media generally have an ear to the ground. So we want to be in that space
and make sure people know that we’re trying to tell stories in a lot of different ways.”
! “What we want to do is to create an information layer based on the vast amount of content we
create every day as part of our job as a news organization. Part of our mandate has been to stop
relying on the concept of creating a great website that everybody will come to and start thinking
more about how can we deliver what we want to the places where people already are.”
! “It’s a sense that your homepage is not going to be the place where everyone comes to. It’s still
by far the main source of our traffic, but we need to get out where people are using their
computers or their mobile phones.”
! “It’s trying to put our content where our audience is or where we think it’s going to be. So our
ultimate goal is just to get people reading our stuff and engaging with us in whatever medium
they choose.”
None talked about specific targets for readership. While it’s likely that competitive companies
would be reluctant to share such targets, none of the respondents mentioned that these targets even
existed. “The ROI (return on investment) on this stuff is going to be five or 10 years,” said one.
Participants frequently mentioned the terms “engagement” and “conversation” as goals for their
Foursquare posts. However, such activity is difficult to track, given Foursquare’s relatively weak
functionality for sharing or conversing. For example, users can’t comment on a tip or post it
simultaneously to Twitter. Respondents said they looked for Foursquare use to spark engagement in other
social media channels:
! “A lot of the time we get feedback on Twitter, saying ‘I was at this restaurant. Thanks, Vancouver
Sun for putting a tip on there — it helped me order,’ or whatever. Time permitting, there’s a
conversation to be had around that: How did you use it? Was it helpful?”
! “I’m not so concerned about how many check-ins we get at a certain story or click-throughs, as I
am about whether people are leaving good quality tips and quality content. That’s gold. Because
that’s interactivity.”
! “There are some statistics we get (from Foursquare), but very few. We have to see it within the
rest of our web traffic.”
Two respondents also pointed to what they saw as awkward nomenclature within Foursquare for
encouraging engagement. Users can’t signal agreement with a piece of content, as they can by clicking
the Like button in Facebook. They can only indicate they have Done a tip. Users might choose to “do” a
restaurant reviewer’s suggestion to try the burger. However, it is less clear how they would “do” a tip that
pointed users to a story about the federal government’s legislative agenda, as was left by the National Post
on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill on September 20, 2010.
Similarly, a user clicking Done might mean only that they intended to take a piece of advice
offered in an article, but didn’t actually accomplish it. Labels on buttons for social media services can
pose confusion for users wanting to act on journalistic content (Benton, 2011).
One editor said a goal was also to use Foursquare as a possible means of finding sources for
stories, although he hadn’t done this yet.
! “If someone is going to write a story about the emerging cool factor of (a restaurant), then we
would use Fourquare to find who the Mayors are of each restaurant and possibly contact them to
say ‘You basically eat here a lot’ — what do you like or not like about this place? And then we
could find out where else they eat and basically, use it to find sources.”
Workflow
Asked to describe their workflow, editors said they selected stories from either the print version
of their newspaper or the online database of stories on the same day it was originally published. Then they
located the story on the news organization’s website — usually the mobile site — to get its URL. The
editors said they read the story and then selected text for the content of the tip, which Foursquare limits to
200 characters.
Two participants said they occasionally sought out the editors or authors involved in the creation
of the article in the process of crafting the tip.
All of the editors said they frequently used either the headline or the deck that was included with
the original story. As one participant put it: “We’ve got a whole room full of talented people whose whole
job is to distill stories down to their essence.” Occasionally, however, they pulled a specific quote from
the article to highlight a lively sentiment. Two editors said they looked for a humorous phrase.
One editor also said he looked for vivid descriptions of a physical location in the article that
would highlight a sense of place to the mobile user. Another said he looked for powerful descriptions of
flavour in a restaurant review that would appeal to mobile users with a menu in hand. The same editor
said he tried to support the action-inviting nature inherent in Foursquare (with its enticement to click
Done): “What is going to be the language that I can use that’s action-generating for the reader?” He
added:
! “I put up one (tip) for (a cafe) last month and mentioned that the owners post the menu to Twitter
every day — which is something that not many other places do. But it’s something people
connected to social media might be a little more interested in.”
Another editor said he had recently asked the travel editor at the paper to draft content
specifically for Foursquare users. He wanted the editor to work with the writer to draft five short pieces of
advice for getting the best experience at the place profiled in the story. The purpose was to create content
the user could take action on — either by clicking the Done or To-Do buttons. For example, users might
click the Done button if they bought a croissant at a bakery recommended in a tip at the Eiffel Tower
venue in Paris. Alternatively, they might click the To-Do button as they planned their trip itinerary from
home. One editor explained it as: “We add Foursquare buttons onto the website. And then we can send
that out on Twitter saying, ‘Going to Africa? Here, add these to your Foursquare.’”
Editors said another major aspect of their routine was to place the tip on an appropriate venue in
Foursquare. Frequently, they said, the choice was clear, given a specific geographic location mentioned in
the article, such as the street address of a restaurant. However, one editor said he also left tips pointing to
general feature stories that mobile users, checking in at a relevant venue, might find interesting. For
example, one editor left tips at venues for Apple stores in Canada that linked to a story about a war of
words between Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Research In Motion CEO Jim Balsillie: “They’ve all been
very popular.”
Regarding the crafting of tips for these types of stories, two editors responded:
! “It’s ‘What’s the most popular real-world relevant place I could put this where it would be seen
by people who would care?’ There’s a little bit of mental gymnastics there.”
! “It’s not always obvious what the location is, so sometimes you just have to think about it.”
All of the editors said effective tips were simply good journalistic form — not a new form of
writing. They described their crafting of these 200-character tips using phrases such as “an extension of
good editing” and “headline writing for a different format.”
A final consideration was how long to leave a tip within Foursquare. Four editors said the user
experience was a key concern for them. One said he had put numerous tips on a major performing arts
venue in town, however, his organization was “starting to clog it up.” The effect, he said, “wasn’t starting
to look so good for us anymore.”
News organizations are generally reluctant to “unpublish” online news content (Tenore, 2010).
However, three editors said they occasionally deleted older tips to make their Foursquare content appear
fresh. The immediacy of the mobile experience demands it, said one. Another said:
! “You have to. For example, if you have a music festival and you’re putting in tips about a lineup
(of scheduled performers) by the time the next music festival comes around, well, you’d better
have a lot of that stuff cleaned up. Otherwise, that makes for a bad user experience.”
One editor made the argument that transparency in publishing is better suited to the web, where the user
experience has a longer tail:
! “It makes a lot more sense to put your archival efforts on web right now than mobile, where you
really need to think about: What will people need to know when they check in here?”
Story Choice
The editors placed only a tiny fraction of the daily content produced by their news organization
into Foursquare. Asked how they chose this content, the editors described a range of criteria.
One editor responded first by describing the stories that don’t succeed in Foursquare:
! “I know which ones don’t (work). We’re not going to put anything in that’s crime. We’re not
going to put anything that is a fire — anything that is destructive. Foursquare is not your hard-
core news.”
The same editor said the content must support the social nature of Foursquare, specifically the fun
or happy mood of the people who use it. He explained further:
! “Crime would just be very jarring. The way that Foursquare has been built — it’s about going
out. I think indicating where there have been shootings and where there are robberies would be
indicating why you should stay in. It’s not that we’re boosters (of positive news stories) — it just
doesn’t seem to be the spot for it.”
The editor suggested that being upset or shocked would dissuade users from wanting to “do” the
tip or share their experience in other ways. The same observation is offered in early research suggesting
that that positive emotion spawns greater amounts of social media activity than negative emotion (Benton,
2011; Gruzd, Doiron, & Mai, 2011; Berger & Milkman, 2010).
Another editor expressed a similar opinion, saying:
! “If I put up something up there every time there was a decision made about the city centre airport
or every time someone at (city hall) reported budget numbers it wouldn’t be interesting. It
wouldn’t be something people on Foursquare would go to look at.”
Four of the five editors said the content that worked best in Foursquare referenced articles that did
not have a specific time element. The editors used phrases such as “evergreen,” “feature-y,” “archival,”
“slow burn” and “useful to people over a longer period of time.” They cited these qualities as the reasons
they posted restaurant reviews and travel stories:
! “The restaurant reviews are the easiest. It’s about a location; nothing is really going to change
about that.”
! “Evergreen content is best. You can put up a restaurant review; the restaurant is not going to go
out of business. You can keep it up there forever.”
The editors all suggested that opinion pieces work well in Foursquare. Foursquare is itself a social
recommendation network and one editor said it’s little surprise users are attracted to tips that provide
recommendations themselves. As well, some suggested, opinions are more likely to encourage the user to
click Done in agreement.
Two editors said that while mobile users have immediate information needs, there aren’t enough
Foursquare users to make the effort of posting frequent updates at various venues — such as clubs and
concert halls — worthwhile. As a result, they have altered their approach over time:
! “(We had thought) it was going to be constant check-ins to places … (Now) if something is
going to be at an art gallery for two months, then we can provide a review. But we’re getting
away from trying to be so date-specific.”
! “When we first started, we threw up a lot of social calendar stuff: There’s a band playing here —
check them out. It may have been to our advantage to keep it up there because it’s popular, but
the value diminishes very quickly on those types of things.”
Three of the editors, however, said they had experienced considerable success with events such as
festivals or sporting events that operate within a specific timeframe for a least a couple of days. One
editor said that’s enough time to use other social media such as Facebook and Twitter to drive traffic to
Foursquare: “Then people have a direct call to action that makes sense to them. There’s a start and a
finish date. It’s something they can get excited about.”
Another editor said tips relating to music festivals work well — as long as they are deleted after
the event is done: “The last thing you want is to have a presence on Foursquare where someone is
checking in eight months after (an event) and seeing 15 tips about it.” Older content poses a glaring
conflict with mobile users’ desire for immediacy, he suggested.
Being present where — and when — people talk online is crucial, said another editor. If people
are at a certain location physically, a news organization should be present there in Foursquare.
! “It’s got to be current ... We’re going to put more time getting information out there about a hot
restaurant or a new restaurant or a movie that’s coming out with a lot of buzz rather than
something that’s been out a while. So I think you have to know your audience on the platform
and cater news content to it.”
The editors were divided over whether they saw a practical application of news content in
Foursquare. Three saw possibilities, two didn’t. Only one editor said his organization had experimented
with placing news content in Foursquare.
One editor said he made an effort to place content into Foursquare that wasn’t published
elsewhere by the news organization. He cited a project in which he worked with a reporter to geo-locate
the best Christmas light displays in town.
Two editors said they worked to make the format of linked stories easier for people to read on
small mobile screens through the use of bullet lists.
Discussion
This study involved a specific social media service and involved a very small number of
participants. Much further research is needed to draw conclusions relating to other social media services
or to news organizations’ use of location-based services generally.
Recent studies investigating gatekeeping have focused on journalists’ interaction with the
audience and the creation of user-generated content. The role of the editors in this study is more akin to
the role of the wire editor in White’s original study, who was making selections from a collection of
existing stories authored by journalists — not working to create content with audience members.
White’s wire editor operated as single gate. However, as the editors in this study mentioned, they
are increasingly operating in multiple delivery channels — increasing the number of gates.
Editors at these Postmedia outlets were choosing articles to post as Foursquare tips that aligned
with fairly specific criteria — even if these criteria weren’t explicitly defined. The editors looked for
articles that contained strong opinions likely to inspire agreement and activity, either by clicking the Done
or To-Do buttons in Foursquare or beginning a conversation in other social networks. They looked for
articles that referenced a specific location — but not every article about every location. They were
interested in articles that could be placed on venues where people gathered socially. Editors indicated they
favoured articles that concerned restaurants, music and theatre festivals, sports events, transportation hubs
and educational classes.
Editors were choosing stories and then finding venues on which to place them. But some were
also choosing specific venues where people gathered socially and searching out relevant articles to place
as tips.
Workload and concern for the user experience also factored in editors’ choice of content. They
saw articles about events as being attractive to social media users. However, they had concerns about
keeping this content fresh and usable to Foursquare users. The implication was that they preferred to post
tips referencing stories that lacked a specific time element and, consequently, stayed relevant for users
over long periods of time.
There was also an indication that editors were looking for stories about people — not things or
institutions — to align with the social nature of the service, and the emotional disposition of people who
are out on the town.
In crafting the tips, editors were spending effort finding flavourful descriptions — concerning the
location itself and also the meal reviews that formed the bulk of the tip content. Editors also expressed
considerable interest in writing tips aimed at inspiring action.
Many of the respondents said their job was to experiment with social media and try new things —
some evidence of weak routines and support for the framework provided by Keith (2011). The emphasis
the editors placed on proximity as a news value also suggested that the influence of routines in the
gatekeeping function might be weaker than for other journalists.
The results suggest there are avenues for more research in the gatekeeping function of online
journalists, especially concerning whether individual and extra-medial (audience) influences play a
greater role. As well, it is likely that proximity will be a much more important area of study for the
assessment of newsworthiness as editors create more content for mobile devices.
Ultimately, the relevance of Foursquare itself is likely to be challenged in the wake of the Fall
2010 launch of Facebook Places, a similar service. The competition in this space is an indication that
news organizations are likely to continue to diversify their channels for distribution. Consequently, the
study of gatekeeping in these channels is even more important.
References
Foursquare. (2011). About Foursquare. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://foursquare.com/about
Benton, J. (2011). “Like,” “share,” and “recommend”: How the warring verbs of social media will
influence the news’ future. Retrieved March 9, 2011 from http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/02/like-share-
and-recommend-how-the-warring-verbs-of-social-media-will-influence-the-news-future/
Berger, J. & Milkman, K.L. (2010). Social Transmission, Emotion, and the Virality of Online Content.
Retrieved March 9, 2011 from http://opimweb.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Virality.pdf
Bleske, G. (1991). Ms. Gates takes over: An updated version of a 1949 case study. Newspaper Research
Journal, 12(4), 88-97.
Boczkowski, P.J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Bradshaw, P. (2010). 4 uses for Foursquare for journalists. Retrieved December 7, 2010 from
http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/04/26/foursquare-for-journalists/
Cassidy, W.P. (2005). Variations on a theme: The professional role conceptions of print and online
newspaper journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 264-280.
Cassidy, W.P. (2006). Gatekeeping similar for online, print journalists. Newspaper Research Journal,
27(2), 6-23.
Deuze, M. (2003). The Web and its Journalisms: Considering the Consequences of Different Types of
Newsmedia Online. New Media Society, 5(2), 203-230.
Garber, M. (2010). Location, location, etc: What does the WSJ’s Foursquare check-in say about the future
of location in news? Retrieved March 9, 2011 from http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/05/location-location-
etc-what-does-the-wsj%E2%80%99s-foursquare-check-in-say-about-the-future-of-location-in-news/
Gruzd, A., Doiron, S. & Mai, P. (2011). Is happiness contagious online?

A case of Twitter and the 2010 Winter Olympics. Paper presented at the 44th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, Hawaii. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from
http://anatoliygruzd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/HICSS44_Gruzd_Twitter_Happiness.pdf
Ingram, M. (2010). Will Foursquare badges really help newspapers? Retrieved December 3, 2010 from
http://gigaom.com/2010/04/26/will-foursquare-badges-really-help-newspapers/
Invoke Solutions. (2010). Social Commerce Report. Retrieved December 7, 2010 from
http://www.slideshare.net/invokesolutions/invoke-live-social-commerce-report.
Jenkins, M. (2010). Uses for Foursquare in news reporting. Retrieved February 15, 2011 from
http://zombiejournalism.com/2010/07/uses-for-foursquare-in-news-reporting/
Keith, S. (2011). Shifting Circles: Reconceptualizing Shoemaker and Reese's theory of a hierarchy of
influences on media content for a newer media era. Web Journal of Mass Communication Research, 29.
Retrieved February 27, 2011 from http://wjmcr.org/vol29
Lewis, S.C., Kaufhold, K. & Lasorsa, D.L. (2010). Thinking about citizen journalism. Journalism
Practice, 4(2), 163-179. doi: 10.1080/14616700903156919
Metro Canada. (2010). Metro and Foursquare announce groundbreaking partnership. Retrieved December
22, 2010 from http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/canada/article/430567--metro-and-foursquare-announce-
groundbreaking-partnership
Mitchelstein, E. & Boczkowski, P.J. (2009). Between tradition and change: A review of recent research
on online news production. Journalism, 10(5); 562-586. doi: 10.1177/1464884909106533
Neuberger, C. & Nuernbergk, C. (2010). Competition, complementarity or integration? Journalism

Practice, 4(3), 319-332. doi: 10.1080/17512781003642923
Pew Research Center. (2010). Understanding the participatory news consumer. Retrieved December 8,
2010 from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1508/internet-cell-phone-users-news-social-experience?src=prc-
latest&proj=peoplepress
Pew Research Center. (2011). State of the News Media Report. Retrieved March 14, 2011 from
http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/overview-2/
Redman, E. (2010). What does Foursquare mean for newspapers? Retrieved December 22, 2011 from
http://www.editorsweblog.org/analysis/2010/02/what_does_foursquare_mean_for_newspapers.php
Robinson, S. (2006). Gateway or Gatekeeper: The institutionalization of online news in creating an

altered technological authority. Paper delivered at the International Symposium on Online Journalism,
Austin, Texas. Retrieved from http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2006/papers/SueRobinson.pdf
Snider, P.B. (1967). Mr. Gates revisited: A 1966 version of the 1949 case study. Journalism Quarterly
44(3), 419-427.
Shoemaker, P.J. & Reese, S.D. (1991). Mediating the message. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Shoemaker, P.J. & Vos T.P. (2009). Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge.
Shoemaker, P., Eichholz, M., Kim, E. & Wrigley, B. (2001). Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 233-247.
Singer, J.B. (1997). Still guarding the gate?: The newspaper journalist's role in an on-line
world. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies,
3(1), 72-89. doi: 10.1177/135485659700300106
Singer, J.B. (1998). Online journalists: Foundations for research into their changing roles.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1083-
6101.1998.tb00088.x.
Singer, J.B. (2003). Campaign contributions: Online newspaper coverage of election 2000,
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 39-56.
Snider, P.B. (1967). Mr. Gates revisited: A 1966 version of the 1949 case study. Journalism
Quarterly, 44(3), 419-427.
Snow, S. & Lavrusik, V. (2010). 7 ways journalists can use Foursquare. Retrieved December 9, 2010
from http://mashable.com/2010/05/14/journalists-foursquare/
Tenore, M.J. (2010). 5 ways news organizations respond to ‘unpublishing’ requests. Retrieved March 7,
2011 from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/104414/5-ways-news-organizations-respond-
to-unpublishing-requests/
White, D.M. (1950). The ‘Gate Keeper’: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27,
383-396.
Williams, B. A. & Carpini, M.X.D. (2004). Monica and Bill all the time and everywhere: The collapse of
gatekeeping and agenda setting in the new media environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(9),
1208–1230.
Zickuhr, K. & Smith, A. (2010). 4% of online Americans use location-based services. Pew Research
Center. Retrieved December 6, 2010 from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Location-based-
services.aspx
Twitter First: Changing TV News 140 Characters at a Time
Dale Blasingame, Texas State University
109 Craddock #109
San Marcos, Texas 78666
db28455@txstate.edu
210.392.3492
!
Abstract
The diffusion of Twitter has changed the gatekeeping process and flow of information in
television news. Because of Twitter, the power of news delivery is now in the hands of
newsroom employees who, in the past, were not employed as storytellers. This study
qualitatively examines how Twitter has altered the “gates” and the flow of information in
television newsrooms in San Antonio, Texas, the 37th largest television market, and
quantitatively analyzes how stations and employees are using Twitter. The data show Twitter is
currently being used primarily for another function, not as a tool to deliver breaking news.
!
Gatejumping: Twitter, TV News and the Delivery of Breaking News
Introduction
The increasingly familiar phrase “Web first” is a rallying cry for newspapers still trying
to adapt to the digital world. It means stories are published first to the Web before they are
published online. It is a reminder of the massive changes in the industry and a signifier of the
differences in routines for journalists. While that particular saying may not be uttered much in
television newsrooms, the mindset is still there. All journalists, no matter which medium, are
reminded that news happens in real time and cannot wait until the 5, 6 or 10 p.m. newscasts or
morning paper to be released to the public. For instance, when a gunman walked into the
Discovery Channel headquarters in Washington, D.C. in September of 2010, the news did not
wait to break on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN or Fox News. It broke on Twitter – through a
stream of real-time tweets from inside the Discovery building. Twitter users even captured the
first picture of the gunman and the SWAT team arriving at the scene (Farhi, 2010).
Journalists are taking note of the resources citizens are using to pass along information to
the public. Such examples show that the mindset of “Web first” needs to be updated with a
specific destination. Indeed, Twitter has emerged as the go-to tool for journalists to provide
instant dissemination of information from several different sources, both official and unofficial
(Hermida, 2010).
! "!
The majority of television newsrooms across the United States are currently using Twitter
with high frequency. According to a recent study by the Radio Television Digital News
Association (2010), or RTDNA, and Hofstra University, 77% of television newsrooms have a
Twitter account, with more than 70% saying they either use the micro-blogging service
constantly or, at the very least, daily.
Many consider gatekeeping theory to be the core theory of guidance in the news business.
Some, Berkowitz (1990) for instance, used gatekeeping as a predictive measure; this study,
however, will use gatekeeping as a descriptive framework to explain how Twitter is affecting the
news business. Previous research, Hermida (2010) for example, has alluded to the changes in
gatekeeping brought about by social media. This study explains how Twitter is changing the
typical flow of information, how television newsrooms are delivering the news and, in addition,
which newsroom employees are delivering the news. It does so through an examination of
breaking news coverage. Based on the author’s decade of experience in television news, the
typical flow of a breaking news story (often interchangeably called a spot news story) is as
follows: an assignment editor hears about the event over a police scanner and dispatches a
photographer to the scene to get initial information and shoot video and interviews; the
photographer is sometimes accompanied by a reporter – if not, and the spot news event warrants
it, a reporter will be sent to the scene; information is then relayed to a producer, who then writes
a script for the anchorman or anchorwoman to deliver to the audience.
Brogan and Smith (2010) coined the phrase “gatejumping” to describe marketing talents
on the Web. According to Brogan and Smith (2010, p.41), gatejumping is finding “a better way
to do things while everyone else is too busy to notice.” For instance, whereas traditional radio is
a gatekeeper industry, podcasts are gatejumpers. People Magazine is a gatekeeper, while gossip
! "!
blogger Perez Hilton is a gatejumper (Brogan & Smith, 2010). This study uses the term
gatejumping in a different, more literal way. Twitter allows for news to jump the traditional flow
of gates and reach the audience. When Twitter is used in its most efficient and effective manner,
it is possible for a newsroom employee who is traditionally only involved in the earliest of
gatekeeping decisions to now have a direct relationship with the audience.
It is important to keep in mind this study documents a phenomenon that currently does
not have a conclusion. Studies like this take a snapshot of current-day communication for the
basis of communication history - whether Twitter remains a key role in television news or not.
Literature Review
Gatekeeping theory is one of the oldest theories in the history of mass communication
research (Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim, & Wrigley, 2001). At its core, gatekeeping is the decision
process that determines why one story makes air or print and another does not. Shoemaker et al.
(2001, p. 233) defined gatekeeping as “the process by which the vast array of potential news
messages are winnowed, shaped and prodded into those few that are actually transmitted by the
news media.” Shoemaker et al. (2001) also noted that gatekeeping involves more than simple
story selection. It includes how messages are told to the public, how much time each story
receives on the broadcast or how much space it receives in a newspaper and the tone of each
story (Shoemaker, et al., 2001). In addition, Shoemaker et al. (2001, p. 233) defined gatekeepers
as “either the individuals or the sets of routine procedures that determine whether items pass
through the gates.”
While gatekeeping theory is a core theory of mass communication, its initial purpose was
food related. German psychologist Kurt Lewin (1947) developed gatekeeping theory in 1947
! "!
while conducting research on different factors that would entice women in Iowa to buy more
meat products for their households. Lewin’s (1947) original work found that women are in
charge of the “gates” in the home through which decisions pass. These decisions ultimately
determine which food will be grown or purchased and served at the dinner table. Lewin (1947, p.
145) noted his theory of gates “holds not only for food channels but also for the traveling of a
news item through certain communication channels in a group.” That idea sparked decades of
research that continues today.
David Manning White took Lewin’s theory of gates and applied it to newspapers. White
(1964) studied the decisions of a wire editor to determine why certain stories made the next day’s
paper and why other stories did not. White (1964, p. 163) found the process might involve
several gatekeeping steps taken by several people, from “reporter to rewrite man, through bureau
chief to ‘state’ file editors at various press association offices” – however the final say came
from the last gatekeeper, the editor. White (1964) found the editor’s decision-making process to
be highly subjective and based on the editor’s own personal experiences and attitudes.
Berkowitz (1990) suggested a refining of gatekeeping theory as it applies to television
news. He found that television gatekeeping differs from that of a “lone wire editor sitting next to
a pile of stories and making decisions based on either newsworthiness or personal preferences”
(Berkowitz, 1990, p. 66). Instead, Berkowitz (1990) learned television gatekeepers base
decisions on gut instincts about what makes a good television newscast and gatekeeping in
television is much more of a group process when compared to newspaper gatekeeping.
Berkowitz (1990) found television news stories face several gates before making air. He also
suggested certain types of stories could prevent other types of stories from making air. For
instance, “spot news closed the gate on planned event stories” (Berkowitz, 1990, p. 66).
! "!
More recently, researchers began examining new media effects on gatekeeping theory.
Singer (2001) looked at the differences in story selection between the print and online versions
of newspapers. Singer (2001) found, at least in 1998 (the time of her data collection), that
newspapers’ online editions were much more focused on local content than the print editions.
More pertinent to this study, Singer stated that online editions cause newspapers to surrender
some of their traditional gatekeeping functions. According to Singer (2001, p. 66), “providing a
link to ‘wire.ap.org,’ the online version of the Associated Press, is quite a different thing from
selecting which wire stories are of such significance or interest that they merit inclusion in the
day’s paper.” Singer (2001, p. 66) went on to note that if newspapers continue this trend online,
“Mr. Gates may find himself out of a job.” In other words, Singer hinted that online journalism
could eventually kill the need for gatekeeping. In her 2001 work, Singer touched on two other
topics important for the purposes of this study. First, she used the term ‘shovelware’ to describe
content that appeared in the print edition of a newspaper and was simply shoveled onto the Web
with no changes except for the mark-up language needed to become a part of the Web. Second,
Singer (2001, p. 78) noted each Internet user “can, and does, create in essence a ‘Daily Me’
consisting of items important to him or her.” Singer (2001, p. 78) said this “personalized world
view is right at the user’s fingertips, in the same medium in which the online newspaper also
exists.”
Bruns (2003, p. 2) expanded on this idea of news consumers going online to bypass
traditional news outlets and, instead, turning “directly to first hand information providers.” Bruns
(2003) suggested the World Wide Web has put gatekeeping decisions in the hands of anyone
with information, not just journalists. In addition, these responsibilities are also passed down to
the user, who acts as a gatekeeper while surfing the World Wide Web (Bruns, 2003). Because of
! "!
the immense amount of information available online and the lack of concern over space (which
is prevalent in print and television newsrooms), Bruns (2003) suggested a new approach for
online news: ‘gatewatching.’ According to Bruns, gatewatchers are not reporters. Instead, a
gatewatcher is a combination of a traditional gatekeeper and a news/information aggregator.
Bruns (2003, p. 8) stated, “Gatewatchers fundamentally publicize news (by pointing to sources)
rather than publish it (by compiling an apparently complete report from the available sources).”
In their study of bloggers, Hayes, Singer and Ceppos (2007) said this trend toward news
aggregation on the Web is a double-edged sword. According to the study (Hayes, Singer &
Ceppos, 2007, p. 270), aggregation “excludes as well as includes, and much of what is excluded
may be valuable to civic knowledge.” They acknowledged that the same is true of journalists,
saying, “Aggregation is, in essence, a gatekeeping role” (Hayes et al., 2007 p. 270).
As for the ethics of online journalism, Singer (2003) noted the current lack of a rulebook.
She found many journalists believe the Web needs its own guidelines, while others think
traditional rules can and should be enforced upon the online world. Singer (2003) mentioned two
particular issues as the biggest ethical dilemmas of online journalism, one of which is
particularly relevant to Twitter: the capacity for speed. Singer (2003, p. 152) noted critics of
online journalism believe it to be “untrustworthy because of its emphasis on getting information
fast rather than getting it right.” Without gatekeepers for quality control, Singer (2003, p. 153)
said some believe “the quantity of the news product increases, but its quality is likely to be
diluted.” On the other hand, “the potential for speed makes professional judgment regarding the
news more vital than ever” (Singer, 2003, p. 153). Singer found the new journalist helps the
audience make sense of the news that exists while not deciding what they should or should not
know.
! "!
Definition of Twitter
Twitter is on an astonishing four-year ride. Evan Williams and Biz Stone launched the
free service in August 2006 (Farhi, 2009). However, it was not until its exposure at the South By
Southwest Interactive Festival in March 2007 in Austin, Texas when Twitter skyrocketed onto
the national (and international) scene.
Twitter is classified as a micro-blog, as well as a “new media technology that enables
and extends our ability to communicate, sharing some similarities with broadcast” (Hermida,
2010, p. 298). Users are able to send messages, called tweets, with a maximum of 140 characters
to the people who choose to follow them. Many tweets contain links to articles, videos or other
media. Twitter also allows users to reply to others (in public and, if the other user is following
you, in private via a direct message, or DM) and search for real-time information. By September
2010, Twitter surpassed 145 million registered users (Van Grove, 2010). The service unofficially
hit the 20-billion tweet mark in July 2010 (Ostrow, 2010) and a recent Pew Center poll found
85% of Americans knew of Twitter (“Political Knowledge,” 2010).
Recent numbers show Twitter tends to skew toward an older audience. More than 40% of
its users are 35-49 years old (Farhi, 2009). Those users are prime viewers of news and
information. In fact, analysts say Twitter users are “two to three times more likely to visit a
leading news Web site than the average person” (Farhi, 2009, p. 30).
Media personalities use Twitter as a source of delivering news and opinion, sharing links
and interacting with viewers. And there is quite the audience available. Rachel Maddow
(@Maddow), host of MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” currently has 1.7 million
followers on Twitter. More than 149,000 people subscribe to tweets from “CBS Evening News”
host Katie Couric (@KatieCouric). Even local news anchors and reporters develop decent-sized
! "!
followings. Kim Fischer (@TxNewsGirl), a reporter at KXAS in Dallas, has 3,900 followers.
However, one of the most prolific journalist-tweeters works behind the camera. Jim Long
(@NewMediaJim) is a photographer for NBC News. On average, he delivers 40 tweets a day to
his 41,000+ followers. Most of his tweets are replies to people who follow him.
In its brief history, Twitter has already contributed in breaking several huge stories.
Reports of Michael Jackson’s death comprised 30% of tweets in the hours following on June 25,
2009 (Cashmore, 2009). When a US Airways jet crashed into the Hudson River, news reached
the public through a tweet and a picture from a Twitter user 15 minutes before mainstream media
were on the airwaves (Beaumont, 2009). Iranian citizens protesting 2009 election results used
Twitter as a voice that reached millions around the world (Morozov, 2009).
Technologies such as Twitter have created new means for news organizations to
communicate with viewers or readers. Picard (2010), however, viewed this as a double-edged
sword for the news organization itself. Picard (2010, para. 15) said “the content that news
organizations produce (at a cost) is distributed by others, thus removing the need or desire for
many people to seek out the original sources of the information.” Picard believed this could
eventually have a disastrous effect on moneymaking efforts of the news organization. Picard
(2010) also noted that, as of now, social media tools like Twitter appear to be more valuable to
news organizations in large, metropolitan areas than small-town news outlets.
While examining press coverage of Twitter, Arceneaux and Schmitz Weiss (2010, p. 2)
noted Twitter is still at a stage where it could turn out to be the “app de jour that will fade from
the limelight, or it could become a staple of daily life.” Their study found speed of delivery to be
one of the repeated messages of Twitter press coverage (Arceneaux & Schmitz Weiss, 2010). As
quoted by Arceneaux and Schmitz Weiss (2010, p. 7), Associated Press writer Sam Dolnick said
! "#!
the “lightning-quick updates” available via Twitter provide “further evidence of a sea change in
how people gather their information in an increasingly Internet-savvy world.”
In addition, Hermida (2010, p. 300) found “indications that journalism norms are bending
as professional practices adapt to social media tools such as micro-blogging.” Using the Iranian
elections mentioned above as an example, Hermida (2010) noted that news organizations were
promoting minute-by-minute blogs that contained a mixture of Twitter messages, unverified
information and traditional news accounts of what was happening in Iran. Hermida (2010, p.
300) also noted that a few months before the Iranian elections, the BBC included “unverified
tweets filtered by journalists” as part of its breaking news coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks.
The network said it was merely monitoring and passing along information as quickly as it could.
Hermida (2010) concluded this process of filtration only maintains and enforces the traditional
gatekeeping role of journalists, even when applied to new media like Twitter.
Based on previous research and the author’s personal experiences in the television news
industry, this study proposes the following research questions:
• RQ1: How has Twitter changed the levels of gates and allowed non-anchor and non-
reporter newsroom employees to become de facto reporters, particularly during spot news
situations?
• RQ2: What are the main functions of Twitter accounts in television newsrooms?
Methodology
To answer the first research question, this study used a qualitative case study approach. A
day with major breaking news in San Antonio, Texas, the 37th largest television market in the
! ""!
country, was qualitatively selected to highlight the effectiveness and efficiency of Twitter in a
breaking situation.
To answer the second research question, data were collected from one market (San
Antonio) and quantitatively analyzed, much like Berkowitz’ (1990) gatekeeping study. Accounts
of all known working journalists in the newsroom (anchors, management, producers, reporters,
photographers, assignment editors), weather (meteorologists, producers), traffic and web editors
and official station accounts from San Antonio were selected for this study. Accounts were found
via a combination of personal knowledge, lists on station websites, Twitter lists established by
Twitter users and conversations with newsroom employees. As a last resort, a simple scroll-
through of the “following” lists of each user turned up a few accounts. A cut-off date of
September 23, 2010 was established to finalize the list. A total of 60 accounts were followed: 24
from KSAT, 22 from WOAI, seven from KENS and seven from KABB.
In addition, some journalists had their accounts set to private and did not respond to
requests to follow them. They were not included in this study.
Next, Twitter lists for each of the four stations were created and each journalist’s Twitter
account was attached to its respective station list. Though not an essential step, this helped
eliminate confusion and speeded up the coding process.
Ten days worth of tweets were selected for coding. A website called “random.org” was
used for date selection. September 1, 2010 and October 15, 2010 were chosen as the start and
end dates for possible selection. Random.org generated the following dates for coding:
September 2, September 9, September 15, September 17, September 21, September 23,
September 28, October 8, October 11 and October 13. In all, 2,293 tweets were collected for
analysis.
! "#!
The data were coded using a variation of guidelines developed by University of Texas
professor Dominic Lasorsa (“Social Media,” 2010). Lasorsa (2010) outlined five categories he
and his students use to code tweets for classroom exercises:
• Breaking news (alerts or updates as news happens)
• Self-promotion (publicizing a story on that particular station)
• Lifecasting (daily chitchat about personal issues)
• Seeking information (a request for story tips or updates)
• Retweet (someone else’s message that is forwarded to others)
After an email conversation with Lasorsa, his guidelines were modified for the purpose of
this paper. Each tweet was coded into one of five categories. These categories are essentially the
same as Lasorsa uses, except for the replacement of one category. New names were applied to
some of the categories:
• Breaking News (alerts or updates as news happens)
• Promotion (publicizing a story on that particular station or the website)
• Daily Chatter (chitchat about personal issues)
• Viewer Participation (a request for story tips, photos or updates)
• Non-breaking news (news items that are pertinent to the moment, but not breaking)
! "#!
A total of 2,293 tweets were collected for analysis. Two graduate students performed a
coding sample of 230 tweets, or 10 percent, with 98 percent reliability. One of the graduate
students then solely coded the remaining 2,063 tweets.
! $%&%'(%')&*!%+(%(!,+-+!./%!-0.!/.!%1+(+!2&%&!('.)+!'.3+-+.)+(!&-+!./%!4+'.5!6&2+!/.!
/%1+-!6&-7+%(8!91+(+!2&%&!6+-+*:!;&'.%!&!;')%0-+!/3!,1&%!'(!1&;;+.'.5!(;+)'3')&**:!'.!$&.!
<.%/.'/8!=%1+-!6&-7+%(!(1/0*2!4+!&4*+!%/!*//7!&%!%1'(!(%02:!&.2!)/6;&-+!&.2!)/.%-&(%!%1+'-!
/,.!;-&)%')+(>!1/,+?+-8!91+-+!'(!&*(/!-+&(/.!%/!%1'.7!%1'(!6&:!&33+)%!&!.&%'/.&*!(%&.2&-2!
4+)&0(+!%1+!;+/;*+!+6;*/:+2!'.!6&-7+%(!/3%+.!)/6+!3-/6!6&-7+%(!&-/0.2!%1+!)/0.%-:8!@.!
$&.!<.%/.'/A(!)&(+>!+&)1!%+*+?'('/.!(%&%'/.(!'(!&!.&%'/.&*!)/6;&.:!,1')1!1&?+!%1+'-!/,.!
-0*+(!&.2!(%&.2&-2(!%1+:!&;;*:!%/!%1+'-!;-/;+-%'+(!&-/0.2!%1+!B.'%+2!$%&%+(8!91'(!'(!&!-0*+C
4&(+2>!%-&2'%'/.C2-'?+.!'.20(%-:!&.2!2'()';*'.+8!$/!,1'*+!%1+-+!'(!./!2+3'.+2!.&%'/.&*!
;/;0*&%'/.!/.!,1')1!%/!4&(+!&.!'.3+-+.%'&*!(%&%'(%')(>!'%!'(!-+&(/.&4*+!%/!%1'.7!%1+(+!(%&%'/.(!
+6;*/:!;&%%+-.(!&.2!;-&)%')+(!0(+2!4:!/%1+-!(%&%'/.(!&)-/((!%1+!B.'%+2!$%&%+(8!
Results
As stated above, a case study approach was used for the purposes of this paper. A date
with significant breaking news was selected to highlight the effectiveness of Twitter in terms of
real-time news delivery from a variety of sources.
On the night of July 28, 2010, the San Antonio Police Department responded to a triple-
murder suicide on the city’s northwest side. The shooting happened around 8:30 pm, an hour and
a half before the late-evening newscasts. However, the city of San Antonio, or at least those
following the accounts of pertinent journalists, learned of the story on Twitter.

! "#!
At 8:32 pm, KABB’s assignment desk (@KABBDesk) sent the first tweet with a mention
of it, citing police scanner chatter of a shooting.
“SAPD scanners say officers are heading out to the 17000 block of Fawn Crossing for a
multiple shooting scene.” - @KABBDesk
This information was delivered 28 minutes before KABB was on the air with its 9 pm
newscast. At 9:04 pm, four minutes after the newscast started, KABB reporter Grace White
(@Grace__White) announced on Twitter that she just arrived and provided the first picture of the
crime scene. Move ahead sixteen minutes to 9:20 pm and KSAT photographer Johnny Garcia
(@DoublePunching) arrived. Forty minutes before KSAT’s newscast was to go on the air, Garcia
provided two more pictures and a link to a map of the crime scene.
“On scene at shooting in The Woods of Deerfield subdivision http://twitpic.com/29l9h6”
- @Grace__White
“BREAKING: Shooting at Woods of Deerfield neighborhood. Location:
http://j.mp/9QGaxD http://twitpic.com/29ldij” - @doublepunching
One minute later, the KSAT station account (@KSATNews) sent Garcia’s pictures to its
followers, but did not use the retweet function. At 9:23 pm, KENS anchorwoman Sarah Lucero
(@SarahLuceroKENS) asked her followers if anyone knew what was going on at the Villages of
Deerfield, the neighborhood where the crime scene was located. Lucero said there was word four
! "#!
people were shot – the first details to emerge via Twitter. Another two minutes later, at 9:25 pm,
KENS anchorman Jeff Vaughn (@JeffVaughn) cited “early reports” (i.e., chatter on the police
scanner or unconfirmed information from the scene) that four people were shot in the home.
“What’s going on in the Woods of Deerfield neighborhood off Bitters & Huebner…4
pple (SIC) said to be shot” - @SarahLuceroKENS
“Breaking: Shooting in North #SA, near Bitters & Huebner. Early reporters are 4 victims
inside Deerfield home. Latest on @KENS5 @ 10.” - @JeffVaughn
KSAT’s station account then tweeted a link to a web story at 9:26 pm, saying four people
had been shot and promising full coverage on the 10 pm newscast. All of this happened more
than a half hour before the 10 pm newscasts went on the air.
The journalists’ Twitter accounts went silent until 10:17 pm, when KABB’s White began
tweeting information from a police news conference held at the scene. A few minutes later at
10:26 pm, WOAI reporter Leila Walsh (@Leila_Walsh) submitted the first tweets from a WOAI
employee about the shooting. Walsh tweeted details that emerged from the news conference until
10:34 pm.
“Police: children of one of the victims were playing outside when they heard gunshots.
Kids went indoors and saw shooter with gun.” - @LeilaWalsh

! "#!
Finally, between 10:43 – 11:04 pm, the KABB, KENS and WOAI station accounts
tweeted links to web stories with more information about the event. By this point, police were
clearing the scene and reporters went home. The story was considered over for the night, until
follow-up angles were pursued the next day.
Data for the second research question were collected from the 60 accounts of journalists
(including the four station accounts) for quantitative analysis. A total of 2,293 tweets were
selected for coding over a random sample of ten days. Coding results are illustrated in Figure 1.
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
Tweets from the four official station accounts were isolated and analyzed for comparison
as part of the second research question. A total of 851 tweets from these four accounts
(@KABBFOX29, @KENS5, @NEWS4WOAI and @KSATNews) were coded for purposes of
this study. All numbers in Figure 2 represent just the four accounts that are the official
representations of the individual stations.
INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE
Discussion
The above case study perfectly illustrates the potential of Twitter as a device to deliver
information in a breaking news situation. It also shows how information on Twitter does not pass
through the traditional flow of “gates” before reaching the audience. Under the traditional flow
! "#!
of information, newsroom employees like assignment editors, photographers and reporters are all
early gatekeepers in standard newsroom operations. If the norm holds true, they collect
information that is approved by other newsroom employees before it is delivered to the audience.
The majority of the time, the information is also delivered to the public by a higher-level
gatekeeper, i.e. an anchor. However in the triple-murder suicide, it was the traditionally early
gatekeepers who were responsible for delivering the majority of information on Twitter to the
public. An assignment editor broke the story, a reporter and photographer both provided the first
pictures and maps from the scene, and reporters also tweeted details from the official police news
conference. Conversely, the only time any late gatekeepers joined the process, when both
anchors from KENS tweeted, it was to show they did not know what was going on by asking if
the public had any information. It should also be noted that the most powerful gatekeepers in a
traditional newsroom setting, management, did not issue one tweet during this breaking news
situation. With Twitter, any newsroom employee involved in the process delivers news.
Therefore, each individual employee is just as important a gatekeeper as the next. The pecking
order of traditional gatekeeping is irrelevant to a Twitter audience.
The case study shows that news is delivered to viewers in real time, if viewers want to
receive it in that method. The thousands of people following Twitter accounts of the four San
Antonio television stations (KSAT: 6,500, WOAI: 5,200, KENS: 1,950 and KABB: 1,300) are
discovering the news in their city as it happens. One may argue that the news delivered via
Twitter is oftentimes incomplete and disorganized, but critics have issued those same complaints
about the television news product itself for years. On this particular night, for someone living in
the Villages of Deerfield neighborhood, the scene of the triple murder-suicide mentioned in this
study, Twitter was a quick and effective means of knowing what was going on down the street.
! "#!
Even if one does not live in that neighborhood, many news viewers want to know what is
happening in their city. Twitter again delivered toward that goal. Hermida (2010) uses the term
“awareness system” to describe the phenomenon of knowing what is going on everywhere,
without being everywhere.
While the case study details an example of how Twitter can affect the flow of
information, it would be foolish to suggest this is what happens on a daily basis in television
newsrooms. In fact, data analyzed for this paper show the case study, while a shining example of
Twitter’s potential, is far from the norm.
On the ten days selected for coding, only 14 percent of the tweets of journalists in San
Antonio were coded as breaking news. The greatest number of tweets, 43 percent, was coded as
daily chit-chat, which is to be expected on a social medium like Twitter. However, the large
number of promotional tweets needs to be examined closely. Those tweets, which accounted for
38 percent of the total number, were mainly from a service called “Twitterfeed,” which
newsrooms use to automatically generate a link that is sent to their Twitter followers any time a
story is published on their station websites. In other words, these tweets are issued without a
station employee using Twitter or one of its platforms. Some newsrooms would likely argue
these Twitterfeed tweets are informational, since they do contain the headline and first couple of
words of the published story. Oftentimes the words are cut off in mid-sentence though, which is
a common complaint.
This issue is even more striking when only the tweets of the official station accounts are
analyzed (Figure 2). The data show all four station primarily use Twitter for one reason: to
promote an upcoming newscast or a story on a station website. One station, WOAI, had 100
percent of its tweets coded as promotional. This station does not have an employee who
! "#!
contributes to the official account or interacts with viewers in any way. A second station, KENS,
had only one tweet from its station account not listed as promotional. However, even that one
tweet contained a plug for the station’s website. KSAT and KABB were both much better in
utilizing Twitter as a tool for breaking news, but the percentages were not significantly different
from WOAI and KENS. This is a major area of improvement for a station looking to gain a
stranglehold on the Twitter market in San Antonio.
Conclusion
The diffusion of Twitter has the potential to change the entire process of news delivery.
It has put the power of news delivery in the hands of many different newsroom employees, thus
altering the flow of information and gatekeeping procedures. The “Web first” mentality is no
longer good enough. The hunger for real-time news delivery is out there, so stations must adapt
to “Twitter first.” However, this study also shows stations have much work to do in using Twitter
as a tool to deliver breaking news and allowing their employees to become gatejumpers, instead
of using it purely for promotional purposes. After sharing these results with Mark Briggs, author
of Journalism 2.0 and Journalism Next, Briggs said (via Twitter, of course), “The key is to
respect the relationship with users. I like the 80/20 rule, where 80% of time you add value, 20%
you promote.” Briggs said he considers linking to a story on a station website as “adding value,”
but clarified that automated services like Twitterfeed chip away from that value. In the end, his
80/20 rule could be the standard stations use as they begin to truly embrace Twitter as a platform
for content delivery.
This analysis is not without limitations. The largest, perhaps, is the nature of the topic.
There is a possibility Twitter will fall out of favor and journalists will move on to the next big
! "#!
thing in social media. This is listed as a limitation, but research like this will still be valuable
since the “next big thing” will likely build on Twitter’s momentum. Also, several of the days
selected as part of the random sample were Fridays, where content typically focuses on weekend
plans, movies, concerts, etc. Future research would limit random selection of days to Monday
through Thursday to correct this.
It is my recommendation that future researchers on this topic focus on the power of social
media, be it Twitter or other technologies. Will these social media help television news avoid the
mistakes of newspapers, which fought and resisted the digital world until it was nearly too late?
How can television newsrooms build brand loyalty through these social media? Will training be
done to help all newsroom employees understand the power of gatekeeping? These are questions
that will shape the future of television news.

! "#!
References
Arceneaux, N. & Schmitz Weiss, A. (2010). Seems stupid until you try it: Press coverage of
Twitter, 2006-9. New Media & Society, 12(8). doi: 10.1177/1461444809360773
Beaumont, C. (2009, January 16). New York plane crash: Twitter breaks the news, again. Daily
Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/4269765/New-York-
plane-crash-Twitter-breaks-the-news-again.html
Berkowitz, D. (1990). Refining the Gatekeeping Metaphor for Local Television News. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 55-68.
Brogan, C. & Smith, J. (2010). Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve
Reputation, and Earn Trust. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bruns, A. (2003). Gatewatching, Not Gatekeeping: Collaborative Online News. Media
International Australia Incorporating Culture & Policy, May 2003, 31-44.
Cashmore, P. (2009). Michael Jackson dies: Twitter tributes now 30% of tweets. Retrieved from
http://mashable.com/2009/06/25/michael-jackson-twitter/
Farhi, P. (2009). The Twitter Explosion. American Journalism Review, April/May 2009.
Retrieved from http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4756

! ""!
Farhi, P. (2010, September 2). Twitter breaks story on Discovery Channel gunman James Lee.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090105987.html?hpid=topnews
Hayes, A., Singer, J. & Ceppos, J. (2007). Shifting Roles, Enduring Values: The Credible
Journalist in a Digital Age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 262-279.
Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the News: The Emergence of Ambient Journalism. Journalism
Practice, 4, 297-308.
Lasorsa, D. (2010, April). Social media in the classroom: Twitter and journalists [Web log
comment]. Retrieved from http://aejmc.blogspot.com/2010/04/social-media-in-classroom-
twitter-and.html
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and
Action Research. Human Relations, 1, 143-153. doi: 10.1177/001872674700100201
Morozov, E. (2009, June 17). Iran elections: A Twitter revolution? The Washington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/discussion/2009/06/17/DI2009061702232.html
! "#!
Ostrow, A. (2010). Twitter hits 20 billion tweets. Retrieved from
http://mashable.com/2010/07/31/twitter-hits-20-billion-tweets/
Pew Research Center (2010). Political knowledge update. Retrieved from
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1668/political-news-iq-update-7-2010-twitter-tarp-roberts
Picard, R. (2010). Blogs, tweets, social media, and the news business. Retrieved from
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101884
Radio Television Digital News Association (2010). RTDNA/Hofstra survey shows TV station
involvement on Facebook, Twitter soaring over last year. Retrieved from
http://www.rtdna.org/pages/posts/rtdnahofstra-survey-shows-tv-station-involvement-on-
facebook-twitter-soaring-over-last-year941.php
Shoemaker, P.J., Eichholz, M., Kim, E., & Wrigley, B. (2001). Individual and Routine Forces in
Gatekeeping. J&MC Quarterly, Spring 2001, 233-246.
Singer, J. (2001). The Metro Wide Web: Changes in Newspapers’ Gatekeeping Role Online.
J&MC Quarterly, Spring 2001, 65-80.
Singer, J. (2003). Who are These Guys? The Online Challenge to the Nation of Journalistic
Professionalism. Journalism, 4, 139-163.

! "#!
Van Grove, J. (2010). Twitter surpasses 145 million registered users. Retrieved from
http://mashable.com/2010/09/03/twitter-registered-users-2
White, D. M. (1964). The “gatekeeper”: A case study in the selection of news. In Dexter, L. &
White, D. M. (Eds.), People, Society and Mass Communications (pp. 160-172). New York: The
Free Press.
! "#!
Figure 1
Non-
Station Breaking Promotional Chit-Chat Participation Breaking
KABB 70 (27%) 134 (52%) 20 (8%) 2 (1%) 32 (12%)
KENS 24 (8%) 122 (38%) 164 (52%) 2 (1%) 5 (1%)
WOAI 11 (3%) 308 (72%) 83 (19%) 2 (1%) 23 (5%)
KSAT 219 (17%) 297 (23%) 728 (56%) 11 (1%) 36 (3%)
Overall 324 (14%) 861 (38%) 995 (43%) 17 (1%) 96 (4%)
Figure 1: Results of data coding of tweets from San Antonio journalists over a ten-day period,
broken down by five categories.

! "#!
Figure 2
Non-
Station Breaking Promotional Chit-Chat Participation Breaking
KABB 26 (17%) 122 (81%) 1 (1%) 0 1 (1%)
KENS 1 (1%) 104 (99%) 0 0 0
WOAI 0 296 (100%) 0 0 0
KSAT 36 (12%) 257 (86%) 4 (1%) 2 (1%) 1 (0%)
Overall 63 (7%) 779 (92%) 5 (1%) 2 (0%) 2 (0%)
Figure 2: Results of data coding of tweets from the official station accounts of the four San
Antonio television stations over a ten-day period, broken down by five categories.
12 international Symposium on Online Journalism
April 1-2, 2011
_________________________________________________________________________
See you on Facebook or Twitter? The use of social media by

27 news outlets from 9 regions in Argentina, Colombia,
Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Spain and Venezuela.
Elvira García de Torres, PhD

CEU Cardenal Herrera University/Valentian International University, Spain
Lyudmyla Yezers'ka PhD

University of Piura, Peru
Alejandro Rost, PhD

(National University of Comahue, Argentina)
Mabel Calderin, MSc.

Andrés Bello Catholic University, Venezuela
Miladys Rojano
Andrés Bello Catholic University, Venezuela
Concha Edo, PhD

Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
Elias Sahid, PhD

Universidad del Norte, Colombia
Pedro Jerónimo, PhD candidate

Faculty of Letters, University of Porto, CETAC.Media, Portugal
Carlos Arcila, PhD

Universidad del Norte, Colombia
Ana Serrano, PhD

Basque Country University/Cantabria University, Spain
Jorge Badillo, MSc

Autonomous University of Mexico/Claustro de Sor Juana University, Mexico
Loreto Corredoira Alfonso, PhD

Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
12 International Symposium on Online Journalism
How local news outlets manage social networking tools
!"
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to examine the use of social networking tools by news
outlets from 9 regions in Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Spain and
Venezuela. It builds on research by Thurman and Hermida (2010), Vujnovic et al. (2010),
Jerónimo and Duarte (2010), Garcia de Torres et al. (2010), Lewis et al. (2010) and Díaz
Noci et al. (2010). We seek to determine if the dynamics involved in the production of local
news is affected by the use of social networking tools through a combination of observation
of news outlet profiles on Facebook and Twitter, as well as using semi-structured
interviews.
Key words: UGC, Online Journalism, Regional, Social Media
According to Cardoso (2011), a fourth model of communication is emerging as a reflection

of the current information model, exemplified by P2P distribution and the role of social
networks, where Mass self-communication and computer-mediated communication gain
prominence. Data on the use of social media provides a solid argument: In the US, nearly 1
out of every 8 minutes online is spent on Facebook, social networking is the foremost online
activity in Chile and second in Argentina. Europe experienced the highest increase in the
penetration of social networks in 2010 (10,9) with Facebook being the largest social
networking site in 15 of the 18 markets examined by Comscore (2010, 2011, 2001a).
In 2007, as a result of viral response and the mixture of professional and amateur coverage
of London´s bombings and Burma´s protests, Emily Bell, editor-in-chief of Guardian
Unlimited wrote: ".. now the job is a different one - to find and help the people with the best
stories tell them to the outside world. And who is the best placed to do that? A journalist or
You Tube? A journalist or Blogger? A journalist or Flickr? A newspaper publisher or
Google?" (Bell, 2007). Two years later, in August 2009, Jeff Reifman (2009), founder of
NewsCloud, referring to small markets, argues that without new approaches most local
news sites would be consumed by Twitter.
Recently, Boston.com has built the application "Your Boston" and Rockville Central has
migrated to Facebook. The paper will not host its own ads but still, Brad Rourke, founder
and publisher of Rockville Central considers it worth it:
“...we are trying to be a "Community Hub. That is not a news source - though
it can include some news. It is not a comment space - though it can include
comments. It's a locus where all these things come together (...). Seen in
that regard, the fragmentation on FB is a good thing, since it means little
dribs and drabs of RC are going to always be floating around...". (March,
2011).
It is uncertain what role Mass Media is to play in such an environment at micro, meso and
macro-social levels, or indeed, which will be the prevalent model of journalism. In a self-
centric system, Journalism will survive but in a different way (Calmon Alves, 2010).
!"
Gatewatching appears to be inefficient in processing massive data, and there is no more

gatekeeping (Bruns, 2008, Singer, 2007, Kovak and Rosenstiel, 1999). As a consequence,
new roles are being defined to "help the people with the best stories tell them to the world",
namely "Community manager" and "curator". The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC is
to close "Have your say", as they plan to integrate User-Generated Content within the news
stories; the notion that every journalist should be a Social Media Editor is expanding. The
New York Times columnist David Carr observed that media organizations are beginning to
look more like a federation of individual brands or a collection of individual voices (Myers,
2011).
Figure1. Towards Mass Self-Communication

PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION
CURATOR GATEWATCHING GATEKEEPING
Individual voices UGC Participatory
Fast classification of journalism Letters
Webs,
experiences Blogs, 2.0, forums...! to the!
New language Crowdsourcing Social
Social, molecular, editor"""!
storified journalism
journalism networking...!
Mass Self-communication Mass Communication
COMMUNICATIVE INTERACTIVITY SELECTIVE INTERACTIVITY
Source: Based on Rost (2007), Bruns (2007), García de Torres (2010) and Cardoso (2011).
Many years ago corporate blogs, the first popular Mass self-publication platform, sent alarm
signals to media companies (Palser, 2003). With or without guidelines, in 2010 at least two
reporters
! faced serious trouble related to the use, or abuse, of their Twitter accounts; a
sports journalist was suspended for a month after he published a false story in his personal
Twitter account.
On the other hand, collaboration such as the one promoted by the hashtag #give4andy,
created by reporter Andy Carvin to collect funds for NPR stations, shows "a kind of
reconciliation for that personal/organizational disconnect" (Garber, 2011).
Figure 2. Symbiotic relationships as Andy Carvin asks for (micro-tasking) help
Source:!http://twitter.com/acarvin/
!"
Research by Wardle and Williams demonstrates (BBC) that users are in favour of targeted
calls for contributions rather than general pleas, and that they prefer specific content-related
requests over broad calls for opinion (Kelly, 2009). Language is affected as interactivity
calls for relational and meta-communication messages and news stories are referential
(who, where, 1when...). Macro-level structures are also affected. It is a big change, explains
Mario Tascón , who leads the innovative Spanish Internet Styleguide, a project by Fundeu:
"Public communication generally makes people care more about the

expression because there is a desire to communicate with others, and to do
well. Another difference from the pre-Internet is that is easier and faster to
adjust and reduce the differences between speakers of the same language.
All see, learn and immediately incorporate changes that occur from North to
South at the other side of the Atlantic".
In the past ten years, different models of user-producer relationships have been adopted by
news media. Tomaiuolo (2009) distinguishes media that support content produced by the
users, local sites that allow contributions, monitored in most cases by professional
journalists and, finally, traditional sites that support marginal interaction.
Overall, research on User-Generated Content on mainstream news media websites reveals

practical reasons behind the model of participatory news - traffic, brand projection, fidelity or
content production (Lewis et al (2010; Vujnovic et al., 2010). Deuze, Bruns and Neuberger
(2007: 333) mention explicitly the pursuit of additional sources of revenue, the potential to
sell targeted advertising across online and offline media and winning back non-reading
newspaper audiences. An international study of 80 news websites coordinated by García de
Torres (2011) shows a standard visibility of the user´s content at the homepage (polls, most
viewed contents and the blogs´ section), greater options to participate around news stories
produced by the journalists and infrequent requests to provide content (46% "send your
ideas" and 16,2% "send your story" in the homepage).
These findings are consistent with previous research (Domingo et al., 2008; De Kayser and
Raeymackers, 2008). during this same period, the evaluation of the users´ performance in
the news media websites or citizen´s journalism websites offers poor results: dialogic and
civic engagement seems not to be a priority and there is a lack of continuity or expertise in
managing information (Díaz Noci, 2010; Acosta, 2008; Reich 2008) and Lacy et al., 2010).
Rost, Reta and Apesteguía (2008) discovered some users´ reluctance to participate due to
distrust towards news media and journalists, as well as technological difficulties or lack of
interest. Not surprisingly, Rebillard and Toubuoul (2010) argue that empirical verification of
changes in participation-as it remains at low levels- does not support the thesis of the digital
revolution.
Meanwhile, pioneer crowd-sourcing projects and organizations such as Ushaidi, Spot.Us,

The Guardian or the BBC Hub have devoted efforts and resources to explore either a
citizen or a symbiotic modus of reporting (Bradshaw, 2007, Muthukumaraswamy, 2009)
before the upcoming of social networks. In August 2010 though, OhMyNews International
closed down and became a blog:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Personal communication, March 2011.
!"
"We lacked a specific focus. With citizen reporters from every corner of the
world writing on every topic imaginable, it became increasingly difficult to
cover stories consistently. The broad array and frequency of topics was also
intimately tied to our second problem: editing difficulties (...), it was
impossible for our editors to accurately check each story. Fact-checking is
one of our core principles".
Mainstream media presence in social media received quite an impulse by the 2.0 angle of
the 2008 campaign. The New York Times made an active effort to increase its audience via
Facebook with outstanding results. The rest is history: the aeroplane in the Hudson,
Honduras, Iran, Haiti, Chile, Egipt, Lybia, Japan... The benefits of SM coverage are evident.
Stassen (2010:13), who interviewed four members of the staff of News 24, a South African
online publication, concludes that "... social media facilitates a type of journalism in which
the audience is much more involved in the news-creation process". Some of the advantages
mentioned by the respondents were: brand loyalty, audience research, source for story
leads and references, content promotion, community building, customer services and
sustaining and broadening attention.
Table 1. US Newspapers Fan/circulation ratio

NEWSPAPER FANS CIRCULATION FAN/CIRCULATION RATIO
Washington Post 100589 545345 0.18445021
Chicago Tribune 23397 441508 0.052993377
Arizona Republic 19830 308973 0.064180365
Denver Post 36557 309863 0.117977945
San Jose Mercury News 8423 477592 0.017636393
New York Times 1001502 876638 1.142435076
Los Angeles Times 28835 600449 0.048022397
Cleveland Plain Dealer 6962 252608 0.027560489
USA Today 38578 1830594 0.021074034
Wall Street Journal 176896 2061142 0.085824266
Source: Bivings Group (December, 2010).
However, several studies on the use of social media by news outlets show little use of
conversational modes on Twitter or Facebook. The Bivings Groups´ findings on the use of
Twitter by America´s Newspapers in 2009 found that many of the accounts rarely interacted
(15% of the accounts never replied and 33% less than 1%) or re-tweeted other users.
Noguera (2010) found in 13 Spanish news media, Facebook´s profiles headlines and little
interactivity (only 30.7% of the sample published interactive messages in the wall).
Jeronimo and Duarte (2010), after examining the use of Twitter by regional Portuguese
news outlets through observation and questionnaires, pointed out that the micro-blogging
tool is apt for massive shovel ware in 140 characters and little updating (with some
exceptions). Some answers to the questionnaires produce interesting illustrations of the
perceived value of SM: Twitter gives scoops but it is Facebook where politics and official
sources are found, as well as interaction.
Revenues and dependence on the providers are the biggest challenges. further, competing
and symbiotic relationships between journalists and citizens through Twitter and other
micro-blogging sites (Cardoso, 2011) and the reinforcement of the corporate discourse of
!"
the new generation sites (Ahmad, 2010) remain to be overcome. Regardless of SM impact
on newsgathering and reporting, Picard (2009) recommends a careful examination of media
strategies: "Merely because a technology is popular with some users and journalists does
not mean that its use will be beneficial to the news enterprise as a whole".
Figure 3. The New Battlefield
#$+$,)-' ! 1%0+$#$1%+"02' !
! 8=7/:3!
."/0-%&$!(' ! ."/0-%&$!(' >=?@4/A:78!
! /0+,1$! ! ! A&,B.! !
/*$-+<#! ! CDE!"))F.! "#$%%&'!(!)**+,-.!
! /0+,1$(!2#$,1&,0! !"#$%&'()*$%'
! /0+,!
4567!859:/!65;7:"57! ! 3)**+,-.(!/0+,1$!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
In June 2010 El País presented Eskup, its social network, as a part of a strategy to produce
exclusive contents for the website. The paper maintains a strong presence in Twitter
(69.978 followers) and Facebook (456.538 fans). Data from Alexa.com (March, 2011)
indicate that 1.9% of the visitors go to Eskup and 8.34% of one-off visits come from
Facebook. In Spain, 17,8 out of 21 million of Internet users per month are users of
Facebook (nearly 3 of Twitter), but Facebook and Twitter are the source of only 5.8% of
traffic for the websites of El Mundo, El País, 2o Minutos, ABC and La Vanguardia. From
time to time, there is a hit, such as the 20% of traffic that came from Facebook on Monday
21 to "Slow goodbye to compliment", published by El País (Asegovia, 2011). With Eskup,
the newspaper regains autonomy to decide on the shape, time or length and technical
quality of news messages, decided otherwise by the SM hosts; only some months ago, You
Tube decided to extend the video limit to 15 minutes.
As The State of the Media 2011 reports, organizations that produce the news rely
increasingly on aggregators or social networks such as Facebook to bring in a substantial
part of their audience: "The future will belong to those who understand the public’s changing
behavior and can target content and advertising to snugly fit the interests of each user. That
knowledge — and the expertise in gathering it — increasingly resides with technology
companies outside journalism" (Rosenstiel and Mitchell, 2011).
The impact on content is not a minor problem from a macro-social perspective. After
examining UGC practices at the BBC, Harrison (2010: 255) notes: "...The paradox of UGC
might be that by extending reach and audience involvement, in the long run, it diminishes
the public service standards of BBC news through the spread of soft journalism". This and
other involuntary distortions in the news-making process might occur if dependence on
UGC to produce news increases. A survey by NPR (2010) to check the preferences and
habits of NPR Twitter followers in comparison with Facebook fans revealed that fans
wanted more hard-hitting, breaking news as well as international news, offbeat stories and
!"
stories about interesting people; Twitter users wanted more hard/breaking news and
updates on events already in progress. The Report "New Media, Old Media", carried out by
Pew Center in 2010 in Twitter, concluded that only half of the links went to legacy outlets as
40% went to web-only news sources and 10% to wire stories or non-news sources. In
traffic-centered media this might add another distortion to the news-gathering process.
Methods
The aim of the present study is to examine how social media, specifically Twitter and
Facebook, are managed by 27 news outlets from 9 regions in Argentina, Colombia, Mexico,
Peru, Portugal, Spain and Venezuela.
Research questions are:
(1) What kind of (local) information, if any, is delivered and gathered through social
media?
(2) What are the opportunities,benefits, and risks of social media?
(3) How many resources are used?
To give an answer to these questions, a method based on a combination of the analysis of

SM messages as well as semi-structured interviews was designed.
Following Kaplan and Hanlein (2010), who define social media as a set of applications
namely blogs, micro-blogs, collaborative projects or content communities, Twitter and
Facebook were selected for the analysis because of their potential for conversation,
attributed impact on news reporting (Jeronimo and Duarte, 2010) and presence in all the
markets being studied.
Recent developments such as the January 25 Revolution and uprisings in North Africa and
the Middle East or the earthquake in Japan have appointed Facebook an excellent tracking
or monitoring tool, as well as aneffective UGC repository (Lavrusik (2011). Regarding
Twitter, Arceneaux and Schmitz (2010: 1273) have examined three years of media
representation of the micro-blogging site and find "... journalists have been primarily positive
in relation to this particular micro-blogging service. While a great many jokes and
derogatory comments have circulated online and among professional comedians, articles in
newspapers, magazines and blogs suggest a largely supportive tone". Presently,
Eltringham, (2011) considers Twitter is becoming mainstream: Judge Howard Riddle
allowed journalists to provide twitter updates from Julian Assange´s bail hearing, legal
claims against streams of tweets explode and WENN has made agreements to sell pictures
through Twitter client site Plixi. In the future, Honeycutt and Herrig (2009) predict the micro-
blogging site will soon be used in formal collaborative contexts and explain communicative
interchange for collaboration and coherent conversation is possible in a narrow scale.
To make the analysis feasible we selected three newspapers by region. The papers
sampled are local and generalist, except for areas where national newspapers cover the
regional district as in Madrid, Mexico D.F., Caracas or the Caribbean Region. In those
cases, local tweets or Facebook messages are taken into account for content analysis;
interviews are oriented to explore the dynamics of the Metro desk. When possible, the two
papers with the highest circulation in the region and a web-based journal were selected.
!"
The period of analysis of the profiles was set between February 5-11 - alternative dates
were established for Más por Más and 2001, which joined Facebook on February 9.
It has not been possible to establish circulation and online audience for the whole sample
due to the absence of data from reliable audit bureaus. An exceptional case is El País,
which has not been computed by the Spanish audit bureau OJD for some time.
This is an exploratory study: Variability in the markets is so high that it is extremely difficult
to construct a representative sample. The number of newspapers examined in each market
is too low to produce solid comparative analyses but a preliminary examination will be
presented here.
Table 2. Sample
Code/Region/URL Pageviews Followers Fans

/month
ARG1 - Norpatagonia 6,820,778 820 21,228
Río Negro http://www.rionegro.com.ar
ARG - Norpatagonia 3,290,008 810 6,536
La Mañana Neuquén http://www.lmneuquen.com.ar/
ARG3 - Norpatagonia 400,366 468 1,201
Roca Digital http://www.rocadigital.com.ar 2,097 friends
COL1- Región Caribe 3,256,740 16,139 6,343
El Heraldo de Barranquilla http://www.elheraldo.co/
COL2 - Región Caribe 225,480 3,564 4,430
El Universal de Cartagena
http://www.eluniversal.com.co/
COL3 - Región Caribe 10,050 441 966
Zonacero.info http://zonacero.info/
ESPCV1- Comunidad Valenciana 12,893,855 2753 4,836
Las Provincias www.lasprovincias.es
ESPCV2- Comunidad Valenciana 9,337,511 2,899 3,200
Levante-EMV http://www.levante-emv.es
ESPCV3 - Comunidad Valenciana 66.494 873 225
Hortanoticias http:// www.hortanoticias.com 4,509 friends
ESPPV1- País Vasco 6,716,547 1891 2,124
El Correo Español-El Pueblo Vasco
http://www.elcorreo.com/
ESPPV2 - País Vasco 1,112,178 615 3,085
Deia http://www.deia.com/
ESPPV3- País Vasco 18,910 58 514 friends
Basauri.tv
ESPM1 - Madrid NA 290 2,869
Diario de Alcalá
http://www.diariodealcala.es/edicion/general
ESPM2- Madrid 661,640 4,386 1,401
Madridiario
!"
ESPM3- Madrid @el_pais_madrid NA 6.022 69,978

El País http://www.elpais.com
MEX1- Mexico DF 5.,110 6,747 1,288
ESTO http://www.oem.com.mx.esto
MEX2 Mexico DF 1,017,528 15,688 206
Más por Más- http://www.maspormas.com.mx
MEX3 Mexico DF 175,000 15,397 763
La Silla Rota http://www.lasillarota.com
PER1- Región La Libertad 190,000 131 5,002
La Industria de Trujillo http://laindustria.pe
PER2 290,000 846 307
Región Piura
El Tiempo http://www.eltiempo.pe
PER3- Región La Libertad 300,000 339 815
noticiastrujillo.com http://noticiastrujillo.com
POR1- Distrito de Leiria 105,819 835 2,723
Região de Leiria http://www.regiaodeleiria.pt
*
POR2- Distrito de Leiria 51,200 1,069 4,697
Jornal de Leiria http://www.jornaldeleiria.pt
POR3- Distrito de Leiria 300,000 92 1,133 friends
Tinta Fresca http://www.tintafresca.net
VEN1- Caracas NA 4,994 134
Últimas Noticias http:// www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve
VEN2- Caracas NA 131,967 14,159
Diario 2001 http:/ www.2001.com.ve
VEN3- Guarenas_Guatire 153,000 13,297
La Voz http://www.diariolavoz.net
*August, 2008
The circulation of newspapers as El País, El Correo-Español-El pueblo Vasco, Más por Más
and Esto is above 100.000 copies; between 30.000 and 40.000 copies are Rio Negro, EL
Heraldo de Barranquilla, El Universal de Cartagena, Las Provincias and Levante-EMV;
under 20.000, Deia (18.365) Regiao de Leiria (15.000) or Jornal de Leiria (15.000). The
number of page views per month, followers and Facebook fans or friends figure in table 3.
Hypotheses, based on previous studies, can be stated as follows:
(h1) High variability in the assessment of social media

(h2) Low scores for conversational messages both in Twitter and Facebook
(h3)Lesser resources devoted to social media management as circulation
decreases.
Previous research on the uses of social media by newspapers and the addressivity
functions of the @, relevant to the present study, point to specific methods:
In Portugal, Jeronimo and Duarte (2010) have analyzed the use of Twitter by 20 regional
newspapers; 200 tweets per media -only 10 were active on Twitter- are analyzed in terms of
frequency and conversation; results include data from 11 questionnaires on the impact of
!"#
Twitter on the coverage and local journalism, the number of journalists that use Twitter and
the potential of the micro-blogging site.
Thirteen Spanish newspapers Facebook profiles were analysed by Noguera (2010);

messages posted in December 1, 2009 were coded for participation, contents, dynamics
and connection.
Honeycutt and Herrig´s (2009) method was designed to analyze the functions and the uses
of the ‘@’ sign where a sample of 200 tweets collected in four periods during a 24 hour
period, using Twitter Scrapper. Messages were coded as: (1) About addressee; (2)
Announce/advertise; (3) Exhort; (4) Information from others; (5) Information for self; (6)
Meta-commentary; (7) Media use; (8) Opinions; (9) Other´s experience; (10) Self
experience; (11) Solicit information; (12) Other. Longer exchanges were analyzed using the
Dynamic Topic Analysis.
Finally, a study of the use of Twitter by the Bivings Group in 2009 deals with a corpus of
tweets extracted during an eight-and-a-half-hour period from midnight Sept. 20 until 8:30am
September 21. TweetStats provided the following data: “Followers”, “Following”, and
“Tweets” were lifted directly from the Twitter pages; “Tweets/Day”, “Primary Interface”,
“Replies to Followers %”, and “Retweets Others %” from TweetStats. Also, the Interactivity
Quotient (Twitter IQ), a formula resulting from combining percentage of replies and
retweets, was applied.
In the present study, a coding scheme was designed for the analysis of messages
published in Twitter and Facebook by the news media studied. Items were selected for data
of conversational activities and, specifically, requests of information. Regarding Twitter, two
types of messages were coded: messages to all the followers and messages to specific
followers (@).Findings by Honeycutt and Herrig (2009) suggest that tweets with @ (on the
grid, "Messages sent to certain users") respond to "About addressee: solicits or comments
on information relating to the addresee".
In addition, a set of mentions to the newspapers were examined - up to 50 mentions per

newspaper though retrieval was limited or negative in some cases because of technical
reasons. Facebook messages where coded taken into account the number of comments
and "Like" they received. It was noted, also, if users wrote on the Wall and whether
comments on the Wall were answered by the news media.
Table 3. Items for the analysis of Twitter and Facebook messages
Headline plus link (total correspondence) Users write on the Wall (FB)
Headline plus link to the website The outlet answers to comments (FB)
Headline plus link to other sites Other
Headline Messages sent to certain users (Twitter)
RT (Twitter)/ Share (Facebook) Headline
Greetings Greetings
Invites participation/asks for opinions Asks for contents or information
Invites participation/asks for opinions plus link Other
Requests information or contents Mentions (Twitter)
Requests information or contents plus link A link is retweeted
Offers help, information or contents A link is published
Offers help, information or contents plus links Comments on contents
!!"
Informal message Addressee

Announces/invites to live coverage #FF
Announces/invites to live coverage plus link Other
Alongside the analysis, 22 face to face interviews were conducted by locally based
researchers in March, 2011 who had a script with six general questions combined with
specific enquiries. The questions that guided our thematic analysis for the present study
included: What is the value of social networking for local news? and How networking sites
contribute to news-making in regional newspapers (or local news desks) as well as
management and benefits. In this phase, variations in the organizational structure of each
news outlet explains the selection of the profiles. At El país, Ana Alfageme, currently Social
Media Editor is the former Metro Desk Editor for Madrid.
Table 4. Interviews
Horacio Lara. News editor for the Web/ Andrea Marcilla. Website manager (Río Negro)
Nicolás Bustamante. Newsroom Manager (La Mañana Neuquén)
Fabián Cardozo. Editor and owner (Roca Digital)
Karen de la Hoz. Website Manager (El Heraldo de Barranquilla)
Laurean Puerta. Editor (Zonacero.info)
Silvia Guillén. Community Manager (LasProvincias)
Manuel Furió. Editor (Hortanoticias.com)
Gorka Cabañas. In charge of of projects for the Web (El Correo Español-El Pueblo Vasco)
José Antonio Rodríguez. In charge of social media and the Web (Deia)
ÁlexCerdeño. Webmaster and founder (Basauri.tv)
Antonio Naranjo. Editor (Diario de Alcalá)
Pedro Montoliu. Editor (Madridiario)
Ana Alfageme. Social Media Editor (El País)
Jackov Camino. Community Manager and reporter (La Industria de Trujillo)
Manuela Mejía. Journalist in charge of Social Media (El Tiempo)
Carlos González. Editor (Noticiastrujillo.com)
Manuel Leiria. In charge of the online version Online and journalist (Região de Leiria)
Jacinto Silva Duro. In charge of the online version Online and Journalist (Jornal de Leiria)
Mario Lopes. Editor and Owner (Tinta Fresca).
Danisbel Gómez. Manager of the unit for citizen participation (Últimas Noticias)
Julio Naranjo. Web Content manager (Diario 2001)
Richard Sanz. Metro Desk Editor (La Voz)
A codebook provided definitions, descriptions and illustrations. Following procedures

established for comparative analysis with several coders (Shoemaker, 2003; Lombard et al,
2004) training sessions took place before entering the coding process. Intercoder reliability
of 88 percent over 50 messages was considered sufficient to proceed to the next step.
!"#
Results
A total of 5010 messages were analyzed. 1634 messages were published on Facebook and
3376 on Twitter by 26 news outlets (La Voz does not have a Facebook page and Journal de
Leiria is not on Twitter).
Overall results from the Facebook sample are shown in table 1. As shown, conversational
messages have more potential to engage comments. Referential messages based on
headlines are also appealing however. Facebook messages consistent with headlines that
reproduce the exact title of the contents published on the web get 38,6% of comments and
"Like it" responses and represent the 68,1% of the sample.
Figure 1. Comments on conversational and referential messages (%)
Conversational messages represent 5,6% (92 out of 1634), most of which (92%) have links
to the web. Requestsfor information represent only 11% of conversational messages and
0,6% of total messages.
Table 2. Conversational items on Facebook (number of messages)

!"#
The median comments per message is 0,4. and for "like" is 0,9. Most of the 23 messages
with more than 4 comments were conative, especially those with the highest number of
comments. The most commented message was published by El País - the only one
directed to local users living in Madrid: "Did you notice more pollution these days in
Madrid?".
Figure 4. Most commented on message
The answer to Basque country publication Deia (3,085 fans on Facebook) is striking as 13
had 4 comments or more (and many of them referential, concerning politics, generating
intense debate); Regi!o de Leiria, a Portuguese news outlet with a circulation of 105,819
and more than 2700 fans also had two messages with 4 comments. Other news media with
popular messages were El País (with the afore mentioned question to Madrid's’ inhabitants
on pollution), El Heraldo de Colombia, Las Provincias and Últimas Noticias, though in some
cases comments were also published by them. Six out of the 11 outlets which offer a wider
variety of conversational items are from Spain.
Table 6. Newspapers with two or more conversational items
Newspaper Country No. No. Items Page Fans

Items conversacionales views
Diario de Alcalá ESP 7 5 2869
Más por más MEX 6 5 1017528 206
Deia ESP 7 4 1112178 3085
Río Negro ARG 4 3 6820778 21228
Levante-EMV ESP 7 3 9337511 3200
El Heraldo COL 3 2 3256740 6343
Las Provincias ESP 6 2 12893855 4836
Hortanoticias ESP 5 2 66494 225
La Industria PER 4 2 190.000 5002
Regi!o de Leiria POR 1 2 105819 2723
5 newspapers engaged in conversation with users on the Wall: Río Negro (Norpatagonia,
Argentine), Diario de Alcalá (Madrid, Spain), Hortanoticias (Valencia, Spain), Más por más
(México D.F) and Regi!o de Leiria (Leiria, Portugal). Users left messages on the Wall of 12
outlets out of 26: Rio Negro, La Mañana Neuquén, Roca Digital, Hortanoticias, Diario de
!"#
Alcalá, Basauri.tv, Más por más, El Tiempo, Noticias Trujillo, Regiao de Leiria, Journal de
Leiria and Tinta Fresca.
Figure 5. Answers on the Wall
Máspormás
Hoy de promoción: 40 pases dobles para "Defendiendo al Cavernícola"... ahora sí hay muchísimas
oportunidades de ganar. Visiten:http://www.maspormas.com.mx/
Pablo Perez Pacheco como se si gane??
Miguel Palacios yo me hago la misma pregunta, nos notifican por correo o nos llaman al cel?
Máspormás Generalmente se manda una notificación al correo, ese mismo día por la tarde/noche
Diario de Alcalá
Los datos de contaminación del aire; el Parador cuando era una cárcel, la historia de un joven que
busca a su gemelo que presuntamente fue robado, los artículos de Antonio R. Naranjo y Xavier
Colás; un repor de un nuevo club de bici de montaña o una nueva entrega del colectivo Pedro
Gumiel de la UAH. Y de postre, la semana gastronómica y ofertas de empleo. El menu de hoy del
Diario es completito. ¿Te gusta?
A 5 personas les gusta esto..
Lourdes Ortega ¿Dónde puedo leer más sobre el nuevo club de bici de montaña en la página web?
10 de febrero a las 10:32.Diario de Alcalá En la edición impresa del Diario viene un reportaje muy
detallado. En la página web todavía no está colgado. Un abrazo!
10 de febrero a las 10:48 · 1 personaA Lourdes Ortega le gusta esto..
Víctor Llanos ¿vais a colgar el documental de la cárcel en la página web? Hoy no puedo coseguir la
edición impresa y me interesaría porque mi bisabuelo estuvo preso tras la Guerra Civil.
10 de febrero a las 12:06.Diario de Alcalá ok, lo hraremos pues.
11 de febrero a las 19:11.Diario de Alcalá El artículo colgado en Internet.
Results obtained after processing 3376 Twitter messages published by the 26 news outlets
analyzed (Journal de Leiria does not have a Twitter account) show also a heavy presence
of "headline plus link (total correspondence)" (50,7%).
Table 7. Typology of twitter messages vs. Facebook messages 3376
Item Twitter % Facebook %

Headline plus link (total 1113 68,1
correspondence) 1713 50,7
Headline + introduction - - 237 17,3
Offers help/info plus link 786 23,2 23 1,4
Headline plus link 458 13,5 61 3,7
Headline 87 2,5 4 0,2
RT/Share 71 2,1 0 0
Announces/invites to live 0 0
coverage 22 0,6
Invites participation/asks plus link 20 0,5 19 1,1
Offers help, info/content 18 0,5 3 0,2
Requests contents/info 7 0,2 3 0,2
Invites to live coverage plus link 7 0,2 16 0,9
Greetings plus link 5 0,1 8 0,4
Informal message 3 0,08 1 0
Requests contents/info plus link 2 0,05 7 0,4
Headline plus link to other sites 2 0,05 0 0
Invites participation/asks 2 0,05 11 0,6
!"#
Differences are shown in detail in figure 6
Figure 6.
Addressivity on Twitter is not high, but some streams of messages have been found when
analyzing mentions by users as well as conversations around hashtags and active
conversation. For example, on February 2011 El Heraldo asks "Dear reader: if anyone is
near the fire at San Felipe, please share picture. Journalists are on their way" and later "Any
reader to report on possible fire in San Felipe. Also, at the end of the week, through the
hashtag "mototaxi" (strike): "Send us your pictures showing the main roads in
#barranquilla", retweeting users, offering polls and giving information. In Roca Digital
(Argentine) concerning the hashtag #elecionessucr, a user asks were the elections take
place; @RocaDigital sends "Independents in the School 42. Affiliated to CEM 1" and it ´s
rewteeted with thanks.
Table 8. Adressivity: @ and mentions by the users
@ messages
Greetings 1
Info request 2
Informal message 36
Mentions
RT, Publish, comment 391
DM 92
#FF 2
Others 7
Interviews were coded regarding the assessment of social media, the specific assessment
of Facebook and Twitter, social media management and benefits. According to our results
most media networks prefer to use Facebook and Twitter, with comments such as "We
primarily use Facebook and Twitter", for the profile of our public Twitter and Facebook are
!"#
the best tools, "or" The most widely used are Facebook and Twitter. "With regard to its
implementation, the participation in courses or conferences in some cases as a reference
source to learn about new tools is mentioned. The director of the Media or technical or even
the marketing team are often the first ones to act.
Some respondents indicate that once their presence is consolidated in these networks,
they would consider entering others or discarding them for allowing little customization or
the publication of certain messages. Other networks mentioned are Linkedin, YouTube or
local networks; some respondents are not familiar with Quora, some have a negative
opinion of the language barrier and those present are exploring the tool.
The assessment of the social Media
Social media are highly appreciated for a number of reasons, among them information
gathering and the possibility of its dissemination, both in quantitative and qualitative terms :
reaching readers located outside the region, young people or those who are not otherwise
going to read the newspaper in traditional format:
• "It allows us to reach more users with different characteristics, a younger audience"
or "people living in a faster, more immediate world, and who are technology fans ,
• "It offers the possibility to reach readers more quickly, to show what we do."
• "It's more user friendly for people, and easier to do"
• "The information is new, in the sense that it may be a big exclusive news release ."
• “It allows us to be alert and seek new sources "
• "And that brings an incredible Live situation"
• "We want people to see and say,’ look, how cool, I was immediately informed’"
• "Twitter is on hand, constantly on hand. Because people do notlook ahead , they
are looking down, because of the mobiles"
• "We think that many people are readers only through Facebook"
• "That alertness is for me the most striking aspect of the social networks and is the
one we should channel best. Nowadays 5% of the people that follow us alert us. If
we could convert it to 25% for the local newspaper it would be great.
• "Especially on Facebook there are many trails. There are always small leaks of
information in social networks"
• "They are a prime source of information"
• "They are very important in the spreading of the oil slick"
• "We are becoming aware that it is a tremendous resource that we must use more of
and that is changing from day to day ..."
In the production of local information, several uses were mentioned, although news did not
seem to come frequently from Twitter or Facebook; there was a hint of frustration in some
answers. On the other hand, the active search or scoops is widespread both in Twitter and
Facebook. Where news reported by citizens are concerned, the ones mentioned are the
unexpected ones (not programmed) : fires (repeatedly), riots, strikes, food shortage, floods,
building collapses, or weather (rain) and local elections:
a) Development of public maps (crowd sourcing)

• ".. we reconstructed the map of difficulties in the area - road closures, schools that
may be wouldn´t open, delays in transportation services ..."
!"#
• "We have drawn a map with the information we could get and the information
people alerted us to..."
b) Active search of information

• "It has helped me tremendously, because having joined several key accounts it has
helped me to know, for example, when there is a demonstration at a particular site."
• "We do a lot active search on Facebook"
• "I follow certain accounts that are interesting to me such as the Judicial Information
Center"
c) Obteining documents, mainly photographs such as photo-news or to illustrate

information
• "Sometimes there are reports that lack pictures and photos on Facebook and many
people usually upload a lot of information."
• "Facebook is fundamental for us: it has faces. And we need the face of the person
who does ... who won a prize or traveled abroad, who excels for some reason. (...)
The more faces, the closer, the more identified readers feel and possibly more
readers recognize the person from their city or street. "
Social media provide scoops, alerts, a service to the community, information to write reports
(from comments or reactions to news published on the Wall) and the ability to promote
their own events (such as forums) or report live.
Facebook fans do use the media to publicize their own activities, depending on whether the
walls are open. Only in one case, a medium eliminates these contributions on the grounds
that the user wants to use them. In other cases, users ask the journalists to cover a topic of
their interest.
The symbiotic relationship model between producers and users is present all the time
during the conversations, as well as in individual voices, something that most of the
analyzed media does not consistently process. . Some respondents used the word "help" to
refer to the work of citizens.
• "because often they are there before we are and, you understand, they are giving
us the information first."
• "it provides proximity , in the end, lost of news items you were not aware of a
closeness to the people around you and eventually the citizens themselves become
journalists"
• "users contribute more than it was expected. For example, the earthquake in Japan
(...) They sent us recorded videos, they worked as informants reporting live, telling
us what the Japanese TV was saying..."
• "People helped us to know where roads were cut off"
• "Users provide everything: content, discussion, hints"
As for the drawbacks, some media highlight the lack of responses, the problem of handling
so much information and finding something of interest, the difficulty of connecting with the
community and the lack of training of the users. One of the outlets is considering to hold
workshops for people who lack technological literacy.
• "We want people to come to us for this more often, which they are not doing"
!"#
• "Because of the increasing number of people in social networks I hope we can have
more cooperation. And that will require a careful selection not of the people that read
us but of the people we read."
• "One thing we have not understood is the development of the community, the idea
that we really are a family. We are not dealing with this and we don’t know how to.
• "We would perhaps have thousands and thousands of users and that would be flood
us, we would accumulate too many in our account"
• "And we received a Twitter message that said “I have a video (...) And we said send
it over here, I don’t know how to send it, the person said."
• "We do not know how to get to the source. We have to contact that person and it is
much more difficult because it is not something usual."
• "One can be present without the need to engage or connect."
Specific assessment of Facebook and Twitter
There is greater preference for Facebook both to obtain and to disseminate information. Its
use is more generalized. Qualitatively speaking Twitter is valued more highly by some
("Twitter is the ultimate") and in contrast some media rarely use it ("From Twitter we have
never had a great response" or "Twitter is no big deal." There are Media that “are” more
Facebook, but Twitter cannot exclusively be associated to the Media with the most
circulation , this is a question that would require further study. Those who prefer Twitter
refer to Facebook as a personal-communication space in which news are also discussed.
Regarding their influence in the Twitter is mentioned more often, but an interviewee said he
wanted to "make a newspaper only with Twitter (...) but thought that Facebook had then
developed more applications." Specifically, for each tool the following is highlighted:
Twitter
• "It brings speed, immediacy. It forces you to be straightforward and very clever"
• "I can send my FB followers my recommendation to read a report and depending
on when they connect they can see it maybe within a week. However, a Twitter
follower will see it straight away."
• "It's more professional, more mature"
• "is the network where people are more ready to receive information"
• "We can be loading data without having to upload it to the web "
• "Twitter is the flash of the moment"
• " The quality of what is there serves me well"
• "95% of the information we have from the social networks comes through Twitter"
Facebook
• "you get to the right person, ie the person who may be interested in your content.
For a small medium this is interesting."
• "It's mostly entertainment"
• "It is our eye on the city"
• "To the local newspaper Facebook is more valid than Twitter because it gives a
richer, more personalized collaboration, (...) We “are” more Facebook."
• "Engaging the readers in a place where you are not accessible"
• "It is the space where you are with your friends, share photos and funny things with
them and is more or less what a medium should be."
!"#
• "More than anything we get feedback"

• "It's different because you can be present without the need to engage or connect"
• "It also serves as the entrance to the site"
• "Facebook allows us to see all the news that have been published by the
newspapers."
Some tools that respondents believe would be of interest to them would be a local
communication network, applications for mobiles , vertical networks, networks that integrate
everything and reach the neighborhood, to do experiments with the hyperlocal, blogs such
as the City of New York Times or to have a network of sources you know.
Social Media Management
No media has specific rules for social media, one of them is working to develop them. If
anything, there are general unwritten guidelines, , such as not to publish massively so as to
not overwhelm the user, not to post URLs of others, not to mix the personal and
professional and to follow the editorial line. In the media in which journalists indicate in a
general manner that social media are used, they often have gone through a training
process - in one case because the community manager left and they chose not to be
dependent in the future.
• "At least the New York Times has eliminated the post of community manager. and before
it did it taught all its staff how to do the job, I think that's the most viable way to manage
social networks."
In some Media, reporters only write in the accounts of their own medium because it has
been so established, others publish in their accounts without supervision others encourage
journalists to do so, and in other cases the editorial staff decide on the go, what is to be
published and if no agreement is reached, they ask their superiors or even the reporters
themselves ask the people responsible for the accounts or for the medium to use the
networks to publish some content or to create a group in Facebook or else they ask to be
allowed to report live from their accounts. In one case, journalists add their initials to the
tweets so they can be identified later. Regarding integration of individual voices with
corporate voices, in general there is no pattern or design or programme:
• "And that I put in my personal Twitter. I immediately said:" No, this I must put in and I
must connect to the portal, to the online newspaper and indeed I did so. "
• " Journalists publish in Twitter , through their blackberry. Let's say that the editorial
line is this: publish news"
• "And there were two journalists who were devoted to festivals and they themselves
said that the information had to be on Facebook."
The figure of the community manager is not implemented; it does not exist or it is not
recognised by that name. During the interviews, in some cases the fact that someone was
going to be working as such was mentioned The task is mostly associated with the
management of Facebook (as administrator), especially to control the comments. They tend
to be professionals who are responsible for the digital version but in some cases, in small
Media, the director himself is the person responsible. Generally, the people responsible for
managing social media are free to decide what is published and, at any rate, the fact that
they are asked to publish something is mentioned but not the opposite.
!"#
The Media with the most circulation have specific individuals whose sole responsibility is
the social media (between 2 and 4). In other cases, there is a strict rota during the week
andat the weekends, and either reports are fed automatically every day or on weekends. .
One of Media that has an automatic feed states that that the results in terms of users are
better than those of their competitors doing it manually. The advantage of automatic feeding
mentioned is that there are no informative "bumps". "
• "We cannot work 24 hours every day of the week. I work from Monday to Friday as
well because as well as managing social networks I have to do other things"
• "It is, of course, a full-time job and, as I say, the teams are very small at the moment
because there are no returns."
Some media opt for semi-automatic feed, so you have to authorize each of the messages if
the accounts are synchronized.
Benefits
Only in one case it was suggested that they may be obtaining financial benefit ("there is
publicity, we have advertised on both Twitter and Facebook). The benefits they mention are
intangible, i.e. to get more readers, an "indirect profit"
• "The profit is not palpable in money terms.

• "We expect overall profitability (laughs)
• " Financial profitability is not expected."
• "In a way it is free and why question something that is free."
• "But nowadays advertisers are finding it difficult to understand what a digital medium
is, so they will find it even more difficult to understand how to attach it to social
networks
• "I do not have an opinion on the subject. We do not even know how to make digital
media profitable."
• "That has not been exploited here"
• "This question could be extended without referring it to social networking (laughs).
• "We have not explored it. We are not selling anything!
• "that they generate money I cannot see too clearly, but I think the media cannot
afford to ignore them simply because they are not giving you money"
• also businesses, our potential customers, are a little skeptical "
About the future, in some cases they leave the door open:
• "We have been to several Conferences and we can see that the business model is
being stretched to mobiles"
• "However, it is something to be explored, in fact we now have a mobile version
• "... when the dust settles we will have to see how to make social networks profitable"
• "Obviously, we realize that this is a mine that has not been exploited, but we have to
have someone to help us to do that"
Applications and campaigns on Facebook or mobiles have been pointed out as an option.
!"#
Conclusions
Social media have entered the Iberoamerican newsrooms to challenge old agendas and
traditional newsgathering and editing culture. The doors are wide open in some news media
- who are inspired by them and urge the journalists to twitter and post, and no so much in
others, where the lack of training and/or personnel makes it difficult to explore the tools and
connect with the community via social media. Hashtags are key to embrace the community.
Twitter and Facebook are the "kings" in the realm of social media in the newsrooms of the
media analyzed in this study, though some of them such as El País (Eskup) or El Correo
Español-EPV (Objetivo Vizcaya) have developed their own networks. The reasons why
some news media declare a preference for one or another should be explored; cultural
factors, as one of the professionals we interviewed said, should not be ignored. Old and
new sources merge on social media: official sources are located by active search and, at
the same time, users irrupt with outburst from fires, floods or riots. There are no rules, nor
training. Each news media has reacted creating teams (not many), turns, with
automatization (partial or total) or abandon; in other cases, interactivity depends on the
personal compromise of editors or journalists.
We can talk of a certain "fascination" over the possibilities of social media as news sources
and hyperlocal coverage, but of impotence also, as resources are scarce. It is not social
media but the webs which are looking for a suitable business model. Hyperlocal, mobile,
ads and applications for Facebook (in Facebook) might be the answer -though advertisers
are reluctant.
Conversational messages are interchanged between users and producers but also
colleagues from the same or different media. These kind of messages are by now a drop in
the ocean; some media do have a conversational profile, regardless circulation, page views
or number of fans. Twitter ranks higher in immediacy. The selection on Facebook´s is
higher and its best assessments are participation, reach and images.
At the regional level training for journalists (and the users) is necessary to ensure the quality
of shared content and prepare the newsrooms to produce news in a mass self-
communication environment.
Bibliography
Acosta Valencia, Gladys L. (2008). “Relación dialógica o comunicación paranoica. un

análisis de lo que acontece en los foros del lector que promueve la prensa digital en
Colombia”, 10° Congreso REDCOM. Conectados, hipersegmentados y
desinformados en la era de la globalización, Salta. Disponible en.
http.//www.ucasal.net/unid-academicas/artes-y-
ciencias/congresos/redcom10/archivos/redcom-ponencia/Eje5/Mesa5-1/Acosta-
Valencia.pdf
Ahmad, Ali Nobil (2010). “Is Twitter a useful tool for journalist?”. Journal of Media Practice.
Volume 11. Number 2. JMP 11 (2):145-155 –Intellect LTd 2010
!!"
Arceneajux, Noah and Schmitz, Amy (2010). “Seems stupid until you try it. Press coverage
of Twitter, 2006-9” New Media & Society 12 (8): 1262-1279.
Asegovia, Adrián (2011) “La innovación de la publicidad en Internet”. Available at
http.//blogs.elpais.com/estrategia-digital/
Bell, Emily (2007). “User + tools = journalism. Tecnology is shaping the future of news
reorting – editors need to adapt to survive” Cyberspeech - free expression online 4.
Bradshaw, Paul (2007). “Wiki Journalism Are wikis the new blogs? ”, Future of Newspaper
Conference, Cardiff. Available at
http.//onlinejournalismblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/wiki_ journalism.pdf.
Bruns, Axel (2003) Gatewatching, not gatekeeping: Collaborative online news. Media
International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: quarterly journal of
media research and resources 107, 31-44.
Calmon Alves, Rosental (2010). "Los medios deben aparcar su arrogancia". Interview by El
País on September 5, 2010 . Available at
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/reportajes/medios/deben/aparcar/arrogancia/elpepus
ocdmg/20100905elpdmgrep_5/Tes
Cardoso, Gustavo (2011)."Más allá de Internet y de los medios de comunicación de masas.
El nacimiento de la comunicación en red", Telos: Cuadernos de comunicación e
innovación 86: 14-22.
Comscore (2010). "ComScore publica un informe sobre ‘La Europa digital 2010’. Available
at
http://www.comscore.com/esl/layout/set/popup/layout/set/popup/layout/set/popup/lay
out/set/popup/layout/set/popup/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/2/comScore_R
eleases_The_2010_Europe_Digital_Year_in_Review
Comscore (2011). "Las Redes Sociales Representan 1 de Cada 4 Minutos Consumidos
Online en Argentina y Chile" (report). Available at:
out/set/popup/layout/set/popup/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/3/Social_Netwo
rking_Accounts_for_1_of_Every_4_Minutes_Spent_Online_in_Argentina_and_Chile
Comscore (2011a). ComScore Releases “The 2010 U.S. Digital Year in Review”. Available
at
out/set/popup/layout/set/popup/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/2/comScore_R
eleases_The_2010_U.S._Digital_Year_in_Review
Deuze, Mark; Bruns, Axel; Neuberger, Christoph (2007). Preparing for an age of
participatory news, Journalism practice, 1 (3): 322-338.
Diaz Noci, J.; Domingo, David; Masip, Pere; Micó, Josep Lluis; Ruiz, Carles (2010).
“Comments in News, Democracy Booster or Journalistic Nightmare. Assessing the
Quality and Dynamics of Citizen Debates in Catalan Online Newspapers”, 1Oth
International Online Journalism Symposium, Universidad de Texas, Austin.
Domingo, David (2008). “Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms. dealing with
an uncomfortable myth”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (3):
680-704.
Eltringham, Mattew (2011). “Signs that twitter is entering the mainstream”. Available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2011/01/twitter-enters-the-media-mains.shtml.
Garber, Megan (2011) “#gave4andy: Andy Carvin” . Niemanlab Journalism Lab. Available at
http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/02/gave4andy-andy-carvin-and-the-ad-hoc-pledge-
drive/
García de Torres, Elvira (2010). Contenido generado por el usuario: estado de la cuestión.
El Profesional de la Información 19 (6): 585-594.
!"#
García de Torres, Elvira (Ed.) (2011). Cartografía del periodismo participativo. Valencia:
Tirant lo Blanch.
Harrison, Jackie (2010). “User-Generated content and gatekeeping at the BBC Hub”,
Journalism studies, 11 (2): 243-256.
Honeycutt, Courtenay and Herrig, Susan (2009). "Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and
Collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences - 2009.
Reifman, Jeff (2009). The evolution of community newspapers in the Age of Twitter and
Facebook. Available at http://blog.newscloud.com/2009/08/evolution-of-community-
newspapers-in-a-facebook-age.html
Jerónimo, Pedro and Duarte, Ángela (2010). “Twitter e jornalismo de proximidade<. Estudo
de rotinas de produção nos principais titulos de imprensa regional em Portugal”
Prisma com nº 12 2010 – Especial Ciberjornalismo 2010.
Kayser Jeroen de and Raeymackers, Karin (2008). Forcing the gates of the fortres. T he
growing impact of public participation in Flemish Newsrooms". Tecnology, education
and ethics conf. 2008.
Kaplan, Andreas and Hanlein, Michael (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges
and opportunities of social media". Business horizons 53: 59-68.
Kelly, John (2009). “REd cayaks and hidden gold: the rise, challenges and value of citizen
journalism” .Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics and
international Relations, University Oxford: 32-33
Kovach, B.; Rosenstiel, T. (1999). Warp speed. Nueva York: Century Foundation Book.
Lacy, Stephen; Duffy, Margaret; Riffe, Daniel; Thorson, Esther; Fleming, Ken (2010).
“Citizen Journalism Web Sites Complement Newspapers”, Newspaper Research
Journal, 31 (2): 34-46.
Lavrusik, Vadim. (2011). “Facebook’s Growing Role in Social Yournalism”. Disponible en
http://mashable.com/2011/02/27/facebooks-growing-role-in-social-journalism/
Lewis, Seth; Kawfhold, Kelly; Lasorsa, Dominic L. (2010). “Thinking about Citizen
Journalism. The Philosophical and Practical Challenges of User-Generated Content
for Community Newspapers”, Journalism Practice, 4 (2): 163-179.
Lombard, M.; Snyder-Duch, J. and Campanela, Ch (2005). Practical resources for assesing
and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. Available at
http://astro.temple.edu/~lombard/reliability/
Myers, Steve (2011). What 12 journalists learned about community engagement and human
interaction at SXSW. Poynter. Available at http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-
stories/123861/what-12-journalists-learned-about-community-engagement-and-
human-interaction-at-south-by-southwest/
Muthukumaraswamy, K. (2010). “When the media meet Crowds of Wisdom. How journalists
are tapping into audience expertise and manpower for the processes of
newsgathering”, Journalism Practice, 4 (1): 48-65.
Noguera, José Manuel (2010). “Redes sociales como paradigma periodístico. Medios
españoles en Facebook”, Revista Latina de Comunicación social, 65, pp. 176-186.
Disponible en http.//www.revistalatinacs.org/10/art/891_UCAM/13_JM_Noguera.html
Palser, B. (2003): Free to Blog? , en American journalism Review. Available at
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3023
Pew Research Institute (2010). Understanding the Participatory News Consumer. How
internet and cell phone users have turned news into a social experience. Pew
Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Disponible en
http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/understanding_participatory_news_consu
mer
!"#
Picard, Robert G. (2009). “Blogs, Tweets, Social Media, and the News Business”. Nieman
Reports. Disponible en http.//www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101884
Rebillard, Franck; Touboul, Annelise (2010). “Promises unfulfilled "Journalism 2.0" user
participation and editorial policy on newspaper websites”, Media, Culture & Society,
32 (2): 323-334.
Reich, Zvi (2008). How citizens create news stories. Journalism Studies 9 (5) 739-758.
Rosenstiel, Tom and Mitchell, Amy (2011). The State of News Media 2011 (Overview).
Available at http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/overview-2/
Rost, A; Pugni Reta, M.E. y Apesteguía, E. (2008). “Cómo navegan los usuarios de sitios
de noticias”. En Bergonzi y otros. Periodismo digital en la Argentina. General Roca.
Publifadecs. Available at http.//red-
accion.uncoma.edu.ar/PeriodismoDigital/pdf/capitulo8.pdf
Rost, Alejandro. (2007). “Propuestas para un periódico digital interactivo”, Zer, 22, 269-389.
Singer, J. B. (2007). “Contested autonomy“, Journalism Studies, 8 (1): 79-95.
Shoemaker, P. (2003). Intercoder reliability. Available at
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/22024930/INTERCODER-RELIABILITY
Stassen, Wilma (2010). “Your news in 140 characters. exploring the role of social media in
journalism”, Global Media Journal African Edition, 4 (1), pp. 1-16. Available at
http.//sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departemente1/Joernalistiek/Global
%20Media%20Journal/Global%20Media%20Journal%20-
%20Files/8C986D88B97754ABE04400144F47F004
Thurman, N.; Hermida, A. (2010). “Gotcha. How newsroom norms are shaping participatory
journalism online”. En Sean Tunney y Garrett Monaghan: Web Journalism. A New
Form of Citizenship. Eastbourne. Sussex Academic Press.
Tomaiuolo, Nicholas. (2009). “U-Content”, Searcher, 17 (9): 12-54.
Vujnovic, Marina, Singer, Jane B., Paulussen, Steve, Heinonen, Ari, Reich, Zvi, Quandt,
Thorsen, Hermida, Alfred; Domingo, David (2010). “Exploring the political-economic factors
of participatory journalism. Views of online journalists in 10 countries”, Journalism
Practice, 4 (3): 285-296.
Paper Title:
Journalists in Network Society: Utilization of ICTs inside Three Egyptian Newsrooms
Ahmed El Gody
Lecturer, Media and Communication Studies
Orebro University, Sweden
email: ahmed.elgody@oru.se
Telephone: +46 708873307
!"#$%&'$(
With Egyptian society moving into the electronic age, more people are
communicating in cyberspace not only to access more information, but also to create
a reality of their own (Parks, 2005). In five years, the number of Internet users
increased seven fold reaching 22.1 million users b y A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 (MCIT,
2010). Egyptians started utilizing the technology to debate current events, criticize the
government, public officials, political parties, and to share personal experiences to
propose solutions to current socio-political problems, and to construct different
visions of the country’s future (El Gody, 2004; Parker, 2005). Citizens quickly
harnessed ICTs creating online news sites, blogs, vblogs, YouTube, twitters, podcasts,
SMS text messages, mobile phone web publishing, and establishing accounts on
social networks like facebook (3.2 million users) and youtube (3 million users) mainly
to produce and disseminate their journalism and advocacy faster than government can
control, regulate or censor (El Gody; 2009; Hamdy, 2008; Salma, 2010). Pitnac
(2010) counted 13,500 active Egyptian citizen news journalism websites providing
“Politically driven reportage on local events ...break[ing] numerous off-limits to the
mainstream Egyptian media” utilizing ICTs to cluster citizens around the idea of
embracing democratic change (Pitnac, 2010: 299). (
The more audience join the hybrid world, the more networks created, the more active
virtual participation occur, the more close Egyptian society in changing their reality
witnessed in the increasing number of activities initiated in the online sphere (Radsch,
2008). Development, in that sense, can be attained through the wide participatory
process that is intended to bring about social and material advancement for the
majority of the people through their gaining control over their environment (Donahue,
2000). Information Communication Technologies hence is perceived as a tool to
"empower" the Egyptian public to think and develop programs that respond to their
specific needs. As a result of the diversity of the development concept, this
alternative/pluralistic networked space envisions the diverse role of communications,
too. It emphasizes the multiplicity, smallness of scale, localization, de-
institutionalization, and interaction at all levels, and interchange of sender-receiver
roles (Bardoel, 2002; Singer 2008). Internet communication technologies (netCTs)
hence added a new dimension to the production and consumption of news journalism
in Egypt. They have enabled the creation of new communication spaces where diverse
voices engage in conversation about matters affecting daily lives. Egyptian
mainstream journalism, however, seems to be away from that formula (Ibid; El Gody,
2009). Ang (1991) report on journalists use of technology to communicate with
audience describes Egyptian journalists, stating that media pretends to know their
audience -through technologies- generating ‘institutional knowledge,’ realistically
journalism media ‘is not using the technology’ to address citizens.
Introduction of ICTs in Egyptian Print Media
Egyptian print media ecology for the past 40 years has been shaped by loyalty to the
system. One can still use William Rugh’s 1979 classification of media in Egypt as
being authoritarian (Rugh, 1979; 2004). By definition, an authoritarian media system
is controlled by the government through direct ownership and/or strict laws and
regulations. The purpose of newspapers is to promote the government’s main
political, social, and economic programs. The government steers the media agenda
and direction of news to filter what receivers hear and see. Egyptian journalists do not
explore beyond the limits of a traditional system of relationship between the political
class and the rest of the population (Rugh, 2004; El Gody, 2006). The failure of the
Egyptian print media to have an active presence in people’s lives, lead audience to
turn to other alternative online independent media forms for news (El Gody, 2004;
Salama, 2009).
Internet technology was introduced in Egyptian newsrooms in 1996 as a government

‘aid’. Dar Al Tahrir publication Al Gomhuria was the first among Egyptian print
newspaper to go online as gif/jpg image of clips from the newspaper. During the next
four years, 18 Egyptian newspaper organizations joined the cyber world (El Gody,
1999; Mahmoud, 2001). Currently -till February 2010- 63 publications, representing
40.4 percent of Egyptian print media industry, have their own website. Although
superficially this trend implies development, however whether ICTs has been realized
and used in Egyptian newsrooms daily routine has been a question that needs further
examination.
In transitional societies –moving towards democracy- like Egypt, politics is a

traditional central for journalists to ‘mediate with their audience,’ informing the
citizenry, facilitating their informed choice as ‘gate-watchers’ not as watchdog
‘gatekeeper’ in the power struggle between audience, media and politics. Egyptian
journalists has been criticized not being ‘connected’ with their local audiences, losing
their ability to help citizens making connections between their everyday life and
politics, as well as losing their capacity to encourage local people to participate in
political debates, or even provide them with the skills needed in local politics, are
rarely used to its maximum (El Gody, 2009; Eliasoph, 1998: 210).
The lack of media freedom gave room for alternative independent online media to
develop. News websites soon became the playground for political parties, activists,
and groups from various ideologies to creating ‘online spaces of flows’ to cater
readers emerging needs. Political actors started investing creating news portals to
attract communities within community to able to interact with their ideas in one hand
and with each other on the other hands (Bernard, 2000; Livingstone & Bober, 2005;
Castells 2001). Egyptian online discussions were at high, especially after 9/11events,
citizens started cluster each with their own agenda fostering several scenarios for
democratisation process. Egyptians saw in ICTs a medium that is likely to have
profound implication on the socio-political democratization. Activists saw in the
Internet an opportunity to curb government pressures creating, a ‘space’ in which
individuals participate in discussions about matters of common concern, in an
atmosphere free of coercion or dependencies that would incline individuals toward
acquiescence or silence. Internet technology did lead to a more horizontal and less
vertical communication model among Egyptian society, enabling people to bypass the
controlled regimes and traditional mass media, allowing the society to create a
developmental agenda of their own (Rheinglold, 1993; El Gody, 2009).
On the other hand, a study conducted on 12 Egyptian newspaper websites showed that
the Internet plays a role in expanding newspaper circulation, "it is only another form
of the printed paper," (El Gody, 2003:47) not a tool to develop news content or
interactivity with audience. In a previous study entitled ICT and Journalism in Egypt,
I (2000) concluded that Egyptian media are not providing any services presenting a
free replica of their paper version to their o n l i n e readers. El Gody’s study of
Egyptian newspaper sites showed eighty percent of news sites are not updated, some
of which had not been updated for more than four months. The study revealed that
seventy five percent of Egyptian news sites are not offering any real time news
services to readers, eighty percent of the online sites do not provide news archive or
database service, finally seventy percent are not presenting a news search tool (El
Gody, 2000). This phenomenon occurs because Egyptian print media expand
horizontally. They publish their news on the web "just so as not to be behind and to
be related to the new Internet society." (ElGosh ,2002:1) Egyptian media and
Egyptian journalists don’t yet understand the art of net usage. Subsequently online
content remains static and newspaper organizations are still losing ground (ElGody,
2003:4), or as Peter Verwey describes the Egyptian experience of using online
journalism to be like putting old media in a new jacket (Verwey, 2000). The question
that poses itself now is what role ICTs play in promoting news industry and the social
democratisation process in Egypt.
Principle Research Questions

The study focuses on the diffusion and implementation of Information
Communication Technologies (ICTs) especially Internet technologies (netCTs) in
Egyptian newsrooms. Further the study examines if/and to what extent and in what
ways did Egyptian newsrooms incorporated ICTs in their daily routine, and how did
news organizations identify themselves with news convergence and whether the
interactive characteristics of new media are playing a role in the Egyptian networked
society. Other questions include what are ICTs components diffused and adopted in
Egyptian print media? Presence of Convergence strategy(ies) within Egyptian
newsrooms? What role, if any, do newsroom culture, and professional backgrounds
play in adopting ICTs? form(s) of networking among journalists and their
networking strategy –if any- with their sources, editors and audience? Further the role
played by ‘the networked journalism’ if any in shaping society’s democratic
participation and creation of an active social network sphere.
Research Methodology
The study focuses on the diffusion and implementation of ICTs especially Internet
technologies in Egyptian newsrooms. Further the study examines if/and to what extent
and in what ways did Egyptian newsrooms incorporated ICTs in their daily routine,
and how did news organizations identify themselves with news convergence and
whether the interactive characteristics of new media are playing a role in the Egyptian
networked society. To reach this goal, the qualitative ethnographic study (field
observation, structured and semi- structured interviews, and document analysis) is
conducted in order to capture a the use of ICTs in news production and weather ICTs
are integrated in the everyday use of the news.
RUNNING HEAD: STOPPING THE PRESSES
Stopping the Presses: A Longitudinal Case Study of the Christian Science Monitor
Transition From Print Daily to Web Always
Jonathan Groves, Drury University &

Carrie Brown, University of Memphis
Jonathan Groves
900 N. Benton Ave, 135 Shewmaker Hall
Springfield, MO 65802
417-873-7347
jgroves@drury.edu
Carrie Brown
314 Meeman Journalism Building
Memphis, TN 38152
202-251-5719
carrielisabrown@gmail.com
!
!
Running head: STOPPING THE PRESSES 2
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Abstract
!
Though many news organizations have talked about going “Web-first” in response to
sweeping economic and technological changes rocking the media landscape, the
Christian Science Monitor took the mantra beyond platitudes. In 2009, the Monitor
became the first nationally circulated newspaper to replace its daily print edition with its
website and a weekly print magazine. This study utilizes three weeks of newsroom
observation, interviews, and a survey to examine the paper’s effort to grapple with this
transition and the way it has altered news routines and values. Drawing upon theories of
organizational culture and leadership, it offers insight for other organizations seeking to
implement change. The study also documents a shift in the Monitor’s news-gathering
efforts and coverage as immediacy and page views rose as critical measures of success. !
!
The authors would like to thank their department chairs and deans at Drury University and the University
of Memphis for supporting this project with travel grants.
!
Though many traditional news organizations have talked about going “Web-first”
in response to sweeping economic and technological changes rocking the media
landscape (Brown, 2008; Groves, 2009), the Christian Science Monitor took the mantra
beyond platitudes. In 2009, the Monitor became the first nationally circulated newspaper
to embrace digital innovation by replacing its daily print edition with its website and a
weekly print magazine. As other news organizations (e.g. the Detroit News/Free-Press)
are experimenting with decreased print frequency and expanded online distribution, the
Monitor’s effort to grapple with this transition is worthy of examination for lessons
learned.!
This longitudinal study involved three weeklong on-site visits to the Monitor’s
primary newsroom in Boston for ethnographic observation and interviews, and included
an online survey of the newsroom staff. The first visit took place in December 2009, nine
months after the transition began; researchers followed up with visits in July 2010 and
January 2011 to gather longitudinal data.
Informed by theories of organizational culture and leadership as well as diffusion
of innovations, this study reveals how the elimination of the daily print edition gave the
Monitor more room to develop new routines to better adapt to the Web imperatives of
always-on immediacy and greater attentiveness to audience. However, newspapers, like
all organizations, are resistant to change (Kets de Vries, 2001; Sylvie & Witherspoon,
2002), and the Monitor’s transition was not without its difficulties. Many staffers resisted
what they saw as the devolution of the Monitor’s serious journalism into pandering to the
lowest common denominator with lighter news to capture the audience’s attention. This
analysis reveals these and other opportunities and challenges for news organizations
attempting radical transformations to adapt to digital and economic imperatives.
Literature review
Since the rise of the Internet as a disruptive news medium, newspapers have
watched their circulations and ad revenues decline as audiences gravitated away from
traditional news sources (Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2011). This shift has
prompted them to what business management and organizational change scholars call a
“critical moment,” or a widespread acceptance by all stakeholders that something must be
done to better meet customers’ changing demands and revitalize a failing business model
(Kets de Vries, 2001). This level of change is difficult to achieve when the organization
remains saddled with the need to produce the legacy product. By eliminating the daily
print edition, the Monitor opened itself up to innovation, with greater opportunities to
experiment with new routines.
Innovation theorists talk about the need for a nimble organization, one that
focuses on emergent strategy driven by experimentation, rather than deliberate strategy
requiring detailed planning before execution (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Once
successful strategies are developed, though, it is critical that they spread throughout the
culture.
The diffusion of innovations paradigm from Rogers (2003) provides a well-tested
framework for making sense of how organizations adopt or reject innovations, defining
diffusion as “the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain
channels over time among the members of a social system” (p. 5). Innovations are
adopted at different rates by organizations, depending upon how individuals perceive the
innovation’s advantages and compatibility with the existing system, as well as its
complexity (Rogers, 2003). Other critical factors are trialability, or how well an
innovation may be experimented with, and observability, or how well those in the
organization see the results of the innovation. Interpersonal relationships are a key part of
this diffusion: A change agent enters the existing system to introduce the innovation, and
with the help of opinion leaders, spreads the innovation throughout the organization.
Another critical factor affecting the diffusion of innovation is organizational
culture.!Scholars of organizational change have found that deciphering culture is critical
to understanding how an organization can effectively transform itself to meet external
challenges (Schein, 2010). Schein (2010) defines organizational culture as a set of shared
assumptions have been learned by a group to solve its basic problems of external
adaptation and internal integration. Some of these assumptions have proved practical or
effective in the past but are less so when circumstances change, as they have in
newsrooms.
Schein (2010) defines three layers of culture:
1) Artifacts, or processes and physical structures, such as the layout of the
newsroom and the daily newsgathering routines.
2) Espoused values, or the beliefs the organizations explicitly articulates.
3) Underlying assumptions, which are often unspoken or even unconscious values
but represent some of the true motivations for behavior in an organization. Argyris (2004)
makes a similar distinction: espoused theories, or what people say about their goals when
asked directly, and theories-in-use, which are the unspoken operating values govern their
actions.
Scholars must identify these components of culture to understand what factors
might be facilitating or inhibiting change (Schein, 2010). For example, news
organizations that espouse the importance of the Web but tend to continue to reward
reporters whose work appears on the front page over those who contribute multimedia or
other Web efforts will, not surprisingly, notice that reporters devote more time and
energy to the print product (Brown, 2008).
Another critical aspect of organizational culture is leadership. Leaders set an
example for others and communicate their underlying assumptions in terms of what they
reward and what they punish; the direction and intensity of their attention; what types of
things are measured and evaluated; their allocation of resources; and through whom and
how they promote, hire and recruit (Schein, 2010).
Research indicates that organizations that adapt to changing environment by
building on existing strengths and values are often the most successful (Schein, 2010),
and news organizations are no exception. Research on change in newsrooms has found
that journalists are resistant to changes they perceive as being in conflict with the core
values of the profession and may passively or actively block their adoption (Brown &
Groves, 2010; Singer, 2004, Stamm & Underwood, 1993). Journalists draw fundamental
aspects of their identity from their commitment to core values of accuracy and
independence, among others, and to their mission of providing information to citizens in
a democratic system (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007). This strong sense of identity also
serves to defend journalism from critics and to provide it with bona fides as a true
“profession” (Schudson, 2001; Zelizer, 2004). Many people first get into journalism
because of their attraction to these core values and they are further reinforced as part of
the socialization process in journalism education and on the job (Schudson, 2001 & 2003).
Case studies of news organizations undergoing major changes (e.g. Daniels &
Hollifield, 2002; Gade, 2004; Gade & Perry, 2003; Singer, 2004) have found that
journalists, as trained skeptics, are suspicious of changes espoused as being good for
journalism but suspected of being more about the bottom line. For example, Gade &
Perry (2003) studied a cultural change attempted by public-journalism movement
supporter and then-editor Cole Campbell at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Journalists began
the process fairly optimistic, but after four years, surveys showed that many staffers had
become negative and believed that the underlying motivations were not rooted in the
values of public journalism. Instead of allowing the organization to connect more
effectively with the community, these initiatives were more about increasing circulation
and advertising, staffers said (Gade & Perry, 2003).
Similarly, Singer (2004) found that journalists were suspicious about underlying
motivations for change in her study of four converged newsrooms, even though managers
did not frame the change in terms of the bottom line. One might expect that one of the
major conflicts in converged newsrooms would be the differences between former print
and broadcast competitors, but because they shared core values, the staff integrated fairly
well. Instead, the main source of resistance was changes that they felt threatened these
values. One of the survey respondents she quoted said that any change brought about to
raise profits and not improve journalism was never going to be accepted by the newsroom,
no matter what top managers said or did to encourage people.

More recent studies (Brown, 2008; Brown & Groves, 2010; Groves, 2009) have
found that the threat to core journalistic values remain a top concern in newsrooms, but
there is also a growing acceptance that change is necessary and concern for the bottom
line is no longer anathema to journalists. Survival anxiety in newsrooms is high as the
entire industry has been rocked by budget cuts, high debt loads, declining ad sales, and
digital competition (Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010), and this brings with it
the powerful motivation needed to transcend comfortable routines (Schein, 2010). Over
the past several decades, researchers have shown how journalists routinize their work to
meet deadlines and fulfill time and space requirements (Fishman, 1980; Gans, 2004;
Tuchman, 1978), but journalists are perhaps more open than ever before to the idea of
change because of economic realities facing the industry. Still, underlying assumptions
about the prestige of print often remain powerful barriers to true transformation (Brown,
2008).
Once the values and culture are understood, Rogers’ framework allows
researchers to understand how innovation filters through an organization. Rogers (2003)
frames the innovation-decision process among individuals and units as a five-step
process: knowledge, or learning about the innovation; persuasion, or understanding the
perceived characteristics of the innovation; decision, or adopting/rejecting the innovation;
implementation; and confirmation. This structure will be used to organize the
organizational narrative over the 13-month study period.
In the implementation and confirmation stages, old routines are modified, and
new ones develop. One of the most important elements of news routines in this study
include the set of standards through which journalists can decide what is worthy of
coverage from the obviously vast range of possibilities. These standards traditionally
include prominence, proximity, conflict/controversy, timeliness, the unusual (Shoemaker
& Reese, 1996), and impact (The Missouri Group, 2010). The animating idea behind
these standards is that journalism should tell the public what it needs to know in order to
govern itself and to hold government and the powerful accountable (Kovach & Rosenstiel,
2007). American journalism still adheres to the general notion that these standards help
further objectivity by minimizing the personal biases of journalists about what news is
important, although many journalists do understand that they can produce their own types
of subtle biases, such as playing up conflict over compromise (Brown, 2008).
This research seeks to build on this literature on organizational culture and change
as well as decades of past research on newsroom processes and routines to answer the
following research questions:!
!
RQ1: How did the Monitor’s organizational culture affect its effort to transition to the
Web?
RQ2: How are news processes/routines changing as the Monitor shifts from a daily print
publication to a Web-only/print weekly?
RQ3: How has the emphasis on “Web first” affected the types of topics the Monitor
covers?
RQ4: How is the Monitor bringing the enduring values of journalism to life in its daily
routines and practices?
!
Methodology
This study relied on ethnographic observation, interviews, and an online survey of
staff, and involved three week-long on-site visits to the Monitor newsroom, spread over
the course of 13 months. Researchers attended meetings, shadowed staffers, and observed
the news-production process at work. A cross-section of staffers from all levels and
departments were interviewed, including some on both the editorial and business sides of
the organization. Researchers also collected organizational e-mails and other relevant
documents as well as all articles in the journalism trade press for analysis. The
researchers then analyzed the data for key themes.
Top managers have been identified in the organizational narrative, but individual
interviewees were guaranteed confidentiality to encourage honesty and openness. The
longitudinal design allowed for the observation of how change and innovation spread
through the organization over time and how responses evolved or stayed the same.
A case study is an appropriate methodological approach for examining newsroom
change because it allows for the in-depth study of phenomena in its real-life context
(Jankowski & Wester, 1991; Yin, 2003). Practically speaking, a single case allowed for a
greater depth of exploration into multiple phenomena, given the constraints of resources
and time. As Dyer and Wilkins (1991) argue, single case studies are also valuable
because they allow the researcher to offer deeper description and locate the fundamental
meanings behind events. Open systems theory explains that an organization has many
internal and external stakeholders that must establish congruence in needs and
responsibilities for the organization to adapt and perform effectively, and researchers
must carefully examine each of these and their relationships in an immersive context to
understand the organization (Harrison, 2005).

Findings
Organizational culture
!
All organizations’ cultures are products of their past (Kets de Vries, 2001; Schein,
2010), and it is important to understand the Monitor’s history, which informs its values
and approach to change.!The Monitor has deep connection to the First Church of Christ,
Scientist, which founded the paper and still provides much of the funding for the
newspaper’s operations, although aside from one article each day, the content is
otherwise not religious in nature. The paper was founded on Aug. 8, 1908, with a short,
hand-scrawled missive from church founder Mary Baker Eddy (Canham, 1958). She also
crafted the mission: “To injure no man, but to bless all mankind,” which remains on the
“About” page of csmonitor.com and in the weekly magazine’s information box. Her
motivation stemmed in part from the “yellow journalism” of the day, as several major
newspapers had written misleading articles about her and the church. Eddy sought to
offer an alternative to this sensationalism, and to this day staffers often define themselves
as what they are not: Not obsessed with conflict, not adding to the froth of
unsubstantiated opinion.
The first part of an organization’s culture as defined by Schein are its artifacts, or
its organizational and physical structures and routines. Soon after the paper’s founding,
the newspaper’s offices were constructed in downtown Boston in an ornate edifice next
to the Mother Church, the denomination’s home sanctuary (Canham, 1958). Today, the
church’s tolling bells are still audible from the newsroom. In its 112-year history, the
paper has won seven Pulitzer Prizes, which hang outside the newsroom’s main
conference room, and more than a dozen Overseas Press Club awards. The commitment
to core journalistic values is connected to the mission of the organization. The roots run
deep for many employees, who grew up with the Monitor in their households. Many are
church members and feel a sense of journalistic mission connected to their faith,
especially since the paper was created at the behest of the church’s founder. This weaving
of personal faith and journalistic commitment affected how many employees perceived
the Web-first change effort over the course of the year. As one staffer said, “Many of us
are Christian Scientists, and for those of us that are, we really have a sense of mission
that goes beyond the journalistic mission…the real challenge is to take this new form
given to us, and forge it to our purposes, not let it forge its on us” (interview, July 2010).
An excerpt from the introduction of Monitor’s stylebook reveals the subtle
intertwining of faith and profession:
To blaze its own path of clean, constructive journalism, broad in appeal,

high in character, powerful in helpfulness, the Monitor tries hard to
develop stories that are not routine, articles that are original, interesting,
and important to human progress. ... Our aim is to bring light rather than
heat to a subject. The purpose is to heal. When exposing evil, we don’t
call names or sling adjectives; we record acts and official charges. Warmth,
compassion, even humor, can help the Monitor serve as ‘a most genial
persuader.’ (p. 2, Monitor, 1997)
This commitment is echoed on the website’s About page on csmonitor.com:
• We're unrelenting but fair.

• We're excited by what’s new and developing — yet always mindful of the history
behind us.
• We're broad in scope but written for the individual.
• And we make a point of resisting the sensational in favor of the meaningful.
(Monitor, 2011)
Visitors to the main newsroom must have a badge to access the third-floor offices.
The newsroom is an open space, with low-walled cubicles, making most editors and
writers visible. Most of the organization’s editors are based in the Boston headquarters,
working with correspondents and staff writers in bureaus around the United States and
the world. Most bureaus consist of one staffer, although the Monitor’s Washington office
has eight, including a bureau chief.
In Boston, the top editors have separate offices along a far wall of the newsroom,
although the Web editor and managing editor usually work from cubicles among the
other employees in the newsroom proper. People work quietly, communicating through
e-mail, instant messaging, and telephones. Several televisions hang around the newsroom
tuned to the major cable news networks, although the volumes are turned down. Each
cubicle has the occupant’s name on a nameplate. A number of dry-erase boards dot the
newsroom, with tidbits of information, such as names of foreign correspondents or
schedules of cover stories for the Monitor’s weekly magazine.
Prior to the transition, the organization had a mid-day deadline and published one
newspaper each weekday. Because the newspaper relied on mail delivery to reach its
subscribers, the newsroom developed a strategy of introspective journalism over the years
to differentiate itself. To compensate for the delayed delivery cycle, the Monitor focused
on a more reflective take and took a bigger picture approach to covering the news.
Though it had had a Web site for years, the routines prior to 2009 — like those of many
other print dailies (Brown, 2008; Groves, 2009) — remained focused on the production
of the daily newspaper. Until 2007, the newsroom had separate managing editors for the
Web site and the newspaper; those positions were later merged.
John Yemma, a former Monitor reporter and business editor who had spent 20
years working at the Boston Globe, returned as editor of the Monitor in July 2008 (Cook,
2008). In an interview with the Monitor at the time, he affirmed the commitment to
Eddy’s founding principles, saying Eddy
founded the Monitor during the era of 'yellow journalism,' when

objectivity, accuracy, and fairness were in short supply. Now, at a time
when news organizations are struggling to establish a sustainable
economic base, the Monitor's role is more crucial than ever in providing
careful reporting, compassionate analysis, and a clear-eyed view of the
world (Cook, 2008).
At the time of his hiring, the Web staff had already begun experimenting with
Wordpress sites to provide more interaction than was available under the organization’s
previous K4 publishing system, which was geared toward print (J. Orr, interview,im pioss
Dec. 1, 2009). Soon afterward, the newsroom began investigating a new content-
management system.
The second key component of organizational culture is its espoused values
(Schein, 2010). In interviews, many staffers referred to “Monitor values” or “Monitor
journalism.” These espoused values described a type of journalism that is contextual,
explanatory, and solutions-oriented; journalism that avoids sensational or alarmist tones.
Several quoted Eddy’s original mission as a guiding principle for their work.!A few
samples from five different staffers over the course of the study period reveal how many
conceive of “Monitor journalism”:
The Monitor story before was a very particular kind of story. You always
looked for a larger analytical story on any given news point. You just
didn’t do the news story, you know. You always did something larger than
that, and you always looked for, to be, you know, to be more analytical
about it. (interview, Dec. 1, 2009)
… I think that Monitor journalism is basically like bringing an uplifted

sense to what’s happening in the world today and what the main currents
of thought are. I think that’s the most important thing. … and news is
important, but there’s just so much being done on the news of the day, and
not enough being done on what’s behind it. And so, I think good Monitor
journalism takes the time to investigate those deeper things that are more
important, that are instigating some of the little things that are popping up
every day. (interview, Dec. 4, 2009)
We talk about being solution-based journalism. We don’t go into the fray;

we try to push the discussion in a new way that is productive. (interview,
July 2010)
…a lot of us at the Monitor … perhaps are more mission-oriented than at

other places. Maybe it’s not quite that way, but, at least for me, it feels like
the type of journalism that we strive for, and that we were always known
for, is worth fighting for. (interview, Jan. 10, 2011)
I grew up reading the Monitor, and I valued the, well, values of what we
stand for. I like the solutions-based journalism and responses to world
issues; and yeah, so I really admire it. … seeking solutions to problems,
staying away from sensationalism, analysis and thoughtful kind of
assessment of what’s going on rather than jumping to snap conclusions
and going for, not so much a focus on breaking news, but more on
understanding the reasons, the causes behind the news of the day — I
mean, that’s what we aspire to. (interview, Jan. 7, 2011)
In meetings about content, whether for the Web or the print products, staffers also
mentioned the idea of a “Monitor story” to ensure that the ideal was kept in mind. Unlike
other newspapers, the structure of the Monitor places the editor and the publisher on
equal footing. The editor reports to a board of directors; the publisher reports to a
separate board of trustees, although both managers often meet with each other’s boards.
Such structures reinforce the importance of the news operation and its connection to the
larger mission set forth by Eddy.
Given the primacy of “Monitor journalism” to the organization’s identity, the
second major espoused value is the need to make these values come to life on the Web so
that the organization can survive, not only financially, but in terms of finding a larger
audience for this form of solution-based, serious journalism. One staffer, who has been at
the paper for over 30 years, said that the Web transition was a big morale booster because
despite what he saw as a winning product, in print it had a deeply declining circulation
and reach (interview, July 2010). The Monitor has thus set concrete goals and defined
some new espoused values for the web era. For example, page views was determined to
be a key early metric of success after the print daily was eliminated; departments were
given monthly targets to meet. By July 2010, staffers were also talking about the
importance of engagement and stickiness as the next critical metric, or getting people to
interact with content and stay on the site longer, although this concept was less well
defined and measured. Staffers were asked to increasingly value immediacy, jumping on
breaking news or trending topics quickly, to write more and shorter stories, and to master
search engine optimization, particularly in headlines, to give their stories Google juice.
As will be shown in greater detail later in the paper, these new values were constantly
reinforced in news meetings and in interactions between managers and staffers.
Finally, the third component of organizational culture is underlying assumptions,
or the often unspoken motivations for behavior. At the Monitor, the core underlying
assumption that affected the digital transition was a deep-seated sense that the Web is
fundamentally incompatible with Monitor values and that the increased attention to
traffic and metrics was undermining the craft of journalism and the editorial judgment
that fuels quality. Despite what many said was their hope that the paper could offer a
more serious take on the issues preoccupying the American public as surfaced by Google
trends, one editor said they still felt like a “carnival barker” pandering to the lowest
common denominator. Nearly all of those interviewed said they recognized that not just
the Monitor but the industry had reached what scholars of organizational change call a
“critical moment” in which they have to change to survive (Kets de Vries, 2001). It was
clear, however, that for all the talk about how the Web could be a new venue for
journalism values, many resisted change because they believe meaningful journalism is
difficult or impossible to achieve online. Also, the attention to metrics was undermining
their craft, like controlling an artist’s work by popular opinion.
Going Web first: Knowledge/persuasion
Like other newspapers, the Monitor had seen a noticeable decline in circulation in
recent years. Its daily circulation peaked at more than 220,000 in 1970; it was 52,000
when the change to Web-first was announced in October 2008 (Clifford, 2008). Within
three months of taking the helm, Yemma announced plans to eliminate the daily print
newspaper to become a Web-first operation (Clifford, 2008). The organization would
continue to publish a weekly magazine, but its emphasis would be the Web. At the time,
the organization’s Web site was getting 3 million page views per month; Yemma hoped
to reach 20 million to 30 million per month within five years to offset cuts in the church
subsidy. The church had provided about $12 million a year to the news organization, but
that amount was to be cut to $4 million by 2013 (Clifford, 2008).
In preparation for the transition, Yemma worked closely with Monitor publisher
Jonathan Wells. By December 2008, the organization had tallied responses from
customer-service lines and e-mails: 50 percent were positive, 14 percent were negative,
and the remainder wanted to know more about the change (J. Yemma, interview, Nov. 30,
2009). The organization also converted 93 percent of its subscriber base to the new print
weekly.
The Monitor identified a unique value proposition, or an updated mission to guide
its strategy in the months ahead: “Explaining world news to thoughtful people who care
about solutions.” At the time the study began, interviewees were familiar with the
statement and could quote all or some of the phrase. But several saw it as repackaging of
Eddy’s original mission, which many could quote verbatim.!!
In the first part of 2009, management offered voluntary buyouts to staffers and
held a town-hall meeting to take questions and discuss severance packages. The leaders
had set an April 30 deadline to complete its newsroom staff reduction. In a Feb. 2, 2009,
memo to staff from Yemma, a question-and-answer section made clear the connection
between cuts and the new mission:
Q: If after Feb. 16 you need to reduce the staff further with layoffs, how
will you decide which staffers get laid off?
A: We are first looking at the jobs and tasks necessary to carry out our
core publishing mission. That mission, of course, is changing as we move
to a Web-first strategy with a weekly print edition. We know that we will
have to do without certain positions and will have to narrow our editorial
focus. In general, if the work associated with a particular position is no
longer needed, that would be a position we would not continue to staff
(memo, Feb. 2, 2009).
As the Monitor published its last daily edition, Yemma sent the following e-mail
memo to the staff:
!
To the staff:
No need to bury the lede. This is a momentous day. After we clear the
final pages of the daily print Monitor today, we are in uncharted waters.
Everything we do from this point is new to us and new to the world of
journalism.
We'll try things, think about whether they worked, adjust, and try again.
We are all moving into this new Web-first + Weekly world together.
Years from now our successors at the Monitor -- and probably a lot of
people at other news organizations -- will be using techniques that we
have pioneered.
With apologies for King Harry's un-PC language:

"And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here"
Our goal, of course, is to carry out our 100-year-old mission, expand our
reach, and secure ourselves financially. It won't be easy. But we have all
the tools and support necessary to succeed. We are part of something
bigger than ourselves, part of an unfolding demonstration of eternal Love
for mankind (memo, March 25, 2009).
!
!
At the end of his memo, Yemma also noted the commitment to the organization’s
founder and founding principles: “Mary Baker Eddy launched us in 1908. Each year of
the 100 years and four months since then our predecessors have charted their course by
the values she instilled. It's up to us now” (J. Yemma, interview, March 25, 2009).
The newsroom staff was cut to 75 through attrition and voluntary buyouts. The
changes did not come without criticism, even from some former staffers. William A.
Babcock, a former senior international news editor for the Monitor, wrote an essay
critical of the Web-first move, noting, “… as the current church board of directors plans
to launch a new weekly edition of the print newspaper and beef up the Monitor's online
presence, it's difficult to be optimistic. After a century of publication, the Monitor could
have been a beacon — the sort of illuminating presence America's Founding Fathers
envisioned in our nation's marketplace of ideas. It is sad, if not tragic, that a church
allowed this journalistic light to be extinguished” (Babcock, 2009).
Shortly after the launch, Yemma and online editor Jimmy Orr began pushing a
new initiative: shorter stories with more frequent updates. Previously, most Monitor
stories included multiple sources and ran about 800 to 1,200 words. Now, the leadership
wanted stories no longer than 500 words. If possible, writers were to produce multiple
takes; newsroom leaders emphasized increased updating would help improve page-view
counts (J. Yemma, interview, Dec. 3, 2009). Orr, a former chief Internet communications
strategist for President George W. Bush and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
himself blogged regularly as part of a feature called The Vote blog. By July, the blog
accounted for 20 percent of the site’s traffic (memo, July 4, 2009).
By August, page views had reached 7.5 million, with 2.5 million to 3 million
unique visitors (Mitchell, 2009). In September, the organization hired a consulting firm to
provide advice on search-engine optimization. The changes introduced at this time came
primarily from the top, with Yemma, Orr, and managing editor Marshall Ingwerson
serving as the primary change agents (Rogers, 2003). The majority of the newsroom was
focused on the Web operation; less than a quarter of the staff was dedicated primarily to
the print operation on the organizational chart at the time the study began.
The newsroom developed a four-pronged approach of innovation to growing its
online audience:
• Increasing the frequency of updating from journalists, with two shorter

blog posts a day.
• Using search-engine optimization (SEO) techniques in headlines and

posts to improve positioning in organic Google searches and Google
News.
• Monitoring Google Trends for hot topics and occasionally assigning

stories that offer the Monitor’s nuanced take on issues people are
interested in and talking about.
• Using social media (Twitter, Facebook, and Digg) to extend the Web-site
presence and content to other audiences.
!
!
December 2009: Decision
!
By the first week of immersive observation, the Web-first culture had begun to
take hold, and page views had hit 9.5 million. The weekly magazine had performed better
than expected; after starting with 43,000 subscribers at launch, the paid subscriber base
had grown to 68,000 by December 2009. A third product, known as the Daily News
Briefing, was breaking even as well with 1,900 paid subscribers. It culled the best of the
Monitor’s original Web content into a three-page PDF file e-mailed to subscribers.
Despite the quantitative successes, several interviewees expressed concerns and
frustrations about some of the changes, as they felt writing headlines optimized for
Google short-changed readers, and providing shorter, more frequent content was far
removed from the Monitor’s original mission. One editor noted,
I mean, we’re up there with all the different newsiest online organizations
[in Google]. The down side would be, we’re doing a lot more sort of
culture war stuff — headlines with Palin in it and like gee-whiz electronic
gadgetry stuff — simply to get traffic. Little blogs that might be a good
read but don’t really have much reporting — if any — are sort of what
gets all the traffic; that, and photos of the day. So it’s a little disheartening
to be traipsing through the jungle, risking your life in the areas that I cover
for my readers, if that’s not going to get any traffic at all. All management
seems to care about is traffic (interview, Nov. 29, 2009)
All employees had access to the daily Omniture reports showing how stories
performed in terms of page views, the primary measure of success in the newsroom.
Workplace schedules had been adjusted to meet the rolling deadlines for the Web site,
ensuring coverage from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. each weekday. A skeletal staff of editors handled
duties through the weekend. The newsroom was also about to change from its K4 print-
focused publishing system to eZPublish, a content-management system designed for the
Web, which would allow editors to add links and photos, and publish stories without
having to go through the Web team.

Despite resistance in the newsroom, a few opinion leaders had begun to embrace
the idea. One editor, for example, had begun keeping a spreadsheet of how stories
performed on the Web to try to understand which topics and writers engaged readers.
Another summed up the internal tension mentioned by many in interviews:
The underlying thing about the whole transition is that if you do good
work, but no one sees it, what is the point? So even if you have to do
something that’s populist in order to draw readers, but then those readers
come and they’ll see other things that are good, then, that is the premise on
which, I think, we now operate (interview, Dec. 1, 2009).
In addition to shorter reports, the Web-first environment saw the evolution of
“roundups,” curated content from a variety of Web sources to help readers sort through
the news. More topical blogs had been added to the site as well, and the national desk had
instituted a requirement that all stories adhere to the 500-word limit. On the international
desk, the 500-word limitation was introduced as a guideline, and some writers did exceed
the limit. On the whole during this week, national stories tended to perform more strongly
than international.
Reporters were encouraged to use individual Twitter accounts and Facebook
pages to spread their stories, a recommendation that sparked some dissension from
bureau reporters who questioned whether it was worth the investment of time. Daily news
budget meetings began with a review of page-view reports and talk of what worked well
on the Web. As the move to Web first took hold, Orr emerged as a primary change agent,
along with Yemma. Orr often challenged traditional assumptions and routines, pointing
out different stories or themes as possibilities to increase traffic. When news of Tiger
Woods’ infidelities hit, Orr noted the trends in budget meetings. He experimented with
different types of blog posts and content, and often, blog posts would appear among the
most viewed stories on the Web site.
Several staffers said in interviews the organization had begun covering topics that
would not have appeared in the daily print edition, such as the unfolding circumstances
surrounding Michael Jackson’s unusual death and the story of a man who had faked the
disappearance of his son on an experimental balloon.
… now we can see exactly which story they’re reading and how much.
And you know — surprise, surprise — it’s the Tiger Woods, it’s the Sarah
Palin. Those are the ones, you know. Good stories are not assured of doing
badly, but you’re going to hit more, you’re going to get better page views
more consistently, with the stuff that’s kind of — can tend to be fluff. So
then the challenge of course is to decide whether you’re just going to take
a hit and not do it, or whether you’re going to try and find something you
can say about that, that adds to the conversation in a positive way. Not a
positive spin, but something that adds information (interview, Nov. 29,
2009).
Search-engine optimization (SEO) strategies were instituted as well, and how-to
memos were circulated. Some editors mentioned headlines optimized for Google often do
not always meet good editorial standards. As part of the Web-first strategy, editors also
spent more of their time tracking trends in Google and Yahoo. Another opinion leader,
who expressed some worry and skepticism, said: “I feel like we’re in a process, and it’s
hard to tell how far we’re gonna swing in that pendulum and where the right place is to
be on that. So I’m willing to sort of suspend some of my previous biases about who we
are and what we should be, to let this play out and see how this works” (interview, Dec. 1,
2009).
One survey respondent put it this way:
While keeping up with new techniques and a multimedia approach is

important, we need to maintain good, old-fashioned journalistic standards
as top priority. The race-to-the-bottom that occurs when the goal is to run
whichever stories get the maximum number of ‘hits’ is a huge risk when
you go to an all-Internet edition. The ‘cult of real time,’ i.e. the breathless
need to update a story every hour, often comes at the cost of context,
analysis and reflection (survey, January 2010).
Though editorial staffers had opened up to the Web-first idea, the Web staff
remained separated, physically and psychologically, from the national and international
news desks. Some Web staffers referred to feeling like “second-class citizens,” although
that sense had begun to change. Previously, requests for Web summaries and other Web-
specific content would go ignored; by December 2009, news staffers had become more
responsive to such queries. “I think we have a little bit more [stature], probably because
we’ve been able to demonstrate success,” one Web team member said (interview, Dec. 2,
2009). “We’ve been able to bring in a ton of traffic.”!
The weekly magazine, referred to as “the weekly” by most of the staff, features
more of the long-form journalism that most of the staff consider “Monitor journalism.”
At this point, editors and writers viewed assignments for the weekly as a respite from the
daily grind of the Web site. When working on an article for the weekly, staffers on the
national and international desks were temporarily freed from Web responsibilities.
By the end of the first study week, a few themes had emerged. Some worried
whether the organization had sacrificed quantity for quality. As one staffer said of the
Web: “Hopefully, we can be in it, but not of it.” The number of stories handled by editors
— in the form of updates, roundups, and blog posts — had increased sharply from the
days of the print newspaper, although most of the pieces were shorter. Still, many people
noted the increased workload in interviews. Also, the national and international desks
became more competitive in terms of page-view results.

Though the Web team and the editorial desks had been separate, the differences
had lessened gradually as more editors were forced to embrace a Web-first ethic.
!
July 2010: Implementation
!
In July 2010, more than one year into the digital transition, there were some signs
that despite some ongoing underlying resistance, the staff was settling into the new
routines and, in some ways, finding gratification in the paper’s increased audience.
Editor Yemma likened the process of adjusting to change to the stages of grief
and noted that it is an industry-wide phenomenon in the newspaper business. He said
there was huge resistance at first, particularly for older staffers, but that people became
gradually more accepting over time and came to recognize that the changes were not as
threatening to their values or professional identity as originally thought. He noted that he
saw a similar process when working at the Globe, and added that he felt many at the
Monitor had already “read the writing on the wall” by the time he arrived there.
One mid-level editor went so far as to seek out the researcher to note how much
better he felt about the new expectations since having first been interviewed in December
2009: “I’m really gratified. The higher efficiency is really rewarding. We have gotten
really nimble, we feel more responsive and relevant…. Yemma said we would get more
efficient, and we really have…We are out of the middle of the storm” (interview, July
2010). He felt that while stories were less meaty and less original, he was surprised at the
good that had come out of being more responsive to readers, allowing the paper to
increase its relevance, as well as his own ability to edit more stories more quickly than he
ever thought possible. Similarly, another staffer said that the staff size was first decreased
in her department, there was initial panic, but “once you get the routine down, it’s OK.”
A staffer said that March 2010, about one year in to the transition, was a
significant moment, bringing “a huge sigh of relief” as “there is a feeling there’s been
some responsiveness on management’s part as to how heavy the workload had gotten.”
Daily story counts for departments were reduced slightly or not heavily enforced, she said,
and she felt that traffic goals were not being increased as much as they had initially
thought they might be; on the international desk, a request for an additional staffer did
result in an intern being hired.
What some described as not only acceptance but excitement about the quest for
traffic and its instant gratification led to a shift in how staffers felt about writing for the
magazine. While it was still prized as a place for longform journalism and “Monitor
values,” magazine editors had had an increasingly hard time getting staffers to write for it,
especially cover stories that require a significant investment of time. In some cases,
staffers would not return calls to magazine staffers. Part of this was a sense that with the
increasingly fast pace of output for the Web, it was hard to fit in the magazine stories, but
part of it was also a concern about what slowing down the publication cycle would mean
for an individual’s or a department’s all-important numbers. Editors were reluctant to
have more than one of their reporters pulled out of the rotation to focus on magazine
work because it would of course lessen their ability to contribute traffic-generating stories.
Even some of the staffers who had been at the Monitor for more than a decade
expressed some enthusiasm for the change, often noting that the transition was much less
wrenching than the Monitor’s failed experiment with broadcasting in the late 1980s and
early 1990s. One said, “I’m at the end of my career, at least in theory. I feel like anything
is possible. It’s injected some new vitality into my thinking” (interview, July 2010).
Another said that after investing his career there, he didn’t want to be one of the ones to
turn the lights out on the newsroom. He noted all news organizations are trying to figure
out what works in the new-media world, and in some ways, the new mandates were
allowing the Monitor to get its edge back again. “This time, I can cope, learn, deal,
whatever you want to call it,” he said (interview, July 2010).
However, there were still some pockets of resistance to change and anxiety about
what it meant for the Monitor in July 2010. One staffer said that the change had not
played out as much as been fought out. Many continued to express concerns that the hunt
for page views was driving poor journalistic choices. One person on the business side of
the organization said:
It’s hard, if you’ve been working here for 30 years, to realize that people are not
reading what you are writing. That is tough for people. Change is a real struggle.
Power has shifted dramatically from editors deciding what is important…It’s a
hard mindshift to take, that readers are not as interested in what you want them to
be interested in. Maybe they really are more interested in Paris Hilton than the
deficit, even if you don’t like it. You are giving up that control….the real cultural
challenge is just the idea that the customer knows best, that the customer knows
anything…yes, we can’t just chase page views at any cost. But the newsroom has
to give up the idea that they can just do whatever interests them. So if readers
want a weekly column about what is going on the White House, give that to them,
even if that’s not what you feel like doing. This makes me very concerned…the
Web allows you to have an iterative process and change very quickly, and that’s
what the Web competition is doing, but journalists just don’t want to do that
(interview, July 2010).
The Monitor did, however, maintain a spirit of experimentation and evolution, even if the
process wasn’t as quick as it may be in Silicon Valley. For example, the Green Blog, an
environmental blog written by Eoin O’Carroll, a member of the Web staff, was canceled
in March 2010. Yemma explained in an e-mail to the Columbia Journalism Review:

… in a world in which editors manage ever-more constrained resources,

no decision is ever made for just one reason. We felt confident about
moving in the direction I’ve outlined and we also wanted Eoin, our
blogger, to contribute in other ways. He is one of our most valuable Web
specialists and has played a key role, for instance, in the implementation
of our new content management system. That was a high priority with us.
The Bright Green blog has been updated much less frequently because of
Eoin’s other duties. It seemed logical, then, to discontinue it, since best
practice with blogs is frequent updating (CJR, 2010).
Shortly after the July visit, Orr left the paper to take a job with the Los Angeles Times,
and Dave Scott, an award-winning international editor, took over as online editor. In a
memo introducing the change, Yemma noted of Scott:
He lived Monitor values in the field and supports them in the newsroom.
He understands what makes Monitor journalism unique. And he knows
that the entire news industry is in an unprecedented period of transition
that requires new survival skills, creativity, flexibility, experimentation,
and collaboration. That requires a continued emphasis on increasing our
traffic along with a new emphasis on deepening reader engagement
(memo, July 2010).
Several staffers also confirmed their trust in Scott. One said, “he has a ton
of credibility in the newsroom,” (interview, July 2010). However, some
executives on the business side were a little concerned about Orr’s departure,
noting that Orr “gets it” in the way many others don’t, especially the need to
balance the drive for page views with engagement and an overall understanding of
metrics and how to achieve them.
Indeed, Orr was willing to confront and challenge traditional assumptions.
One editor noted Orr “broke a lot of eggs, which you had to clean up” but in
doing so, he took the newsroom forward. “He had this great energy, was always
pushing boundaries. A lot of what he did got people worked up, especially
longtime reporters and editors, but we needed that to some extent” (interview,
July 2010).
Orr himself saw his role as fighting an uphill battle to get journalists to
understand that it is not about what they like, it’s about what the readers like.
However, he noted that the Monitor’s relatively small size and bureaucracy, in
proportion to its journalistic heft, in many ways made it easier to push change
forward.
!
January 2011: Confirmation
!
Almost two years into the change, SEO and a Web-first philosophy had become
part of the newsroom routine. “Riding the Google wave” had become a common phrase,
as staffers had figured out how to write quickly and freshly on topics trending on the
Internet. The strategy had reaped page-view gains, and the newsroom had become adept
at experimenting with different strategies to increase traffic. Some ideas, such as quickly
adding wire stories not produced by Monitor staff to chase trending topics, worked but
were seen as artificial means of inflating numbers. Though success had bred converts,
some reporters and editors had not lost all skepticism.
…there have been times when I think we send mixed messages. Like we
all talk about Monitor journalism, but it’s like, we’ll do anything to get
hits. And we’ll give up our core values to get them. So I always feel like
there’s a mixed message going on around here (interview, Jan. 10, 2011).
Sometimes I feel like the content is shaping itself rather than us shaping
the content (interview, Jan. 10, 2011).
…it’s still an evolution, I guess. I think there’s still difficult things that
we’re trying to wrestle to the ground. I think some of the staff — how to
put this? — still is trying to figure out whether we still stand for what we
used to stand for, you know? Or, is it changed? So it’s still an adjustment.
The adjustment is still going on, even from that initial transition (interview,
Jan. 11, 2011).
Though the weekly and Daily News Briefing numbers had remained flat, page
views had continue to grow over the year. In November and December, the site
experienced monthly page views of 19.4 million, and the Monitor’s stories regularly
received top ranking on Google searches and Google News.
Scott’s appointment to online editor reaffirmed a commitment to Monitor
journalism in the eyes of several interviewees in the newsroom. “I feel like he’s been
there and done that on the editorial side in terms of having journalism background. … So
he’s got a lot more respect and credibility when he goes and asks you to do something,”
one staffer said (interview, Jan. 9, 2009).
As Yemma had mentioned in his memo announcing Scott’s appointment, the
online editor began focusing on the idea of reader engagement; rather than just
concentrating on page views, he began investigating time spent on site as a measure of
success. He worked with the Web staff to create new content vehicles called “multipliers”
that some felt were more in line with traditional Monitor values. Adding new vocabulary
to the newsroom lingo indicated a certain comfort level with the concepts. Such
“multipliers” included photo galleries of multiple images on specific topics and links to
related Monitor content. Reporters also began developing online quizzes, spread over
multiple Web pages, on news topics. Several staffers saw such efforts as educational and
befitting of the traditional Monitor mission. Writers and bloggers regularly produce
“lists” related to news trending topics; each item is featured on a separate page.
Many in the newsroom reported feeling more “settled” than before, in part
because page views had increased so sharply and people began to believe that the 25
million page-view goal was possible and sustainable over the long term. One editor noted
success had eased some anxiety in the newsroom: “I think things have settled down. It’s
easier to have a conversation because our numbers are up” (interview, Jan. 6, 2011).
With the implementation of eZPublish, the creation of Web content had become
democratized throughout the newsroom, and the noneditorial Web staff had been reduced
to five people, as some former Web people had taken on writing and editing roles. And
even staffers whose job descriptions were focused on the weekly had begun produce
quizzes and blog posts for the Web, a change from a year earlier.
…everybody feels this ownership now, and it’s been, it’s been great for us
in terms of traffic and it’s been great for us in terms of workload,
especially now that we’ve got this new technology system. And it also
gives us space to experiment with new ideas (interview, Jan. 11, 2011).
The first part of every budget meeting remained dedicated to discussing page-
view reports. Two content items, the lead story and the “upper left,” had been added to
the home page on the Web to focus on Monitor-specific content throughout the day, and a
rundown of candidates for these slots had become part of the budget-meeting process.
These items, combined with multipliers, were meant to transform search traffic into
destination visitors, people who come to read Monitor news and filter through the site’s
offerings.
In November 2010, the organization also enabled comments on the site to
increase participation. The comments were placed on a separate page from the stories,
requiring an additional click; for the most part, the organization had not experienced a
rash of negative commentary, as other news sites have experienced (Perez-Pena, 2010).
The news librarian served as in-house monitor for the comments; she would respond
when a comment had been flagged by a number of users as offensive. The newsroom had
also begun affiliation agreements with bloggers outside of the organization to expand its
reach.
Other facets of the Web efforts have been modified, however. A daily podcast
interview with Monitor correspondents and a weekly Webcast with Yemma were
discontinued because of low numbers and lack of revenue. A push for increased Twitter
and Facebook use by reporters had slowed by the final study week, although a Web staff
member now dedicated much time to managing the organization’s Facebook page.
The weekly magazine is still held in high regard by those in the newsroom as the
place where serious journalism, the long-form journalism that the Monitor is known for,
is done. The weekly meeting has a slower pace and features little talk of page views and
Web performance. At weekly critique meetings, editors flip through the magazine and
critique photo selection and writing style. More time is spent focusing on the content; the
Web is rarely mentioned. The newsroom is now preparing for a reader survey to find out
who is reading the weekly and what kind of content they want out of the magazine; it is
applying the same kind of audience feedback from the Web site to the magazine.
For many in the newsroom, success comes in the form of page views, which holds
the keys to the future of the organization. One staffer said:
It’s just digits; it’s numbers. That’s the sad truth of it, is that a lot of the
decisions are now made by numbers, and I get it, but you know, it’s not as
romantic as you’d like. But you know, we get big numbers, and that’s
doing our job well. And we’ve been lucky enough, I think, to get — to
keep increasing, to keep pushing that needle further every month
(interview, Jan. 11, 2011).
!
Conclusion/discussion
!
In many respects, the Monitor has embraced the emergent strategy of innovative
organizations to remain competitive (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). It is regularly

experimenting with new techniques to increase Web traffic, and is constantly refining
metrics, albeit perhaps at a somewhat slower pace than organizations like the Huffington
Post that never had a legacy product to weigh down its mentality, as a person from the
business side of the organization noted (interview, July 2010). It is willing to dispense
with multimedia offerings that fail to garner page views. Such an iterative environment
has led to success in page views, although the ad revenue promised by such successes has,
importantly, not followed yet.
Since March 2009, the innovation of Web-first journalism has spread throughout
the newsroom. It was introduced as a top-down initiative, with page-view demands and
staff cutbacks. As page views rose, success validated and embedded new routines,
turning implementation into confirmation (Rogers, 2003; Schein, 2010).
In answering RQ1, the Monitor’s culture is rooted in its history, mission, and
connection to the First Church of Christ, Scientist. Though the organization emphasizes it
is not a religious publication, its multimillion-dollar subsidy from the church and number
of employees who are church members inextricably tie the church and its values to the
organization. The original mission, “To injure no man, but to bless all mankind,” remains
a guiding principle.
Staffers are especially proud of the paper’s long-time commitment to serious
news, exemplified by the seven Pulitzers it was won. But the reality of more frequent
updates has resulted in less original reporting and fewer Monitor-originated interviews
that some staffers believe are compromising the core values and thus tarnishing the brand.
One editor summed up the struggle of frequent updating, still apparent almost two years
in:
So I have to do it six, seven times (a day), you know — to think of stories

that bring what I would consider our Monitor values to a topic that is not
where we normally would have been, and we’re doing it because the
public is interested in this topic. So, what do we have to say about it that’s
interesting, or clearer, or sheds some new perspective on what’s going on
here? And it’s hard. You know, we weren’t accustomed to having to be
that instantaneously responsive, and we don’t have the luxury of saying,
“Well, you know that story is really not for us.” And when we’ve got
page-view targets that we’re all assessed to hit every month, you’ve gotta
come up with something on what people want to read about. And it’s just
a lot of work (interview, Jan. 11, 2011).
However, many staffers also recognize that the Web does not mean forsaking
these values and can in fact enhance them; in some ways, the Monitor staff sees itself as
leading the way online by showing how it can add the kind of well-verified context and
nuance to stories other outlets can’t or won’t. By the end of the study period, several
staffers felt more frequent stories did not necessarily mean less depth; sometimes one
longer story may now be a series of three shorter posts instead, as the reporter gradually
learns more about the issue. In addition, the weekly offers regular real estate and
institutional support for in-depth, investigative pieces and provided an outlet for
traditional Monitor journalism to sustain job satisfaction.
In answering RQ2 and RQ3, the newsroom has focused its success on page-view
goals and the new metric of reader engagement, as measured by time spent on site. To
meet these goals, staffers have developed new routines to “ride the Google wave” and
pursue trending topics. In the past, the news organization wrote stories based primarily on
reporter and editor choice, much as traditional organizations had done to fill time and
space requirements (Gans, 2004; Tuchman, 1978). But the Monitor began filing shorter
items and posts, with fewer sources, more frequently. Often, four or five posts on a hot
topic could appear within a day’s time to keep the readers coming back for more. Most of
the 75-person newsroom remained focused on producing content for the Web.
With such a focus, most of the newsroom had to shift from a monochronic,
singular deadline focus to a polychronic environment with multiple deadlines, a move
that can often create some anxiety (Schein, 2010). Several scholars have connected how
time and space constraints affect the routinization of newswork (e.g. Tuchman, 1978;
Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). In this instance, the elimination of the daily newspaper freed
the organization from the constraints of the print product, something that has hindered
change efforts at other newspapers as they moved to the Web (Brown, 2008; Groves,
2009). Here, falling back on traditional routines was not possible because the Web site
became the primary platform. New routines had to be created, and with success in the
form of page views, these new routines became embedded, although some resistance
remained.
These Web-first innovations were introduced by Orr as the primary change agent.
He proved the success of blogging and frequent updating with his The Vote blog, and his
team incorporated SEO strategies to garner more page views for stories. They served as
the proving ground, providing observability in the Rogers paradigm. Soon, opinion
leaders in other parts of the newsroom began implementing those ideas, especially with
the new eZPublish content-management system in place reducing complexity and
allowing for trialability. With experimentation proliferating throughout the newsroom,
staffers began to see the advantages and compatibility with their goals. With all of these
facets in place, the innovation decision took hold throughout the social system.
One tangible result of the changing routines is the effect on content. Some
Monitor staffers voiced concerns that quantity was winning out over quality in the quest
for page views and unique visitors. During the study periods, the Monitor tackled stories
such as Tiger Woods’ infidelities, sinkholes and ski-chairlift accidents in Maine — topics
that several staffers said would not have been covered in the past. But many agreed such
changes are necessary for survival, and many felt that the Web was making the Monitor
more relevant and, by increasing the number of people likely to read its content, more
influential and capable of having nationwide impact.
Much of the acceptance of the change comes through rationalizing the effect of
their work. Although the work comes in shorter blog posts and shorter pieces, many of
the reporters and editors have come to accept the “rolling story” idea, that the story
evolves over a series of posts, rather than as a single story with three or four sources.!
…now, I may have 90 minutes to get a blog up, and I’m happy to get one
source to call me. You know? Now, I could wait for more sources, but if I
do, I miss the trend. And I gotta make the trend. So, you, you get faster;
but you also sacrifice comprehensiveness. Now, you know, every
journalist has faced this since time immemorial. I mean, this is nothing
new in the sense that we all face deadlines, and we all have to, we all have
to get out stuff quickly. It’s just, it’s just a bigger leap for us, because
before … the deadline was so paper-driven that we had time to kinda think
about stuff. And we don’t now (interview, Jan. 10, 2011).
!
Rogers’ framework (2003) is useful when considering RQ4. The enduring values
of journalism outlined by Kovach and Rosenstiel (2007) — especially the importance of
verification and the pursuit of truth — fit well within the Monitor’s original founding
mission. But the focus on survival and the quest for page views initially subverted those
values in the eyes of many in the newsroom. Yemma and Orr became prime change
agents to introduce the innovation of Web-first journalism to a resistant newsroom that

worried about the impact of quantity over quality. Several worried that pursuing a
strategy focused on page views would ultimately endanger the journalism that had won
Pulitzer Prizes in the past.
However, the newsroom faced a crisis point (Kets de Vries, 2001; Schein, 2010):
The church’s subsidy would be cut within five years, and the organization had to be able
to sustain itself. Over the years, the print paper’s circulation had gradually eroded, and
the mail delivery of the paper took the Monitor out of the national consciousness. Despite
Pulitzer prizes and respect from academics and fellow journalists, the publication did not
reach the vast majority of Americans; business-side executives said one of their primary
challenges in securing advertisements and subscribers was educating people unfamiliar
with the Monitor that it is not a religious publication. This stressor forced changes despite
resistance. Several interviewees expressed a sense of anxiety and helplessness during
December 2009 study weeks. They did not like the idea of abandoning the values, but
they had no alternate solutions to secure survival.
With Yemma and Orr leading the way, some key opinion leaders embraced Web-
first and tried to bring Monitor journalism to the Web. By hitting page-view goals each
month, staffers began to believe that they could succeed and become relevant in a new
age. With the Web, the organization began to tap into a wider audience, and with the
number came a sense among many in the newsroom that Monitor journalism could take a
new form. There came an acceptance of this new shorter, less-deep journalism because
the organization — with millions of page views and unique visitors — became more
relevant. When people searched for news topics on Google, the Monitor was now among
the New York Times, CNN and other national news organization on the first page of hits.
This new sense of confidence was bolstered by the appointment of Scott, an editor
more in the mold of the traditional Monitor journalist, with deep ties to the organization’s
journalistic commitment. The new normal of the newsroom then became finding a way to
reconcile the new routines with the traditional mission established by Eddy in 1908. By
moving a longtime international editor to the online spot, the news organization re-
emphasized its commitment to tradition while looking ahead.
Despite the new online editor’s roots in the organization, a culture of innovation
had taken hold at the organization, and he remained committed to finding new ways to
expand page views — within the bounds set by the traditional mission. As a result, new
forms to deepen engagement arose, such as the “multipliers” (quizzes, photo galleries,
and related links), and new experimental efforts continued to evolve. Unmoderated
comments were added, and the newsroom struck up affiliation agreements with select
guest bloggers to expand content and traffic.
The news organization was also willing to abandon new-media efforts that did not
reap expected traffic, a key quality for sustainable innovation (Christensen, Anthony &
Roth, 2004). The Monitor quit dedicating time and resources to a daily podcast because
of lack of traffic and sponsorship, and a weekly Webcast that featured Yemma was
stopped after a few months. But those strategies that succeeded, such as SEO techniques,
blog affiliation agreements, and frequent updating, became embedded in the culture.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge.

New York: Oxford University Press.
Babcock, W. (2009, April 9) A sad legacy: Director let daily print Christian Science
Monitor fold. MinnPost. Retrieved from
http://www.minnpost.com/community_voices/2009/04/09/7926/a_sad_legacy_directors_l
et_daily_print_christian_science_monitor_fold
Brainard, C. (2010, March 9) Monitor-ing the environment. Columbia Journalism Review.

Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/monitoring_the_environment.php
Brown, C. (2008). New media and enduring values: Managing change at a daily
newspaper in the digital age. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri
Brown, C. and Groves, J. (2010). New media, enduring values: How three news
organizations managed change in an era of uncertainty. Electronic News (4): 3.
Canham, E. (1958) Commitment to freedom: The story of the Christian Science Monitor.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Christian Science Monitor (1997) Christian Science Monitor stylebook. In-house binder.
Christian Science Monitor (2011) About the Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from
http://www.csmonitor.com/About/The-Monitor-difference
Christensen, C.M., Anthony, S.D., and Roth, E.A. (2004) Seeing what’s next: Using the
theories of innovation to predict industry change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C.M. & Raynor, M.E. (2003) The innovator’s solution: Creating and
sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clifford, S. (2008) Christian Science paper to end daily print edition. New York Times.
Cook, D. (2008, June 9) John Yemma named Monitor editor. Christian Science Monitor.
Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2008/0609/p25s08-usgn.html
Daniels, G.L., & Hollifield.C.A. (2002). Time of turmoil: Short- and long-term
effects of organizational change on newsroom employees, Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 79: 661-680.
Dyer, W.G. & Wilkins, A.L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate
better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3):

613-619.
Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Gade, P. (2004) Newspapers and organizational development: Management and

journalist perceptions of newsroom cultural change. Journalism Monographs, 6 (1), 3-55.
Gade, P., & Perry E. (2003) Changing the newsroom culture: A four-year case study of
organizational development at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 80(2). 327-347.
Gans, H.J. (2004) Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly
News, Newsweek, and Time (25th anniversary edition). Evanston, Ill: Northwestern
University Press.
Groves, J. (2009). “Understanding the change to integration: An organizational analysis

of a small newspaper.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri
Harrison, M. I. (2005). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models and processes.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jankowski, N.W. & Wester, F. (1991). The qualitative tradition in social science inquiry:
Contributions to mass communication research. In K.B. Jensen & N.W. Jankowski (Eds.),
A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research, (44-74).
London and New York: Routledge.
Kets de Vries, M. (2001) The leadership mystique. London: Prentice Hall Financial
Times.
Kovach, B., and Rosenstiel, T. (2007) The elements of journalism. New York: Three
Rivers.
Missouri Group, The (2010) Telling the story, fourth edition. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
Mitchell, B. (2009, Aug. 5) Circulation, page views up at Christian Science Monitor, but
solvency not yet in sight. Poynter.org. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/latest-
news/business-news/newspay/97632/circulation-page-views-up-at-christian-science-
monitor-but-solvency-not-yet-in-sight/
Perez-Pena, R. (2010, April 12) News sites rethink anonymous online comments. New
York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html
Project for Excellence in Journalism (2011). State of the News Media 2011. Retrieved
from http://stateofthemedia.org/
Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010). State of the News Media 2010. Retrieved
from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2010/
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition. New York: Free Press.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership, 4th edition. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism,

2(2), 149-170.
------ (2003). The sociology of news. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Shoemaker, P., and Reese, S. (1996) Mediating the message: Theories of influence on
mass media content, second edition. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishers USA.
Singer, J. B. (2004). Strange bedfellows? The diffusion of convergence in four news

organizations. Journalism Studies 5(1) 3-18.
Stamm, K. & Underwood, D. (1993). The relationship of job satisfaction to newsroom

policy changes. Journalism Quarterly 70(3), 528-541.
Stoll, M., & McManus, J. (2005). Downward spiral. Quill , 10-11.
Sylvie, G. & Witherspoon, P.D. (2002). Time,change and the American newspaper.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen's

notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660-679.
!
Tuchman, G. (1978) Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The
Free Press.
Underwood, D., Giffard, C.A., & Stamm, K. (1994). Computers and editing: Pagination’s
impact on the newsroom. Newspaper Research Journal 15(2), 116-127.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zelizer, B. (2004). Taking journalism seriously: News and the academy. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
The Active Recipient
The Active Recipient:

Participatory Journalism Through the Lens of the
Dewey-Lippmann Debate
Paper presented to:

International Symposium on Online Journalism 2011
University of Texas, Austin
Austin, April 2011
Alfred Hermida, University of British Columbia, Canada

David Domingo, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain
Ari A. Heinonen, University of Tampere, Finland
Steve Paulussen, Ghent University, Belgium
Thorsten Quandt, Universität Hohenheim, Germany
Zvi Reich, Ben Gurion University, Israel
Jane B. Singer, University of Iowa, USA / University of Central Lancashire, UK
Marina Vujnovic, Monmouth University, USA
Lead author contact information:

Alfred Hermida
Graduate School of Journalism
University of British Columbia
6388 Crescent Road
Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2
Canada
Tel: 1 604 827 3540

E-mail: alfred.hermida@ubc.ca
0
The Active Recipient: Participatory Journalism Through the Lens of the Dewey-
Lippmann Debate
Alfred Hermida, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt,
Zvi Reich, Jane Singer and Marina Vujnovic
Abstract:
News outlets are providing more opportunities than ever before for the public
to contribute to professionally edited publications. Online news websites
routinely provide tools to facilitate user participation in the news, from
enabling citizens to submit story ideas to posting comments on stories. This
study on participatory journalism draws on the perspectives of writer Walter
Lippmann and philosopher John Dewey on the role of the media and its
relationship to the public to frame how professional journalists view
participatory journalism. Based on semi-structured interviews with journalists
at about two dozen newspaper websites, as well as a consideration of the sites
themselves, we suggest that news professionals view the user as an active
recipient of the news. Journalists have tended to adopt a Deweyan approach
towards participatory tools and mechanisms, within carefully delineated rules.
As active recipients, users are framed as idea generators and observers of
newsworthy events at the start of the journalistic process, and then in an
interpretive role as commentators who reflect upon professionally produced
material.
Keywords: Audiences, Dewey, Lippmann, journalism, newspapers, participatory

journalism
Note:
This paper draws from research conducted for the book, Participatory
Journalism in Online Newspapers: Guarding the Internet’s Open Gates,
published in April 2011 by Wiley-Blackwell.
1
“Vision is a spectator, hearing is a participator,” (Dewey 1927: 219)
Calls for the public to participate in some shape or form in journalism have
become almost standard on news websites. Visitors to news sites are consistently
urged to send in a photo, comment on a story or share a link on a social network. In
the journalism of the 21st century, news organizations are providing more
opportunities than ever before for the public to contribute to professionally edited
publications. Online news websites routinely provide tools to enable the news
consumer to do something that goes beyond just reading the news (Hermida and
Thurman, 2008; Thurman and Hermida, 2010).
This study draws on the perspectives of writer Walter Lippmann and
philosopher John Dewey on the role of the media in democratic societies to frame
how professional journalists view participatory journalism. It explores whether the
Internet’s participatory potential is bringing about a shift in established modes of
journalism and opening up the media to new voices, leading to what might be
considered a more democratic and representative media space.
One of the motivations behind the adoption of participatory mechanisms by
established media, and newspapers in particular, has been “to connect more
effectively with changing usage patterns and the ‘real’ needs and preferences of their
public” (Paulussen et al, 2008: 132). We hope to locate participatory journalism
within the ongoing discussion begun in the 1920s by Lippmann and Dewey about the
nature of democracy, the media and the ability of citizens to debate and decide on
complex issues.
2
The Lippmann-Dewey debate
The Lippmann-Dewey philosophical discussion on democracy and the media
is often characterized as a binary debate. Alterman (2008) depicts it as “one of the
most instructive and heated intellectual debates of the American twentieth century”
(2008: 52), describing Walter Lippmann as “the archetypal insider pundit” and John
Dewey as “the prophet of democratic education” (2008: 53). The interchange between
the two men continues to be relevant to the role of the media because of what Bybee
calls the “interconnections of citizenship, media, and democracy” (1999: 30). He
argues that the actions and decisions of citizens are linked to “the politics of how we
know” (1999:30) - in other words, how journalists decide and report on the news.
Journalists in modern Western societies see themselves as central to the proper
functioning of democracy. News practitioners see it as their responsibility to ensure
that citizens have the credible information necessary to govern themselves wisely
(Kovach and Rosenstiel 2006; Gans 2003). Both Lippmann and Dewey shared a
common belief in the crucial role of the press in a vibrant democracy. But Lippmann
([1922] 1965) thought that modern society had become too complex for the public to
understand and be able to make informed decisions. He envisioned a role for the press
as the bridge between the uninformed masses and powerful insiders who help
formulate the policies of elected decision-makers. The function of the journalist, then,
is to “evaluate the policies of government and present well-informed conclusions
about these key debates to the public,” (Champlin and Knoedler, 2006: 121).
While Dewey agreed with much of Lippmann’s critique of the future of
democracy, he diverges on his view of the public and role of the press. Dewey viewed
journalists as the teachers of the public; Lippmann saw them as leaders of the
citizenry (Champlin and Knoedler, 2006). Dewey ([1922] 1976) saw the public as
3
capable of rational thought and decision-making, with the active participation of
citizens as essential for a healthy democracy. In this context, the job of the journalist
is to engage and educate the public in the key policy issues of the day, enabling them
to participate in the democratic discourse.
According to Schudson (2008), Lippmann’s view of journalism is the
dominant kind today due to the professionalization of journalism during the 20th
century. Newspapers became finished products with virtually all their editorial
content authored by individuals – the professional journalists (Stephens 2008).
Lippmann ([1922] 1965) used a visual metaphor for democratic communication that
just as easily applies to journalism. Whipple argues that “by emphasizing vision, the
democratic process for Lippmann becomes something in which citizens do not
actively participate, but passively watch—they become spectators rather than
participants,” (2005: 160). Journalism largely developed as a spectator activity, with
an elite group in control of the “overall process through which the social reality
transmitted by the news media is constructed” (Shoemaker et al, 2001: 233).
Dewey, however, adopted a different metaphor — the ear, rather than the eye.
For him the difference between being a spectator and a participant was the difference
between watching and hearing. In contrast to Lippmann, Dewey emphasized
conversation as the ideal form of human communication through which individuals
construct the truth (Schudson, 2008). If citizens are “naturally active participants, not
passive spectators,” (Whipple, 2005: 161), then the ability of news consumers to take
part in the production of their news and information environment offers a way to test
Deweyan assumptions of participation.
4
Lippmann, Dewey and participatory journalism
While Lippmann viewed journalism as a hierarchical system of providers and
consumers, Dewey viewed journalism as a much more collaborative system for
conversation, debate, and dialogue. The two perspectives provide a framework to
understand how news professionals view participatory journalism – whether
journalists see themselves as an elite group who should evaluate and present analysis
to a spectator public or whether journalists believe they should provide ways for
citizens to interact and participate in the news (Champlin and Knoedler, 2006).
Proponents of participatory models of journalism (Gillmor, 2004) argue that
the democratic role of journalism in a changing society needs to be redefined. These
critiques address the top-down approach of the professional journalistic gatekeeper
and reimagine journalism as a conversation with citizens that encourages them to take
an active role in news processes. Alterman goes as far as describing new media
platforms such as blogs as representing “a revival of the Deweyan challenge to our
Lippmann-like understanding of what constitutes ‘‘news’’ and, in doing so, might
seem to revive the philosopher’s notion of a genuinely democratic discourse” (2008:
55).
Definitions of participatory journalism tend to be based on a normative
assumption of the behavior of citizens, drawing from Dewey’s view of the public as
doing more than simply reading the news. Terms such as participatory journalism,
citizen journalism and user-generated content are often used to describe what
Bowman and Willis (2003: np) define as "the act of a citizen, or group of citizens,
playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and
disseminating news and information." They add a public interest element to the
definition, positing that the “intent of this participation is to provide independent,
5
reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires,”
(2003; np).
The underlying assumption behind the notion of participatory journalism is a
shift from passive consumption to active engagement, embracing a “Deweyan
participatory approach to the information environment,” (Whipple, 2005: 175).
Indeed, a Deweyan ethos underlies much of the rhetoric on participatory journalism.
Jenkins has evoked the emergence of a participatory media culture that “contrasts
with older notions of passive media spectatorship,” (2006: 3), while Gillmor (2004:
136) has labelled the public as the “former audience” to stress that citizens should not
be considered as a passive group of consumers.
For this paper, we wanted to understand how journalists think about the role of
the audience in a participatory media culture that challenges long-established
journalistic norms and practices. We draw on the perspectives of Lippmann and
Dewey on the role of the media and its relationship to the public to frame how
professional journalists view participatory journalism.
There are a number of terms used to describe the ability of citizens to
contribute in a myriad of ways to professionally edited publications, such as user-
generated content or citizen journalism. We have chosen the term participatory
journalism (Domingo et al., 2008; Deuze, 2006; Bowman & Willis, 2003) to
encompass the processes through which journalists and audiences are taking part in
the gathering, selecting, publishing, disseminating and interpretation of the news
featured within an institutional product such as the newspaper website.
Research in this area indicates that, so far, journalists have been reluctant to
open up most of the news production process to citizens (Domingo et al, 2008;
Hermida and Thurman, 2008). The notion that participatory journalism could give
6
the public significant influence over the news process is widely unthinkable in the
profession (Thurman and Hermida, 2010).
Methodology
Our study is based on semi-structured interviews with more than 60 news
professionals drawn from about two dozen leading national newspapers, together with
a consideration of the newspaper websites themselves (see Appendix A for a list of
newspapers). The interviews were based on a common list of questions and conducted
in 2007 and 2008 by a team of researchers.
A textual analysis of the transcriptions of the recorded interviews was
conducted to identify themes and key ideas related to a set of core issues of interest to
the researchers. These included journalistic rationales for opening up their websites to
user input, the role of users as perceived by our interviewees and overall journalistic
self-perceptions and ideologies. While participatory tools have evolved since the
fieldwork was conducted, it remains important to understand how journalists view
and frame the audience
We selected newspapers in 10 Western democracies - Belgium, Canada,
Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United
States – because of the contribution of journalism to the democratic need for an
informed citizenry (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2006; Gans 2004). Our focus is
particularly relevant to this paper that considers the intersection between discourse
and democracy (Dewey, 1927; Habermas, 1989), and what Gillmor describes as the
shift of journalism from a lecture to a conversation (2004).
7
Findings
Our study found that all the newspaper websites were providing areas for
readers to participate in the news. All sites offered similar generic types of
participatory journalism formats, comparable to the technical processes identified by
other researchers (Hermida and Thurman, 2008). However, the generic participatory
formats mask the diverse attitudes of journalists working with this material as well as
the uneven ways in which those journalists are implementing and managing
participation options. We wanted to investigate to what extent audiences had the
ability to contribute and influence the making of the news.
We categorized the participatory formats into the five stages of news
production: access and observation, selection and filtering, processing and editing,
distribution, and interpretation. Our approach breaks down the common components
of the communication process, building on earlier work (Domingo et al. 2008).
Traditionally, journalists have maintained jurisdiction over the first four stages, with
audiences involved at the interpretation stage, essentially reacting to professionally
produced closed news products. By breaking down participation formats, we were
able to systematically analyze opportunities to contribute to the news process (see
Table 1).
Access / Observation
The primary way users were able to contribute at the access and observation
stage of news production was through submitting text or audio-visual material.
Newspapers adopted a range of tactics, either directly soliciting material on a specific
issue or story, or providing generic email addresses to submit content. But it was left
up to the professional journalist to decide if a story tip, photo or video was of interest
8
TABLE 1: Stages of news production (Developed from Domingo et al. 2008)
Stage Participatory formats

1) Access/observation: The initial Citizen media: Photographs, video and other
information-gathering stage at which media submitted by users, usually vetted by
source material for a story is journalists.
generated, such as eyewitness
accounts and audio-visual
contributions.
2) Selection/filtering: The None
“gatekeeping” stage when decisions
are made about what should be
reported or published.
3) Processing/editing: The stage at Citizen blogs: Blogs created by users hosted
which a story is created, including on the news organization’s website.
the writing and editing of an item forCitizen stories: Written submissions from
publication. readers on topical issues, including suggestions
for news stories, selected and edited by
journalists for publication on the website.
4) Distribution: The stage at which Content hierarchy: News stories ranked
a story is disseminated or made according to audience ratings, often based on
available for reading and, the most read or emailed content.
potentially, discussion. Social networking: Distribution of links to
stories through social media platforms such as
Twitter and Facebook.
5) Interpretation: The stage at Collective interviews: Chats with journalists
which a story that has been produced or invited guests, with questions submitted by
and published is opened up to readers and typically moderated by a news
comment and discussion. professional. These are usually webcast in
audio or video, or transcribed live, offering a
sense of interactivity and immediacy.
Comments: Views on a story or other online
item, which users typically submit by filling in
a form on the bottom of the item.
1) Forums: Discussions led by journalists or
initiated by readers. Questions can be posed by
the newsroom and submissions either fully or
reactively moderated, or by readers.
Journalist blogs: Authored by one or more
journalists, with short articles in reverse
chronological order. Journalist blogs (also
called “j-blogs”) often are associated with a
specific topic or perspective, with the facility
for readers to comment on entries.
Polls: Topical questions posed by journalists,
with users asked to make a multiple choice or
binary response. These polls provide instant
and quantifiable feedback to users.
9
and merited further attention. As one Croatian editor explained: “We publish
everything that we believe is newsworthy.”
By and large, we found that journalists were extending established
newsgathering practices to the web, seeing the user as a source of material that
journalists were unable to provide themselves. The journalists we interviewed placed
greater value on soliciting audience contributions on specific stories or issues, rather
than on unsolicited story ideas. “What's interesting for journalists is to have
contributions that really relate to news, of the witness type,” said one editor. This was
a common sentiment amongst our interviewees, even at newspapers such as the
Washington Post that offered few participation options. One of the editors
acknowledged the value of having “a thousand people” telling the newspaper what is
going on at a local level rather than solely relying on newsroom staff. Editors at the
Belgian newspaper, Nieuwsblad.be also appreciated the significance of user
submissions for local news. The newspaper offered a separate email address for each
local news page on the website; “More than half the input we receive through these
local email addresses is useful,” said the newspaper’s online editor.
Submissions from the audience were also highly prized during breaking news
events. At the Canadian newspaper, the National Post, editors highlighted how the
newsroom turned to its readers to help it report on a huge propane gas explosion that
happened overnight in Toronto. “During breaking news, inviting your readers to
chime in and add their observations is useful,” said an online editor at the paper. “As
journalists and editors, we can find that pretty handy to have.” Another editor at the
same paper said it didn’t want “somebody gut’s reaction, but somebody’s testimony.”
Journalists from other newspapers such as Le Monde and Le Figaro in France
and the Guardian in the UK expressed similar views. An editor at Le Monde recalled
10
how on a recent news story, “our call for witness reports worked very well and we
then established a synthesized version of events based on these reports.” Users are
clearly seen as sources on news stories or topics selected by journalists. An editor at
the other Canadian newspaper in our study, The Globe and Mail, summed up this
approach:
“If a reporter is working on a story and he or she wants to get public input,
we’ve often put a question on the website and said that if you have
information or a story on this topic, please contact the reporter.”
During this initial stage of news production, users were mainly framed as idea
generators and observers of newsworthy events. Most of the newspapers we studied
provided little room for users to decide the news, leaving the agenda-setting capability
in the hands of the professionals. There were exceptions, such as the user-dominated
spaces of LePost.fr in France, which was part of the Le Monde newspaper group, and
the online edition of the Spanish free daily, 20 Minutos. Both of these were relatively
new journalistic products so may be more open to the idea of users as co-collaborators
than some of more well established newspapers in our study.
Selection / Filtering
The reluctance of editors to give users agency over the news was reflected at
the selection and filtering stage of the journalistic process. None of the newspapers
offered any meaningful opportunities to influence what makes the news. The few
spaces where users exercised some agency over selection and filtering of news were
in spaces delineated from the main website of a parent organization. The best example
was LePost.fr, a spinoff website of French newspaper Le Monde, based almost
11
entirely on user contributions. On the website, users are encouraged to filter news
from other sources and “give them an angle”, according to the editor in chief.
Processing / Editing
The newspapers in our study offered some opportunities for users to write the
news but within clearly prescribed formats. One of the main mechanisms we
identified was written submissions from readers on topical issues. These citizen
stories were selected and edited by journalists for publication on the website. The
space for users to contribute stories was subject to newsroom editorial controls. For
example, at the Spanish newspaper El País, story submissions were filtered and fact-
checked by journalists, before being published in a separate section of the website.
Similarly, the Het Nieuwsblad in Belgium published citizen stories on its local pages
online, though an editor explained “all user-generated news needs to be double-
checked.”
Journalists were more relaxed about sharing the production of soft news areas,
but still exercised a degree of editorial supervision. The Guardian in the UK enabled
readers to submit travel stories to the Been There section of its news website.
Journalists then select some of the submissions to appear in the newspaper: “It goes
onto the website and then in edited fashion in the paper,” explained an editor. In
Germany, users could post what it called “contemporary eyewitness accounts” to a
micro-site about 20th century history called Einestages, though these contributions
were labelled as amateur content.
The desire to separate user material from professionally produced content was
most obvious in the implementation of citizen blogs. At the time of our study, a
handful of newspapers in Croatia, France, Spain, the UK and the USA provided a
12
hosted space for users to create and publish their own content. These spaces for
unfiltered and unedited material were kept separate from the content produced by
professional journalists.
Opinions on the provision of citizen blogs were far from unanimous. Some
editors saw value in providing users with a piece of real estate on their site as a place
“to meet like-minded people to talk about things that they were interested in,” as an
executive at the UK Telegraph newspaper put it. But others were more sceptical,
arguing that users could easily set up their own blog, or that it was simply not the
purpose of the newspaper: “It is out of the question for us to broadly install a user
blog and to offer all users the option to inscribe their name for eternity,” said an editor
at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper in Germany.
Distribution
At this stage of the production process, editors expressed concerns about
balancing the perceived need to maintain control over the hierarchy and distribution
of news, while at the same time allowing users greater agency. Most newspaper
websites created user-driven story rankings based on the most-read or most-emailed
stories. But the hierarchy of stories on a homepage was firmly in the hands of editors.
“It is still important to provide a package of news chosen by the professional
newsroom, a package that says ‘this is what happened today. Here is according to
Nieuwsblad.be, the most important news of today’,” said the online editor at the
Belgian newspaper.
The editors interviewed were also grappling with the growth of social
networks as mechanisms for the distribution of stories. “You don't expect people to
come to your content; you want to send it out to people. And so everybody is
13
scrambling to figure out, how do you do that?” said the online managing editor for
Canada’s The Globe and Mail.
Most newspapers provided ways for users to share stories by email, social
bookmarking or via links on Facebook and Twitter. But there were mixed views on
how far to allow users to personalize their news experience. The French newspaper Le
Figaro saw allowing personalization as a way of increasing reader loyalty. “If a user
wishes to have a personalized page to view news, he’ll have to come back to Figaro,”
said an editor. The Israeli newspaper, Ynet, went further by developing its own social
network for readers. For others, this was a step too far. “It’s not a social networking
site,” said online executive editor of Canada’s The Globe and Mail website. But even
he, like other editors, acknowledged the impetus to offer “social networking
functionalities along with its journalism.”
Interpretation
Our study found that editors were most comfortable with opening up this final
stage of the journalistic process, where users were encouraged to give their views on
the news of the day. Newspaper websites offered a wide range of mechanisms for
users to express themselves, from simple polls on topical issues to collective chats to
comments on stories.
The most common mechanism for interpretation was comments on stories.
Despite widespread adoption among newspapers, our interviewees expressed mixed
feelings about the worth of some of the material posted. For example, a Guardian
editor described users who comment as “a group of obsessives”, adding, “most people
don’t want to comment. And actually, most people don’t want to read other people’s
14
comments.” His views were echoed by a Globe and Mail editor, who described most
comments as “not terribly well-thought through or just vitriolic.”
The most favourable views tended to come from journalists who saw
comments as a space for public discourse. A Guardian editor said comments were
part of its strategy to “make lots of voices, including ones we don’t agree with,
heard.” We found that a number of our interviewees saw comments and other spaces
for interpretation as an extension of the traditional role of the newspaper in sparking a
national conversation. An editor at Le Monde talked about how “debate in the wake of
news, that’s still doing fundamental activities of journalists’ work.” A community
editor at the Telegraph explained, “we’ve been trying to stimulate debate, we’ve been
trying to get people to have conversations around the breakfast table, and in the pub
and in the office, and now we can take part.”
Some of our interviewees tended to talk of these spaces for interpretation as
ways of accomplishing deliberative ideals. An editor at Germany’s Der Speigel
described its online forum, with 100,000 members, as “one of the biggest debate
platforms in the German-speaking region, at least regarding political, economic and
social issues.” Another German editor, at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, spoke
of the potential to create a platform that is “an expression of democracy, and in my
view is bringing forward society.” Similarly, an editor at the Washington Post spoke
of the benefits of its online discussion groups to “provide valuable information to
users that we wouldn’t be able to [provide] just because of resources.” Editors at the
paper also spoke highly of the moderated chats it hosts, describing them as “very
valuable.” In Canada the Globe and Mail also viewed their chats positively. The
newspaper’s online executive editor said they “cater to informing the public in depth
about important issues, from the perspective of an intelligent national debate.”
15
Discussion
We approached this examination of how journalists conceived and
implemented participatory journalism to explore whether they fell into the Lippmann
or Dewey camp. We found that while audience participation has become an integral
part of professionally edited online publications, it is misleading to suggest that
journalists are embracing opportunities to share jurisdiction over the news. There are
few indications that participatory journalism is democratizing the journalistic process
itself. Journalists still see themselves as an elite group which mediates the flow of
information to the public. Despite a myriad of ways for audiences to take part in the
news, we found that journalists retained control over the stages of identifying,
gathering, filtering, producing and distributing news.
The most opportunities for user participation across the 10 different countries
and news cultures we studied were at the interpretation stage. Comments on stories,
which allow users to offer their input after an item has been published, were by far the
most popular format at the time of our study. The technical tools that facilitate
participation, as well as the way those tools are implemented, are constantly evolving
and changing, in some cases significantly since our interviews. However, the way
professionals frame participatory journalism has remained remarkably consistent
(Harrison 2009; Hermida and Thurman, 2008; Thurman and Hermida, 2010), with
journalists sharing a governing occupational ideology (Deuze 2002; Weaver 1998).
In the interviews, journalists tended to resist the notion of relinquishing
control over the process of making decisions about what is news and how that news
should be reported, issues that arise at earlier stages of story production. This attitude
can be partly attributed to a desire to preserve the status of professionals in the
16
process of making journalism. “Journalism remains journalism and it’s not going to
change its fundamentals,” said the Globe and Mail’s online executive editor, while a
Washington Post editor argued readers wanted “good old-fashioned journalism.” To a
large extent, journalists saw themselves as the defining actors in the process of
creating news.
However, there are also indications that journalists do not view users as just
consumers of professionally produced media. Often, we found conflicting views
among the editors we interviewed, who expressed both apprehension and support for
involving audiences in the process of journalism. Such ambivalence is understandable
at a time when journalists are negotiating their standing in a shared media
environment.
Our study suggests that journalists see audiences as what we call “active
recipients” of news – somewhere between passive receivers and active creators of
content. Users are expected to act when an event happens, by sending in eyewitness
reports, photos and video. Once a professional has shepherded the information
through the news production stages of filtering, processing and distributing the news,
users are expected to react, adding their interpretation of the news. As “active
recipients”, audiences are framed as idea generators and observers of newsworthy
events at the start of the journalistic process, and then in an interpretive role as
commentators who reflect upon the material that has been produced.
We suggest that the way participatory journalism has been adopted and
implemented falls somewhere between Lippmann’s view of the media and a Deweyan
approach. Overall, news professionals view audiences as receivers of information
created and controlled by the journalist. But at the same time, news organizations are
providing greater opportunities for audiences to engage in the public discourse.
17
Indeed, some journalists are intrigued by the possibilities of participatory journalism
to enable more voices to be heard, and perhaps even fulfil deliberative ideals in a
democratic society.
18
References:
Alterman, Eric. (2008): Out of print: The death and life of the American
newspaper. The New Yorker, March 31, 48-60.
Bowman, Shayne and Willis, Chris (2003) We media: How audiences are
shaping the future of news and information. The Media Center. Accessed 23 January
2010 from http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/weblog.php.
Bybee, Carl (1999). Can democracy survive in the post-factual age?: A return
to the Lippmann-Dewey debate about the politics of news. Journalism and
Communication Monographs, 1(1), 29!62.
Champlin, Dell P. and Knoedler, Janet T. (2006) The Media, the News and
Democracy: Revisiting the Dewey Lippmann Debate. Journal of Economic Issues, 40
(1), 135-152.
Deuze, Mark. (2002) Journalists in the Netherlands: An analysis of the

people, the issues and the (inter-) national environment. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Deuze, Mark (2006). Participation, remediation, bricolage: Considering

principal components of a digital culture. The Information Society 22: 63-75.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: H. Holt and
Company.
Dewey, John ([1922] 1976). The Middle Works of John Dewey, 1899–1924.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Domingo, David, Thorsten Quandt, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Jane B.

Singer and Marina Vujnovic (2008) Participatory journalism practices in the media
and beyond: An international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers.
Journalism Practice 2 (3), 326-342.
Gans, H. J. (2004) Democracy and the news. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Gillmor, Dan (2004) We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for
the people. Sebastopol, O’Reilly.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An

inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harrison, Jackie (2010) User-generated content and gatekeeping at the BBC

hub. Journalism Studies 11 (2): 243-256.
Hermida, Alfred, and Thurman, Neil (2008) A clash of cultures: The

integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at
British newspaper websites, Journalism Practice 2 (3): 343-356.
19
Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence culture: Where old and new media
collide. New York: New York University Press.
Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel (2007) The elements of journalism: What
newspeople should know and the public should expect. New York: Crown.
Lippmann, Walter ([1922] 1965) Public Opinion. New York: Free Press.
Paulussen, Steve, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Jane B. Singer, Thorsten

Quandt and Marina Vujnovic (2008) “Citizen participation in online news media: An
overview of current developments in four European countries and the United States.”
In: Quandt, Thorsten, and Wolfgang Schweiger (eds.), Journalismus online:
Partizipation oder profession? Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 263-
283.
Schudson, Michael (2008). The “Lippmann-Dewey Debate” and the invention

of Walter Lippmann as an anti-democrat 1986-1996. International Journal of
Stephens, Mitchell (2008) New media, new ideas: Escape from the holy of
holies. Journalism Studies, 9 (4), 595-599.
Shoemaker, Pamela J., Martin Eichholz, Eunyi, Kim and Brenda Wrigley,
(2001) Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping, Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 78 (2), 233-246.
Thurman, Neil and Hermida, Alfred (2010) Gotcha: How newsroom norms
are shaping participatory journalism online. In: Monaghan, Garrett and Tunney, Sean
(eds.) Web journalism: A new form of citizenship. Eastbourne: Sussex Academic
Press, pp. 46-62.
Whipple, Mark (2005) The Dewey-Lippmann debate today: Communication

distortions, reflective agency, and participatory democracy. Sociological Theory, 23
(2) June 2005.
Weaver, David (1998) The global journalist: News people around the world.
Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
20
APPENDIX A
Newspapers in the study, by country
Country Newspaper Website homepage

Belgium Het Belang van Limburg / hbvl.be
Gazet van Antwerpen gva.be
Het Nieuwsblad nieuwsblad.be
De Standaard standaard.be
Canada The Globe and Mail theglobeandmail.com
The National Post nationalpost.com
Croatia 24 Hours 24sata.hr
Vecernji List vecernji.hr
Finland Helsingin Sanomat hs.fi
Kaleva kaleva.fi
France Le Figaro lefigaro.fr
Le Monde lemonde.fr
Le Post (affiliated with Le Monde) lepost.fr
Germany Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung FAZ.net
Focus focus.de
Der Spiegel spiegel.de
Süddeutsche Zeitung sueddeutsche.de
Israel Haaretz haaretz.co.il
NRG nrg.co.il
Ynet ynet.co.il
Spain 20 Minutos 20minutos.es
El País elpais.com
United Kingdom The Guardian and The Observer guardian.co.uk
The Daily / Sunday Telegraph telegraph.co.uk
United States USA Today USAToday.com
The Washington Post washingtonpost.com
21
Is The Medium the Message? 0
Is the Medium the Message? Predicting Popularity of Top U.S. News

Sites with Medium-Specific Features
Abstract
Recent studies find that only a handful of news sites dominate the online news landscape,
and some contribute such finding to the importance of news branding and credibility
online. Nevertheless, existing findings fail to consider other possible explanations for
this concentration of consumption beyond the fact that they are all counterparts of well-
known, established traditional news sources. “Mediumizing” online news, and adopting
an updated Uses & Gratifications approach, this study identifies five online news
interface-specific features that predict popularity among the 2009 top ten U.S. news sites
using maximum likelihood regression analysis in structural equation modeling. Results
call attention to the need to move beyond an exclusive focus on content and consider
attributes of online news as a distinct medium as a way to better understand the
relationship between online news and its consumers. Suggestions for future studies on
online news consumption are also discussed.
Angela M. Lee
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Pennsylvania
Amlee229@gmail.com
Twitter: angelamlee
12th International Symposium on Online Journalism

Austin, TX
April 1-2, 2011
Key words: online news consumption; news media; Uses & Gratifications; content
analysis.
Is the Medium the Message? 1
Introduction
The State of The News Media Report1 by the Pew Project for Excellence in
Journalism finds year after year that traditional news entities dominate the news
landscape online, and suggests this to be indicative of the importance of branding and
source credibility to average news consumers online (Abdulla et al., 2005; Meyer, 2009).
In other words, news consumers converge on online counterparts of established news
entities because they believe that the nature and quality of news information on sites like
Yahoo News2, CNN and New York Times are more trustworthy than news information
from other sites (i.e., blogs or citizen journalism) that do not have long-standing history
in offering credible news information (Lin, Salwen, Garrison & Driscoll, 2005)3. While
such speculations may explain why these few sites, out of millions (Chan-Olmsted, 2003)
if not billions (Hindman, 2007) of news-oriented sites available on the Internet, dominate
the online news landscape, they pose challenge to explaining why there exist, among the
“top ten” sites, exponentially large gaps in these sites’ popularity.
According to Nielsen’s “Top 20 websites in 2009” report, Yahoo News, the most
popular news site, has on average over 15%, or five million more unique news readers
than MSNBC, the second most popular news site; over 220%, or over twenty two million
1
www.stateofthemedia.org
2
Albeit Yahoo News is not the online counterpart of an established news entity, it primarily
aggregates news from credible sources such as The Associated Press, Christian Science Monitor,
Reuters, etc.
3
As Abdulla, Garrison, Salwen, Driscoll and Casey (2005) further suggest: “Internet users are
aware of the ease of uploading a page on the Web, and with a little design experience, making it
look like the output of a well-established, professional organizations. This seems to underline the
importance of branding in online news. Readily identifiable news organizations that have moved
to a Web presence or Web sites that use existing and known news brands (e.g., CNN, the
associated Press, or other news services) have this advantage over news sites that are only on the
web and do not offer branded news” (p. 161).
more unique news readers than New York Times, the fifth most popular news site; and
over 438%, or thirty two million more unique news readers than USA Today, the tenth
most popular news site. In documenting the fact that online news consumption is even
more concentrated than in the “offline” world, Hindman (2007) notes that “there is still a
lot we don’t know about the underlying causes of audience concentration online” (p.341).
In other words, while a select few news sites’ dominance online may be partly explained
by average consumers’ reliance on established and credible sources for news (see
Hindman, 2007 for overview), what accounts for the exponential difference in popularity
among the “top ten” news sites that all offer news content produced by comparably
trustworthy news sources? This study proposes one possible answer to be the extent to
which each site satisfies news consumers’ “medium-specific process gratifications,” and
identifies a list of online news interface-specific features that predicts popularity of a
handful of the most popular news sites in the U.S.
Online News Consumption: A Whole New Experience?
As media organizations continue to fragment and adopt new forms on the
Internet, audience demands and consumption patterns are also evolving (Chan-Olmsted
& Ha, 2003). In Quinn’s words (2005), “In the early twenty-first century, audiences want
news when [and how] it suits them, rather than when the media have traditionally
supplied it” (p. 185). Technological and content convergences online are evident – True,
research has found that online news websites still largely retain the presentation styles of
their traditional counterparts (Lee, 2008), and traditional newsrooms still supply most of
the news information online (see Salwen, 2005; Dibean & Garrison, 2005; Weldon, 2008;
Quandt, 2008; Hindman, 2008). Nevertheless, neither is the online news environment a
mirror of its offline counterpart, nor are all news organizations adapting to this new
environment at the same pace. Not only does the Internet affect journalistic production
processes, cultural operations, and organizational managements (Deuze, 2003), but also
the convergence of multiple-platform publishing on the Internet revolutionizes how
people interact with information. As Quinn asserts (2005), “Convergence offers a way to
satisfy the audience’s desire for news… in multiple formats to reach multiple audiences”
(p.32).
Unlike in the past where differences in media largely equate differences in
mediated experiences (i.e., print newspapers are solely textual and pictorial, radio news is
audio, whereas television news combines moving pictures with audio), the Internet
amalgamates all existing medium-specific interface features and materializes as a “hybrid
of technically sophisticated multimedia-multichannel information and entertainment
medium” (Lin & Jeffres, 2001, p.557) that contests our understanding of what a
“medium” is, and challenges existing notion of news consumption in light of new
technological capabilities. Particularly, since the Internet provides the same
technological platforms for all media entities to produce and distribute content, the
competition online among news organizations is no longer merely that of content, but
also consumption experiences (Seelig, 2008a).
“Mediumizing” the Internet?
Technology is the sine qua non to discussions about the future of journalism, as
“Journalism has always been shaped by technology” (Pavik, 2000, p. 229). With the
growth of broadband technology (Huang, 2007) and online news sites (Spyridou &
Veglis, 2008) in early 2000’s, the Internet has become the third most popular “mass
medium” from which average American news consumers access news information on a
daily basis (Roy, 2008; Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism,
2010). Nonetheless, we have not yet fully “mediumized” the Internet despite its
popularity. In other words, we have not clearly conceptualized the Internet as a medium
(sic) based on its unique attributes. Instead, we have largely stagnated with the term “new
media” without really paying attention to what, if at all, sets the Internet apart from all
other media. How can we fully understand the intricate relationship between news
consumers and the Internet if we remain vague in our conceptualization of “new media?”
It is with this in mind that this study proposes the need to operationalize the Internet as a
news medium.
The Internet as a news medium. A medium has generally been defined as “any
extension of ourselves,” or more broadly, “any new technology” (McLuhan, 1964 p.7).
While such broad definitions apply to the Internet as well, the danger of evaluating the
Internet the same way we assess newspapers, radio and television lies in that the Internet
fundamentally redefines traditional mediated communicative processes with its medium-
specific uniqueness, and thus renders existing theoretical assumptions and measurements
of traditional media uses obsolete and inapplicable for Internet studies. Just as new
technologies are changing the nature of how news is produced and distributed, they are
also changing the ways in which people consume news, and thus provide new
opportunities for studying such behavior in the context of the new media environment
(Tewksbury, 2003). In examining how and why people consume news on the Internet,
this study turns to the Uses and Gratifications paradigm.

U&G paradigm in media studies. The Uses and Gratifications (U&G) paradigm
is an audience-centered approach that seeks to understand why and how people use media
in order to understand media’s impact on people (McQuail, 1983; Perse and Dunn, 1998;
emphasis added), and emerged as one of the dominant theoretical frameworks for inquiry
into audience orientations with the advance of new media (Palmgreen, Wenner &
Rayburn, II, 1981). Summarily, the U&G paradigm holds the following assumptions
about the relationship between media and the audience: Audience members inadvertently
form perceptions on meanings and values of a medium from mediated experiences.
These perceptions translate into expectations, where such expectations then motivate
audience members to return to the same medium for a certain set of gratifications. So
long as the medium is able to meet audience members’ expectations, or gratifications in
subsequent interactions, audience members are more likely to choose to go back to the
same medium, be it a conscious or habitual act, and such routine usage of a medium then
becomes the focal point in conventional media studies (Blumler, 1979; Katz, Haas &
Gurevitch, 1973; Palmgreen, Wenner & Rayburnm II, 1981; see Ruggiero, 2000, for
recent overview of the paradigm). In Katz, Haas and Gurevitch’s (1973) words, one of
the goals of this theoretical framework is to understand the relationship between media
and audiences by “explor[ing] the relationships between the attributes of the media and
the functions they serve” (p. 179).
U&G criticisms and counterarguments. Early criticisms of the U&G include its
assumptions of active audience and rational media uses, invalidity of self-reports,
insensitivity to media content and social gratifications, and lack of predictive power (see
McQuail, 1994; McDonald, 1990), albeit not all of the concerns are equally applicable in
today’s media landscape, and many early criticisms have been addressed in more recent
online U&G studies. Based on more recent studies, counterarguments against early U&G
criticisms include: 1) With the advance of the Internet, active media choices are now
common, if not necessary among average online users to navigate through a plethora of
information (Sunstein, 2007). 2) Newer U&G studies have examined the implications of
social gratifications online (e.g., Stafford, Stafford, & Schkade, 2004; Stafford &
Stafford, 1998). Moreover, adding to the force of counterarguments against early
criticisms, this study 3) relies on Nielson’s empirical estimates of online traffic rather
than self-report (more details in Method section) and 4) predicts the extent to which
online news-specific gratifications account for the disproportional popularity of top news
sites in the U.S.
Internet and online news-specific gratifications. Several Internet studies have
introduced new conceptual and operational approaches in understanding Internet-specific
gratifications4. Particularly, Stafford, Stafford and Schkade (2004) state the need to look
at process gratifications in addition to content5 and social6 gratifications, as mediated
experiences online is vastly different from mediated experiences in other traditional
media. Process gratifications center on classifying the Internet as a medium by its modes
of transmission and reception (Perse & Dunn, 1998; Katz, Haas & Gurevitch, 1973), and
examples of such experiential gratifications include surfing on the Internet, navigating
4
“Gratifications” are reflective of how users perceive characteristics of a medium (Dimmick,
Chen & Li, 2004).
5
Content gratifications have often been studied under broad categorizations such as “for
entertainment, diversion, or surveillance purposes (Roy, 2008).
6
e.g., focuses on interpersonal communication and social networking
through different media channels, consuming content in multimedia and timely fashion,
etc.
Additionally, other studies have categorized a variety of Internet-specific
gratifications that Internet users get and expect from the medium: Papacharissi and Rubin
(2000) identify five: Interpersonal utility, pass time, information seeking, convenience
and entertainment. Parker and Plank (2000) state three: Companionship and social needs,
and needs for learning, excitement and relaxation. Song et al. (2004) suggest four: Social
escapism, pass time, interactive control, and information. Roy (2008) contribute two:
Information seeking and self-improvement. Grace-Farfaglia, Dekkers, Sundararajan,
Peters & Park (2006) offer seven: Social companionship, economic gain, self-
improvement, entertainment, escape, fame and aesthetics. And Flanagin & Metzger
(2001) supplement five: Problem solving, persuading others, relationship maintenance,
status seeking, and personal insight. In relation to online newspaper consumption, Mings
(1997) categorize the following gratifications: Functionality of providing links,
supplemental information, immediacy, timeliness, personalization, and interactivity.
Overall, these studies offer rich description of audience’s Internet-uses and
gratifications, yet they have not examined the Internet in ways that facilitate
understanding of its news uses and implications, and thus restrain our understanding of
online news consumption patterns and effects. Just as print newspapers found
“authenticity” to be its greatest strength in attracting readers (Jones, 2009), online news
also needs to realize its strengths in relation to other news media in order to function and
succeed as a unique news medium of its own.

Updated U&G paradigm: Analyzing five interface-specific features
Extending the U&G paradigm, and drawing extensively from relevant literature,
this study identifies five overarching medium-specific features, or process gratifications
that affect average consumers’ experiences with online news consumption (broadly
speaking): 1) Interactivity 2) Immediacy 3) Multimedia 4) Information availability 5)
Usability (see Deuze, 2003; Seelig, 2008a; Seelig 2008b; Quinn, 2005; Meyer, 2009;
Kemey et al., 2000; Ramasubamanian & Martin, 2009; Spyridou & Veglis, 2008, etc.).
1. Interactivity. Interactivity is often seen as the “golden standard” (Quinn,
2005, p. 89) or “key advantage” (Ha & James, 1998, p.459) of the Internet, for the
Internet is one of the first medium that encourages direct interaction between “producers
and consumers”, as well as among users (Chan-Olmsted & Ha, 2003). In fact, research
finds interactivity positively associated with user satisfaction, favorability, and
involvement with news sites (e.g., Spyridou & Veglis, 2008; Sundar et al., 2003; Shyam
Sunder, 2000). Deuze (2003) defines interactivity as a special trait of the Internet that
facilitates association, and enables people to not only receive but also disseminate
information. Moreover, Ha & James (1998; also see Seelig, 2008b) compartmentalized
interactivity into “audience-oriented interactivity,” which examines the “range of options
or choice of content available to the users to interact with,” and “source-oriented
interactivity,” which investigates the ways in which media facilitate reciprocal
communication between users and media by focusing on the availability of forums,
chatrooms, games, language options, and such on media sites (p. 241).
2. Immediacy. In relation to the news media, one of the advantages of the
Internet is that it allows for timely updates on breaking news by changing the ways in
which news is generated, reported, and distributed (Deuze, 2003). For example, while
television news already sped up the long established news cycle in the print industry, the
Internet allows for even faster updates by enabling news contributors to distribute news
stories in real-time (Quinn, 2005). Moreover, the fact that the Internet makes it possible
for news contributors to easily edit content post-distribution allows them to publish news
with more emphasis on “speed” (at the expense of “accuracy”) since “irreversibility” is
less of a problem online (Seelig, 2008a). Furthermore, for its speed and flexibility, the
Internet also enables easy production of real-time, immediate updates especially during
time-sensitive news events such as natural disasters.
3. Multimedia. Content wise, traditional newsrooms still supply most of the
information on dominant news websites (see Maier, 2010; Salwen, 2005; Dibean &
Garrison, 2005; Weldon, 2008; Quandt, 2008; Hindman, 2008), and this blurs the
distinction between online and offline news. However, one of the properties that
distinguish online news from all other news media is the ways in which news content are
disseminated online. With media convergence on the Internet comes distribution of news
in “multiple media platforms to target different audiences,” (Huang, 2009, p. 107) and
this includes the amalgamating use of texts, pictures, audio clips and video clips to meet
different kinds of needs and appeal to different kinds of news consumers (Quinn, 2005).
According to Kerry Northrup, executive director of the IFRA Centre for
Advanced News Operations and director of publications for the World Association of
Newspapers and News Publishers, “to consumers, a story they read and watch and surf is
all one story, just accessed in different ways at different times on different technology
depending on what is convenient, what is required to satisfy the need to know, what fits
with their media personalities” (quoted in Quinn, 2005, p. 75; also see Machin &
Niblock, 2008). Echoing this view, Jones (2009) asserts, “news on the web is almost
entirely chosen by the viewer” (p. 180). While news brand identity contributes to
audiences’ initial contact with online counterparts of traditional news entities (Meyer,
2009), multimedia allows online distributors of news information to deliver content in a
much more engaging and creative way (Killebew, 2005; Sundar, 2000), and multimedia
news presentation allows news sites to prompt audiences to extend, as well as frequent,
their visits repeatedly by offering rich process gratifications (Spyridou & Veglis, 2008;
Huang, 2007).
4. Information availability. Another interface feature that distinguishes online
news from other news media is its facilitating information flow and exchanges. For
example, Maier (2010) reports that online news are about four times more likely to
incorporate news information from other outside news outlets than print newspapers, and
part of this is made possible by hyperlinks that allow audiences to easily access additional
information relevant to a specific news story made available by online news providers
(Ha & James, 1998). Moreover, due to its nature and the availability of broadband
connection in today’s society (Garrison, 2005), the Internet also makes it much easier for
users to search and obtain information outside of what news providers offer to fulfill their
needs and goals (e.g., to satisfy curiosity or gain knowledge) (Ferguson & Perse, 2000).
In sum, information availability is about online news media’s offering a plethora of
information from rich and diverse sources at news consumers’ disposal.
5. Usability. Usability has been found to positively shape online activities across
different domains (Buente & Robbin, 2008). Traditional definitions of usability largely
focus on “factors that consider user productivity and performance (Wiberg, 2003, p. 37),
and most measurements center on user evaluations of usability in terms of “time required
to perform specific tasks, speed of performance, and number and rates of errors made by
the users” (ibid.; also see Nielsen, 1994 and Shneiderman, 2004). Nevertheless, Wiberg
posits that such task is always dependent on the characteristics of the web sites in
question, and that measurement of usability, or user satisfaction, is thus contingent on the
nature and uses of each web site. For example, news sites evidently serve different
purposes as opposed to social networking sites, and hence have different criteria when it
comes to “usability.”
With exponential growth and dissemination of news information on the Internet,
Internet users now have more channel and content choices than ever before, and this
allows them to forego websites that are less user-friendly without worrying about not
getting equivalent news information from elsewhere. Particularly in relation to online
news sites, usability is measured by evaluating the ease through which average users can
navigate a news site in order to locate additional information.
Hypotheses
Drawing on an updated U&G paradigm, the more a news site meets average
consumers’ need for medium-specific gratifications, the more likely such site will attract
audiences. To examine the relationship between the five online news interface-specific
features and popularity among the “top ten” news sites in 20097 the first hypothesis
7
Popularity is based on Nielsen’s measure of unique audience visits reported in the 2010 Stsate
of the News Media Report.
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online_nielsen.php#online_toptenusage
establishes differences in how the top and bottom three “top ten” news sites incorporate
the five online news interface-specific features, and the second hypothesis predicts
popularity of the top ten news sites with these five online news interface-specific
features:
H1: Among the top ten news sites in 2009, all else being equal, the top three sites
will utilize the five online news interface-specific features differently from that of
the bottom three sites.
H2: Among the top ten news sites in 2009, all else being equal, use of the five
online news interface-specific features will positively predict popularity of these
top news sites.
Moreover, to better understand the ways in which the top ten news sites utilize the five
online news interface-specific features, the following research questions are explored:
RQ1: Among the top ten news sites in 2009, all else being equal, which of the
five online news interface-specific features is the best predictor of popularity?
RQ2: Among the top ten news websites of 2009, how does each top news site use
the five online news interface-specific features?
Methods
This study is carried out through content analysis. According to Krippendorff
(2004), content analysis is a method for “inquiring into social reality that consists of
inferring features of a non-manifest context from features of a manifest text” (p.25). The
five Internet-specific interface features proposed in this paper are theory-driven, and most
of the items used in content analysis are based on existing metrics used in prior studies,
which lends additional support to the reliability of results reported in this study.
Unit of analysis. Defining the unit of analysis on the World Wide Web is
uniquely challenging because a lot of the boundaries that seem “concrete” in other media
becomes blurry on the Internet (McMillan, 2000). To this end, Ha and James (1998)
argue that the homepage is an ideal unit of analysis because it’s the starting point in
which all visitors decide whether they want to continue browsing a site or not, and that
can be clearly operationalized (i.e., it’s anywhere on the webpage where the “web
address” does not change) (also see Seelig, 2008b). For this reason, this study also uses
news site homepages as its unit of analysis.
Sample. Based on Nielsen’s ranking of the top ten news sites, which was
measured by average “unique audience visits” of each news site in 2009, the sample in
this study consists of homepages of Yahoo News8 (#1), MSNBC News9(#2), AOL
News10(#3), ABC News11(#8), Washington Post12(#9), and USA Today13(#10). Ideally,
all ten of the “top news sites” would be coded, yet due to budgetary constraints, CNN
(#4), New York Times (#5), Google News (#6) and Fox (#7) were excluded from this
study. Nevertheless, the underlying theoretical assumption of this study, based on
literature review, is that a linear relationship exists between the five online news
interface-specific features and popularity among the top news sites, and thus the author
argues that the omission of these four middle-range top news sites is, though not ideal,
acceptable.
Data. All of the data are recorded using Automator, a free application developed
by Apple Computer that enables scheduled data recording. Data can easily be accessed
using Safari Web browser. All data are recorded at 11am everyday to minimize
8
http://news.yahoo.com
9
http://www.msnbc.msn.com
10
http://www.aolnews.com
11
http://abcnews.go.com
12
http://washingtonpost.com
13
http://www.usatoday.com
confounds of time, and for the entire month of June, 2010. The amount of data collected
is justifiable because pretest observation indicates that online news interface-specific
features of targeted news websites do not vary significantly overtime, and hence a month
worth of data is sufficient in providing adequate power and variance for statistical
analysis.
Pretest. Two graduate students from a large research university in the
Northeastern U.S. are used for the pretest, and they are both native English speakers and
experienced Internet users. Both coders have expressed confidence in understanding the
codebook before performing the pretest. The reliability between the two coders using the
codebook (see Appendix B) was 0.89, which is deemed desirable according to
conventional standard (Krippendorff, 2004), and results from the pretest were used to
improve the codebook and coding instructions.
Codebook. Following Huang’s guidance (2007), in addition to basing all the
items on established metrics, the current codebook (see Appendix B) was adjusted on the
basis of pretest observations; items bolded in Appendix B were eliminated from final
analysis for lack of variances14.
Independent variables. The independent variables consist of interactivity,
immediacy, multimedia, information availability, and usability. In Appendix A is a list of
all the items used to measure the five overarching online news interface-specific features.
All of the items in each independent variable are first standardized before being summed
to ensure compatibility across measures for H1, H2 and RQ1. Unstandardized metrics
were used for RQ2.
14
For example, the “Site map” and “FAQ” variables were eliminated because all of the news
websites examined have such functions.
Dependent variable. The dependent variable entails Nielsen’s measure of
unique audience visits on each news site, as reported by the Pew Project for Excellence in
Journalism in its 2010 State of the News Media report. For H1, a dummy variable is
created, where Yahoo (#1), MSNBC (#2) and AOL (#3) are coded as 1, and ABC (#8),
Washington Post (#9) and USA Today (#10) are coded as 0. Reported estimates of unique
audience visits are used as the dependent variable for the rest of the analysis.
Statistical analyses. Firstly, using SPSS 17.0, Independent Sample T-Test is
performed to estimate the between-group differences in H1. Secondly, using Mplus, and
applying principles of structural equation modeling15, maximum likelihood regression
analysis is performed to assess the extent to which the five online news interface-specific
features predict popularity of the top ten news sites in H2 and RQ1. And lastly,
descriptive of each unstandardized independent variable is presented in Table 1 regarding
RQ2.
Results
Supportive of H1, among the top ten news sites, the top three news sites
systematically integrate four of the five online news interface-specific features differently
from the bottom three news sites. Specifically, while no statistical difference is found
between the two groups in their use of the interactivity feature, there are significant
statistical differences between the two groups’ usage of the immediacy feature,
t(166)=9.39, p<0.005; multimedia feature, t(166)=2.31, p<0.05; information availability
feature, t(166)=11.72, p<0.005; and usability feature, t(166)=3.59, p<0.005. Among the
15
Which enables analysis of recursive systems with latent variables involving multiple indicators
and correlations among all independent variables.
“top ten news sites,” the top three news sites consistently utilize more of these features
than do the bottom three news sites.
Supportive of H2, integration of the five online news interface-specific features is
predictive of popularity among the “top ten” news sites (R2 = 0.97). Moreover, regarding
RQ1, maximum likelihood regression analysis suggests information availability to be the
strongest predictor of popularity among the “top ten” news sites (b= 1.22, p< 0.05),
followed by immediacy (b=0.46, p<0.005), multimedia (b=0.29, p<0.005), and
interactivity (b= 0.07, p<0.05). On the other hand, contrary to expectation, usability
predicts popularity of the top ten news sites in a negative fashion (b=-0.77, p<0.005).
RQ2 is illustrated in Table 1 below:
Table 1
Average count of online news-specific features utilized among the top news sites:
Mean & (SD)
Interactivity Immediacy Multimedia Information Usability
Availability
Yahoo News (#1) 15 0 41 894 6
(0) (0) (1.60) (3.91) (0)
MSNBC (#2) 14 21 47 190 4
(0.51) (1.66) (1.86) (7.14) (0)
AOL (#3) 15 7 18 263 3
(0) (0) (1.14) (4.05) (0)
ABC (#8) 10 0 63 141 0
(0) (0) (2.78) (6.12) (0)
Washington Post (#9) 14 0 21 77 5
(0.51) (0) (2.34) (2.81) (0)
USA Today (#10) 10 0 20 63 1
(0.31) (0) (2.35) (3.20) (0)
Note: N = 168. Data collected in June, 2010.
Discussion
The importance of news branding and credibility has been suggested to contribute
to high-level concentration of traffic on the World Wide Web where a handful of news
sites dominate the online news ecology. Nevertheless, existing findings are inadequate in
accounting for the exponential differences in popularity among these highly visible news
sites. To solve this puzzle, we need to better understand the relationship between the
Internet and its users, and this study suggests the incorporation of an updated Uses &
Gratifications approach in 1) mediumizing the Internet in order to understand the
functional needs and gratifications it serves as a news medium, and 2) examining five
underlying online news interface-specific features that dictate online news consumption
experiences and process gratifications. Through Independent Sample T-Test, this study
finds that the top three and bottom three “top ten” news sites differ significantly in their
uses of the five features, wherein the top three sites are systematically more feature-
heavy. Moreover, through maximum likelihood regression analysis in structural equation
modeling, this study finds that the five online news interface-specific features
significantly predict differences in popularity among the “top ten” news sites, and that
information availability is by far the strongest predictor.
The fact that usability negatively predicts popularity of top news sites in H2 is
unexpected. A post-hoc analysis of the data reveals that number of popularity news
stories (i.e., “most read,” “most recommended,” or “what’s hot”) is the only predominant
item that contributes to the negative slope in the information availability variable.
Specifically, ABC has the most number of average popularity news stories16 (22) as
opposed to Yahoo News (15), MSNBC (11), AOL (10), Washington Post (16) and USA
Today (5). Future studies are encouraged to consider weighting individual items in each
variable as to ensure comparable assessments of the five online news interface-specific
16
i.e., “most viewed,” “most commented,” and “most emailed” stories
features. Moreover, future studies are encouraged to examine how evolution in usage of
the five online news interface-specific features predicts popularity of top news ranks over
time. Furthermore, future studies are encouraged to interview actual consumers of these
top news sites to have a more holistic understanding of a potentially wider range of
online news-specific process gratifications that are not accounted for in this study.
Like any study, this one is not without limitations. As aforementioned, due to
budgetary constraints, this study was unable to examine mid-range (rank #4 through #7)
top news sites. While such data limitation does not appear to weaken the conclusiveness
of theoretical assumptions and statistical powers presented in this study, future studies are
encouraged to replicate the present study with all ten top news sites to expand our
knowledge of how the five online news interface-specific features predict popularity of
all top ten news sites.
Conclusion
In the age of digitization, the Internet is changing the way people live and interact
with each other. As Hindman (2007) documents, “Seventy million Americans now log
on to the Internet in a typical day, reading news, checking e-mail, and engaging in a host
of other online activities” (p. 327). With rapid changes in Internet-use diffusion and
online news media landscape come ever-evolving online news consumption patterns
(Lin, Salwen, Garrison & Driscoll, 2005; Garrison, 2005). New technologies are
changing the nature of news consumption and providing new opportunities for studying
such behaviors, and empirical research is necessary to systematically examine not only
causes that lead to differing online news consumption patterns, but also effects of such
newly emerging news consumption patterns.

While past studies have explained to a certain extent why only a handful of news
sites dominate the online news landscape, we still don’t know enough about why
popularity disparities are so great among these few most popular news sites, or how the
Internet as a news medium contributes to news consumption choices. At the intersection
of an updated Uses & Gratifications approach that focuses on online news medium-
specific process gratifications, content analysis and structural equation modeling, this
study asserts that one of the fundamental first steps in understanding this puzzle lies in
deciphering how the Internet appeals to consumers as a news medium in order to
maximize its medium-specific strengths to better match 21st century news audience’s
demands and desires, and calls to attention the need to expand focuses in existing online
news consumption studies on content to examination of medium.
This study does not take the position of technological determinism where
technology is seen as the answer, or the medium the message. As established studies
indicate -- Credibility, news quality and news brands, just to name a few, are without a
doubt influential determinants of online news consumption in today’s media landscape.
Nevertheless, especially given the unique nature of the Internet, this study argues that
online news-specific process gratifications are also important predictors of online news
consumption, and are thus worthy of scholarly and industrial attention.
The medium is not the whole message in online news consumption, but it tells an
important and compelling story that deserves, and ought to be heard.

References
Abdulla, R. A., Garrison, B., Salwen, M. B., Driscoll, P. D., & Casey, D. (2005). Online
news credibility. In M. B. Salwen, B. Garrison, & P. D. Driscoll (Eds.), Online
News and the Public (pp. 147-163). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Benson, R., Powers, M., Vera, S., Willig, I., & Orsten, M. (2010, April). Is the Internet
'Europeanizing' or 'Americanizing' global journalism? An analysis of the form of
online and print newspapers in Denmark, France and the U.S. Paper presented at
the 11th Symposium on Online Journalism, TX. Retrieved
from http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2010/papers/Bensonetal10.pdf.
Blumler, J. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication
Research, 6(1): 9-36.
Buente, W., & Robbin, A. (2008). Trends in Internet information behavior, 2000-2004.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11),
1743- 1760.
Chyi, H. I. & Lasorsa, D. L. (1999). Access, use and preferences for online newspapers.
Newspaper Research Journal, 20(4), 2–13.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M., & Ha, L. S. (2003). Internet business models for broadcasters:
How television stations perceive and integrate the Internet. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(4), 597- 617.
Deuze, M. (2001). Online journalism: Modelling the first generation of news media on
the World Wide Web. First Monday, 6(10). Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_10/deuze/index.html
Deuze, M. (2003). The web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of
different types of news media online. New Media & Society, 5(2), 203-230.
Dibean, W. & Garrison, B. (2005). Online newspaper market size and the use of world
wide web technologies. In M.B. Salwen, B. Garrison, & P.D. Driscoll (Eds.),
Online News and the Public (pp.257-276). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Associates.
Dimmick, J., Chen, Y., & Li, Z. (2004). Competition between the Internet and traditional
news media: The gratification-opportunities niche dimension. The Journal of
Media Economics, 17(1), 19-33.
Ferguson, D., & Perse, E. (2000). The world wide web as a functional alternative to
television. Journalism of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 155-174.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media
environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153-181.
Garrison, B. (2005). Online newspapers. In M. B. Salwen, B. Garrison, & P. D. Driscoll

(Eds.), Online News and the Public (pp. 3-46). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Grace-Farfaglia, P., Dekkers, A., Sundararajan, B., Peters, L., & Park, S. (2006).
Multinational web uses and gratifications: Measureing the social impact of online
community participation across national boundaries. Electronic Commerce
Research, 6, 75-101.
Ha, L. & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early
business Web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(4), 456–474.
Hindman, M. (2007). A mile wide and an inch deep: Measuring media diversity online
and offline. In P. M. Napolis (Ed.), Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and
Metrics (pp.327-45). New Jersey: Lawrence Erblaum Associates.
Hindman, M. (2008). The Myth of Digital Democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
Huang, E. (2009). The causes of youths’ low news consumption and strategies for
making youths happy news consumers. Convergence: The International Journal
of Research into New Media Technologies, 15(1): 105-122.
Huang, E. (2007). Use of rich media differs at newspaper, TVWeb sites. Newspaper
Research Journal, 28(3), 85–97.
Jones, A. S. (2009). Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Katz, E., Haas, H. and Gurevitch, M.(1973). On the use of the mass media for important
things. American Sociological Review, 38: 164 - 181.
Killebrew, K. C. (2005). Managing Media Convergence: Pathways to Jounralistic
Cooperation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lee, A. M. (2008, November). The convergence of new and news media: An exploratory
study. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Convention of the National
Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Lin, C. A., & Jeffres, L. W. (2001). Comparing distinctions and similarities across Web
sites of newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 555-573.
Lin, C., Salwen, M. B., Garrison, B., & Driscoll, P. D. (2005). Online news as a
functional substitute for offline news. In Salwen, M.B., Garrison, B., & Driscoll,
P. D. (Eds.), Online News and the Public (pp. 237-255). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Machin, D., & Niblock, S. (2008). Branding newspapers: Visual texts as social practice.
Journalism Studies, 9(2), 244-259.
Maier, S. R. (2010). Newspapers offer more news than do major online sites. Newspaper
Research Journal, 31(1), 6- 19.
McDonald, D. (1990). Media orientation and television news viewing. Journalism
Quarterly, 67(1), 11-20.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw Hill, NY:
MIT Press.
McMillan, S. J. (2000). The microscope and the moving target : The challenge of
applying content analysis to the world wide web. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 80-98.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication: An Introduction (3rd ed.,). London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
McQuail, D. (1983). Mass Communication Theory (1st ed.). London: Sage.
Meyer, P. (2009). The Vanishing Newspapers: Saving Journalism in the Information Age
(2nd ed.). Missouri: University of Missouri Press.
Mings, S. M. (1997). Uses and gratifications of online newspapers: A preliminary study.
Electronic Journal of Communication, 7(3). Retrieved from
http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/007/3/007312.HTML.
Mitchelstein, E., & Bozkowski, P. J. (2009). Between tradition and change: A review of
recent research on online news production. Journalism, 10(5), 562- 586.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. and Rayburn II, J. (1981). Gratification discrepancies and
news program choice. Communication Research, 8(4): 451-478.
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-196.
Parker, B. J., & Plank, R. E. (2000). A uses and gratifications perspective on the Internet
as a new information source. American Business Review, 18, 43-49.
Pavlik, J. (2000). The impact of technology on journalism. Journalism Studies, 1(2), 229-
37.
Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010, March 1).
Understanding the participatory news consumer: How Internet and cell phone
users have turned news into a social experience. Retrieved from

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/understanding_participatory_news_co
nsumer.
Perse, E. & Dunn, D. (1998). The utility of home computers and media use: Implications
of multimedia and connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42
(4), 435-456.
Quandt, T. (2008). (No) news on the World Wide Web? Journalism Studies, 9(5): 717-
738.
Quinn, S. (2005). Convergent Journalism: The Fundamentals of Multimedia Reporting.

New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Ramasubamanian, S. & Martin, S. M. (2009). Teens and the new media environment:
Challenges and opportunities. In A. B. Jordan, D. Kunkel, J. Manganello & M.
Fishbein (Eds.), Media Messages and Public Health: A Decisions Approach to
Content Analysis (pp. 99-115). New York: Routledge.
Roy, S. K. (2008). Determining uses and gratifications for Indian Internet users. Case
Studies in Business, Industry and Government Statistics, 2(2), 78-91.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass
Communication & Society, 3(1), 3-37.
Salwen, M. B. (2005). Online news trends. In M. B. Salwen, B. Garrison, & P. D.
Driscoll (Eds.), Online News and the Public (pp. 47-79). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Seelig, M. I., (2008a). An updated look at trends in content and web page design in news
web sites. Electronic news, 2(2), 86-101.
Seelig, M. I. (2008b). Interactivity on traditional media web sites. Journal of Radio &
Audio Media, 15(2), 231- 248.
Shneiderman, B. (2004). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-
Computer Interaction (4th ed.). Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
Sundar, S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A
study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 480- 499.
Sundar, S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating web site interactivity—
Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication
Research, 30(1), 30-59.
Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic 2.0. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Song, I., LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Lin, C. A. (2004). Internet Gratifications and
Internet Addiction: On the Uses and Abuses of New Media. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 7(4), 384-394.
Spyridou, P., & Veglis, A. (2008). Exploring structural interactivity in online

newspapers: A look at the Greek Web landscape. First Monday, 13(5). Retrieved
from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/2164/
1960
Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (1998). Uses and gratifications of the World Wide
Web: A preliminary study. In D. Muchling (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998
American Academy of Advertising Conference. Pullman: Washington State
University, 174-182.
Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L. (2004). Determining uses and
gratifications for the Internet. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 259- 288.
Tewksbury, D. (2003). What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior
of news readers on the Internet. Journal of Communication: 694-710.
Weldon, M. (2008). Everyman News: The Changing American Front Page. Missouri:
University of Missouri Press.
Whitney, D. C., Wartella, E., & Kunkel, D. (2009). Non-academic audiences for content
analysis research. In A. B. Jordan, D. Kunkel, J. Manganello & M. Fishbein
(Eds.), Media Messages and Public Health: A Decisions Approach to Content
Analysis (pp. 233-245). New York: Routledge.
Wiberg, C. (2003). A measure of fun: Extending the scope of web usability (Doctoral
dissertation, Umeå University, 2003. Retrieved from
http://www8.informatik.umu.se/~colsson/Avh-pdfer/1-overhead-text.pdf.
Appendix A: Summary of the five online news interface-specific features.

1) Interactivity
i. Audience-oriented interactivity
1. Availability of news content choices/categories
ii. Source-oriented interactivity
1. Survey or poll
2. Chat/discussion area
3. Games
4. Customized news to email (e-letter)
5. Direct e-mail link to article’s author
6. Provide email contacts to the editor/journalists
7. Service featuring the most read stories and blogs
2) Immediacy
1. Latest news section
2. Breaking news services
3. Time of updating
3) Multimedia
1. Inclusion of photos/still-images (including ads)
2. Inclusion of sound/audio clips (including ads)
3. Inclusion of video/moving-images (including ads)
4) Information availability
1. Special database on issues
2. Special reports on important issues
3. Hyperlinks that connect to relevant information from the same site
4. Hyperlinks that connect to relevant information from different sources
5. Number of total news stories
6. Number of news stories from alternative sources
7. Number of alternative sources
8. Archives for textual news articles
9. Archives of video/audio clips
5) Usability
1. Content available for mobile devices
2. Free “search engine” function
3. Search engine provides search results from within the news site
4. Search engine provides search results from different news/web sites
5. Search engine enables news story searches
6. Search engine enables photo/still-image searches
7. Search engine enables audio clip searches
8. Search engine enables video clip searches
9. Site Map
10. Category of “Popularity” news types (i.e., “most read,” “most
recommended,” or “what’s hot)
11. Number of popularity news stories
12. Having “Help” or “FAQ” section that answers users’ queries
Appendix B: Codebook17
Definition of “homepage”: Tabs or scrolls are okay, as long as the web address does not
change after clicking on the tab or scroll it’s still considered a homepage.
A. Unique ID
B. Website code
• Yahoo News = Yahoo = 1
• MSNBC = MSNBC = 2
• AOL News = AOL = 3
• ABC News = ABC = 8
• Washington Post = WP = 9
• USA Today = USA = 10
C. Date of data (Ex: April 20th, 2010 = 042010; June 4th, 2010 = 060410)
1a) INTERACTIVITY - Audience-oriented interactivity
D. News Choices-- Number of explicitly labeled news sections on the front page (Enter
numeric value) i.e., “Recipes,” “Politics,” “Blotters,” “Health,” “Economy,”
“Entertainment,” etc. Anything that is bolded or written in bigger font to indicate a
“section title” on the homepage)?
1b) INTERACTIVITY - Source-oriented interactivity
E. Forum/chat/discussion/commenting capability on homepage
0. No, The homepage has no forum/chat/discussion/commenting capability

1. Yes, the homepage has forum/chat/discussion/commenting capability
F. Survey or Poll on homepage or first-layer page (EX: “The Grid” on AOL news, make sure
to only count same-day posts; or “READER POLL” from USA Today)
0. No survey or poll on homepage
1. Yes, there is either survey or poll on homepage
G. Games on homepage or first-layer page (EX. Crossword puzzles, Sudoku)
0. No games on homepage or first-layer page

1. One kind of game on homepage or first-layer page (i.e., only Crossword, or
only Sudoku)
2. Two kinds of games on homepage or first-layer page (i.e., both Crossword
and Sudoku)
3. More than two kinds of games on homepage or first-layer page
H. Customized news to email (e-letter) option on homepage or first-layer page (i.e., “News
Alerts” option on Yahoo News; “Sign up for e-mail & SMS alerts” on MSNBC; “E-mail
newsletters” on USA Today. Podcast and RSS feeds do not count)
17
Bolded items in the codebook are deleted in the final analysis due to lack of variance in the
variables.
0. No customized news option on homepage or first-layer page

1. Yes, there is/are e-letter options whether
I. Direct sharing link/options of news articles/videos on homepage (INSTRUCTION:

Randomly sample from three most prominent news articles TO YOU on the homepage)
0. No, there is no direct “email” link/option on homepage
1. Yes, via email (i.e., “Send” or “Email”)
2. Yes, via social networking (i.e., Facebook, Twitter) or alternative news sites
(i.e., Reddit, Technocrati, Digg, Delicious, Newsvine, Fark, StumbleUpon)
3. Yes, via BOTH email and social networking/alternative news sites.
J. Provide e-mail address of the author/reporter (INSTRUCTION: Randomly sample from

three most prominent news articles TO YOU on the homepage)
0. No, no email of the author/reporter found

1. Yes, email of the author/reporter was found
2) IMMEDIACY
K. “Latest News” Section: Number of news story links/videos in the “latest news” section [if
such section exist, if not enter 999]?
L. “Breaking News” Section: Number of news sotires from “breaking general news” (scroll
headlines if need be, though be sure to stay on homepage, i.e., be sure the web address
doesn’t change)
M. Time of update: Do articles on the homepage or first layer have time stamps?
0. No
1. Yes
3) MULTIMEDIA
N. Number of photos on homepage? (Images for ads or banners count as well)
O. Number of audio clips on homepage? (Audio for ads or banners count as well)
P. Number of video clips on homepage? (Video clips for ads or banners count as well)
4) INFORMATION AVAILABILITY
Q. Special service/section that provide more detailed, specialized or extensive news coverage
on select topics?
0. No
1. Yes
R. Special data on issues?

0. No
1. Yes
S. Number of news stories from alternative sources on homepage?

- Enter number of news stories
T. Number of total stories?
U. Number of alternative news sources on homepage?
V. Are there hyperlinks that connect users to relevant information from the same news
site? (i.e., Links for “related news stories)
0. No
1. Yes
W. Are there hyperlinks that connect users to relevant information from different news/web
sites?
0. No
1. Yes
X. Are there archives for textual news articles?

0. No
1. Yes
Y. Are there archives for audio or video clips?

0. No
1. Yes
5) USABILITY
Z. Content available on portable devices? (i.e., iPhone application; Yahoo’s mobile

device alert)
0. No
1. Yes
AA. Free search engine?

0. No
1. Yes
AB. Search engine provide results from within the news site?
0. No
1. Yes
AC. Search engine provides results from different news/web sites?

0. No
1. Yes
AD. Search engine enables news story searches?

0. No
1. Yes
AE. Search engine enables photo/still-image searches?

0. No
1. Yes
AF. Search engine enables audio clip searches?

0. No
1. Yes
AG. Search engine enables video clip searches?

0. No
1. Yes
AH. Site map?

0. No
1. Yes
AI. Number of “Popularity” news stories? (i.e., “most read,” “most recommended,” or
“what’s hot”; Count repeats if they are listed in both “most recommended” and “most read”
on the same news site)
• Enter number of popularity news stories
AJ. Categorization of “Popularity” news stories? (i.e., “most read,” “most recommended,” or
“what’s hot”)
- Enter the number of popularity news story categories
AK. “Help” or “FAQ” section on homepage that help answer users’ queries or
troubles?
0. No
1. Yes
AL. Number of popularity stories
AM. Number of categories of popularity stories

The Knight News Challenge: How it works, what succeeds, and why that
matters for the shaping of journalism innovation
Citation information
Lewis, Seth C. (2011). The Knight News Challenge: How it works, what succeeds, and
why that matters for the shaping of journalism innovation. Paper presented at the
International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX, April 2, 2011.
Note: Before citing this work, please contact the author for the latest version of this
paper. Email sclewis@umn.edu.
Author information
Seth C. Lewis, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Minnesota (Twin Cities)
sclewis@umn.edu
Bio
Seth C. Lewis (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant professor in the

School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota (Twin
Cities). At the intersection of media sociology, professionalism, and technology, his
research focuses on the process of innovation in journalism, as the field negotiates
challenges to its boundary work and professional control. His work has appeared in a
number of peer-reviewed journals, including Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, Journalism, Journalism Studies, Journalism Practice, and International
Journal of Internet Science. With Maxwell McCombs (et al.), he co-edited the 2010 book
The Future of News: An Agenda of Perspectives, and he is affiliated with the Nieman
Journalism Lab at Harvard University. Previously, he worked as an editor at The Miami
Herald and was a Fulbright Scholar in Spain.
The Knight News Challenge 2
Abstract
In recent years, the Knight News Challenge has emerged as one of the most important
forums for stimulating innovation in digital journalism, and as a salient marker of the
Knight Foundation’s influence in the field. Yet, the scholarly literature has yet to unpack
this contest: its design and execution; the applicants it attracts and the winners it funds;
and the normative aims about the future of journalism that may be revealed in this
process. This paper addresses that by examining content analysis data for nearly 5,000
applications to the Knight News Challenge, exploring the distinguishing features of
applicants, finalists, and winners—and how particular features are associated with one’s
proposal advancing in the contest. This analysis is presented against the backdrop of a
key conceptual question for journalism in the 21st century: how to reconcile the growing
tension between professional control and open participation? A logistic regression
suggests that, among other factors, those applications that advanced to the finalist and
winner stages tended to include forms of participation as well as other features (e.g.,
software development) not typically associated with journalism. These findings are
placed in the context of the Knight Foundation’s broader efforts to shape journalism
innovation.
Key words
Journalism, Nonprofit Foundations, Professionalism, Participatory Journalism,
Innovation, Content Analysis, Prize Philanthropy, Crowdsourcing
In much of western society, institutional journalism faces a two-part challenge: a
crisis of professional authority amid the rise of do-it-yourself publishing, and a crisis of
industry sustainability amid threats to traditional models of advertising subsidy. As U.S.
newspapers, in particular, have seemed paralyzed in responding to these problems (for
some discussion, see Lowrey, 2011; McChesney & Pickard, 2011), nonprofit foundations
have stepped into the void, assuming an increasingly prominent role in providing the seed
funding and institutional capital for journalism (Browne, 2010; Downie & Schudson,
2009; Guensburg, 2008; Hamilton, 2009; Westphal, 2009; Wilhelm, 2009), as in the case
of niche news organizations such as Voice of San Diego and MinnPost.com (Kurpius,
Metzgar, & Rowley, 2010; Shaver, 2010). While a nonprofit component is hardly new to
the journalism field (Shaver, 2010), what is different about the current moment is that this
foundation-driven influence extends beyond mere subsidy for newswork to include a
more holistic interest in driving innovation at the broader professional level (Lewis,
2011).
In light of the twin crises for journalism described above, this nonprofit
intervention can be seen not only as a way of addressing the market failure of journalism-
as-industry, but also as a way of attempting to resolve the crisis of journalism-as-
profession, as the field navigates the challenge of professional control in a participatory
media space online (Singer et al., 2011). My purpose is not to review the landscape of
nonprofit-supported media, as others have done (Downie & Schudson, 2009; Fremont-
Smith, 2009; Guensburg, 2008; Kurpius et al., 2010; e.g., Lewis, 2007; Maguire, 2009;
Mitchell, 2010; Shaver, 2010), nor to critique the model’s shortcomings (Browne, 2010;
Entman, 2010). Instead, this paper aims to examine one particularly salient case—the
Knight News Challenge grant-funding contest—as a way of considering the process
through which a professional field attempts to innovate its way out of crisis.
The most prominent example of such nonprofit influence and dual industry-
professional intervention is The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, one of the
largest private foundations in the United States, with $2 billion in assets. In the past 50
years, the Knight Foundation has given more than $400 million to journalism-related
initiatives during its long and close relationship with the profession, with more than half
of those funds being invested in the past decade alone. Moreover, in just the past five
years, a large portion of that funding has shifted from traditional journalism projects (e.g.,
endowing chairs in journalism schools, or underwriting mid-career training programs for
professionals) to more experimental, even risky, initiatives intended to stimulate
innovation in journalism (Wilhelm, 2009). The Knight Foundation has given millions of
dollars to seed news startups around the United States (for some examples, see Kurpius et
al., 2010), and has underwritten a whole series of grants focused on citizen and
participatory forms of journalism—in short, projects out of the mainstream mold.
The signature effort of this process is the Knight News Challenge, a five-year
(2006-2011) contest offering $25 million to support “innovative ideas that develop
platforms, tools and services to inform and transform community news, conversations
and information distribution” using digital media1 (Connell, 2010). For both the Knight
Foundation and philanthropy more broadly, the Knight News Challenge is emblematic of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 See http://newschallenge.org/about.
an ongoing shift in grant-making: from a traditional approach that privileges legacy
institutions and their proposals via a mostly closed funding system, to an emerging model
of “prize philanthropy” that has become popular among nonprofit foundations in recent
years (McKinsey & Company, 2009). This prize philanthropy model usually involves (1)
offering a major award for solving a difficult problem, so as to generate greater media
attention and word-of-mouth buzz; (2) opening up the application process to virtually
anyone, to ensure the greatest possible diversity in applicants and ideas; and, in some
cases, (3) opening up the judging process as well, to allow crowds of users and/or experts
(external to the foundation) to play a larger role in determining winners. Unlike previous
Knight funding efforts, the News Challenge was designed to be available to individuals
as well as organizations, for-profit firms as well as non-profit institutions, and (crucially)
non-journalists as well as professionals. In part because of this openness, and especially
because of the wide media coverage and acclaim that its winners have generated, the
Knight News Challenge has assumed an outsized role in setting the agenda for journalism
innovation as “the most high-profile competition in the future-of-news space” (Benton,
2010).
This growing influence, both of the Knight Foundation generally and its News
Challenge in particular, raises questions about the nature of such influence, whether
good, bad or otherwise for journalism. The Knight News Challenge should reveal
something about the underlying aims of the Knight Foundation; it can be seen as the
clearest and most public manifestation of what the foundation is trying to accomplish at
the intersection of journalism and innovation, which is important given that the field is in
a moment of transition and therefore more susceptible to shaping influences (Downie &
Schudson, 2009). It’s important, therefore, to understand the essence of contest
applicants, finalists, and winners—in particular, the content of their proposal
applications, because in that content we find embedded the aspirations and assumptions,
tactics and theories, of would-be innovators. This content, in turn, should reflect the
general manner in which the Knight Foundation framed and promoted the competition.
More importantly, the content of proposals that advanced in the competition—i.e.,
reached the finalist stage—should be indicative of what Knight was looking for and
hoping to fund in the first place. Yet, to this point, these questions about Knight and its
News Challenge have not been explored in the academic literature.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the content of Knight News
Challenge applications, so as to understand the nature of the contest and its potential
impact on the broader question of innovation in journalism. This paper presents a
secondary data analysis of nearly 5,000 application proposals. The goal was to provide a
systematic picture of the contest’s applicants, descriptively, as well as to enable statistical
tests that would assess how particular criteria were predictive2 of one’s application
becoming a finalist or winner. These considerations factored into the first research
question:
RQ1. Based on a quantitative analysis of proposals, what are the distinguishing

features of applicants, finalists, and winners of the Knight News Challenge, and
how are they predictive of one’s proposal advancing in the contest?
This analysis is presented against the backdrop of a key conceptual question for
journalism in the 21st century: how to reconcile the growing tension between professional
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 My use of the terms “predict” and “predictive” does not suggest any kind of causal association. Rather,
this usage merely reflects the standard language of regression models.
control and open participation? This is a question of both philosophical and practical
concern (Lewis, Kaufhold, & Lasorsa, 2010), and a recurring theme of research on online
journalism (Mitchelstein & Boczkowski, 2009). As Singer (2010a) observes, journalists
spent their first decade online coming to grips with the technical nature of “being digital,”
as seen in ethnographies of online news (Boczkowski, 2004; Domingo, 2008; Paterson &
Domingo, 2008); and yet, in the Web’s second decade, “a different characteristic of the
internet has become central: the fact that it is not just digital but also a network” (p. 277).
As digital networks flatten some distinctions between producer and consumer, enabling
end-users to create and (re)circulate media on their terms (Jenkins, 2006), this
development inevitably challenges the extent to which journalism, as a profession, may
hold exclusive claim to the dissemination of news information (Deuze, 2005). Not
surprisingly, this shift has often been met with resistance or at least tentativeness on the
part of professionals (Robinson, 2007; Robinson, 2010), and has challenged traditional
understandings about how news emerges and spreads (Anderson, 2010; Hermida, 2010).
In this context, the core question becomes: how does journalism become a shared practice
in a shared media space, without losing the professional core that gives it authority and
power to work on society’s behalf?
While a full examination of this general problematic—taken up well in the work
of Jane Singer (e.g., 2007; 2010b; Singer & Ashman, 2009)—is beyond the scope of this
paper, it’s nevertheless instructive to consider how the Knight News Challenge is
positioned in relation to the professional–participatory tension. For how that tension is
navigated will affect the ultimate shape of the profession and its place in society. Thus,
these considerations factored into the second research question:

RQ2. In particular, to what extent do participatory media features predict

advancing in the contest?
UNDERSTANDING THE KNIGHT FOUNDATION
Founded in 1950, the Knight Foundation is widely considered the leading
nonprofit supporter of journalism in the United States, in addition to its substantial
influence in press-related issues around the globe. Its history cannot be understood apart
from journalism, in that the foundation owes its very existence to a newspaper fortune,
bequeathed by the eponymous Knight brothers and their mother from their holdings in
Knight Newspapers. While the foundation was in its founding and always has been a
private foundation, independent of the Knight family’s business interests, there was no
mistaking its professional–cultural roots, given its journalism-centric two-fold mission:
“committed to preserving, protecting and invigorating a free press at home and abroad
and to investing in the 26 U.S. communities where the Knight brothers owned
newspapers until their deaths.”3
In recent years, working at the intersection of politics, media and society, the
Knight Foundation has been cited as a case study of creativity and innovation because it
uses a mix of dynamic leadership, regular review, and flexibility in seeking to be a
change agent, both for journalism and communities as well as philanthropy at large. In
their broad-based study of “creative philanthropy,” Anheier and Leat (2006) include
Knight among nine foundations they profile, because it “operates in a fast-changing field
in which many threads and opportunities are present and frequently collide … its grant-
making program is informed by a passion for free press and democracy, and its activities
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 See http://www.knightfoundation.org/about_knight/history.dot
are characterized by tenacity and risk-taking.” Moreover, “it is also a story of a
foundation that is rooted in local communities while pursuing national and increasingly
international agendas” (p. 163).
If the foundation appeared to take risks when Anheier and Leat (2006) studied it
in 2003, it has sought an even greater experimental strategy in the years since, most
notably under the leadership of Alberto Ibargüen. Not long after Ibargüen came to the
foundation in 2005 by way of the newspaper business, he put the foundation through a
major re-evaluation that, while not explicitly altering Knight’s mission, has affected
nearly every of its chief funding areas—perhaps nowhere more than in its flagship
program: journalism. The result has been a pull-back in funding traditional journalism
efforts and a full-throttle embrace of experimentation (for examples, see Downie &
Schudson, 2009; Massing, 2009; Nelson, 2009; Osnos, 2010; Sokolove, 2009; Wilhelm,
2009).
To understand the scope of these changes, consider the foundation’s well-branded
commitment to its journalism program. This program includes areas of specialty:
newsroom diversity, press freedom advocacy, digital media, and training and education.
In the profession, the foundation perhaps is best known for its mid-career training
programs, including endowed fellowships at Stanford, Michigan, and Harvard, as well as
vast training initiatives, such as international fellowships and online education, that have
reached more than 100,000 journalists worldwide.4 Most recently, the foundation has
contributed millions to supporting nonprofit news startups, a digital-focused reinvention
of National Public Radio, and professional partnerships for investigative reporting. All of
this investment in journalism has made Knight the leading philanthropic funder of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 See http://www.knightfoundation.org/about_knight/fact_sheet.dot.
journalism, surpassing the efforts of other groups such as the Gannett-affiliated Freedom
Forum, which has seen its endowment and ambitions shrink (see Baker, 2002; Heyboer,
2001).
Knight’s expansive influence in the profession is especially significant given the
recency of these efforts. During the foundation’s first 30 years, when it was still quite
small relative to major nonprofits, it invested less than $2 million in journalism
initiatives. Then, as the foundation’s assets grew, the funding for journalism accelerated:
from $30 million in the 1980s to $100 million in the 1990s to $300 million in the 2000s,
according to estimates made by Eric Newton, the foundation’s vice president over its
journalism program. “The reason is that, as it has become more and more clear that we
are entering a new age, a new digital age of news and information, the opportunities for
foundation work had become so much greater that it does justify the tripling and then
another tripling” (personal communication, March 25, 2010).
Media Innovation Initiative

Nevertheless, even with this dramatic widening of Knight’s commitment to the
press, it has become clear that the foundation is rethinking its priorities amid the
disruption for newspapers and journalism generally. Consider this comment made by
Ibargüen during a speech in which he rolled out the foundation’s Media Innovation
Initiative:
Over time, we’ve invested $400 million to advance quality journalism and
freedom of expression. But the perhaps the most telling figure, the one that best
describes our purpose and intent, is that in the last three years, we’ve committed
more than $100 million to media innovation initiatives.5
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 Here and elsewhere throughout this work, italicized emphasis is mine, unless otherwise noted.
The Media Innovation Initiative6 is the broad categorization for six projects
covering everything from broadband internet access to the high-level Knight Commission
on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. This six-part initiative finds its
purpose in what Knight Foundation calls the “information paradox”: Despite the growing
abundance of information, people around the globe still struggle to find the information
they need to make basic decisions about their lives in local community settings. “Knight
Foundation wants to help define and meet the information needs of communities in a
democracy. … Our strategy is experimental. Right now, nobody knows all the answers.
But the more experiments we seed, the more approaches we explore, the more likely we
are to find innovations that will serve communities and strengthen journalism in the
digital age.”7
Thus, innovation conducted in the name of “information” has become the
foundation’s major project. The first and most important piece of the Media Innovation
Initiative was and is the Knight News Challenge, which has funded nearly half of the
more than 100 media innovation experiments that Knight has undertaken since 2007.
Because the News Challenge is the foundation’s primary link between innovation and
journalism, understanding its philosophy and outcomes is important for grasping the
foundation’s overall emphasis for and influence upon the journalism field.
UNDERSTANDING THE KNIGHT NEWS CHALLENGE
The Knight News Challenge was announced in 2006, with its first grantees named
in the summer of 2007, and in the course of three years it attracted roughly 8,000
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6 See http://www.knightfoundation.org/mii/.
7 See http://www.knightfoundation.org/mii/.
applications—from which 51 projects (or 0.006%) had won as of 2009.8 In its first three
years, the awards ranged from $10,000 to develop a newspaper content management
system tool, to $5 million to set up the Center for Future Civic Media at MIT. The
median grantee received $244,000.9
Contest Criteria
The Knight News Challenge (motto: “You Invent It; We Fund It.”) has three
primary criteria: that projects (1) use digital, open-source technology, (2) distribute news
in the public interest, and (3) test their concepts in a local geographic community. These
criteria reflect the Knight Foundation’s general understandings about media today:
Digital technologies are great at creating virtual communities and connections, but
comparatively poor at helping citizens understand and act on problems at the geographic
level where politics still takes place; therefore, innovations need to address news and
information needs in local communities, and should be open-source so as to be easily
scaled and replicated in other communities if they are successful. The Knight Foundation
is less concerned with “invention” (creating something from scratch) than with
“innovation” (recombining existing products/services for new purposes), because, as
Ibargüen (2009) has made clear, “This is not a science prize, and we’re not focused on
figuring out the next ‘widget.’ We’re interested in the ways a ‘widget’ can be used to
bring communities together.” In addition to these rules (i.e., digital, open-source,
innovative, local community), there are more implicit criteria: e.g., that projects should
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8 The latest round of winners was announced in the summer of 2010, but, because of limitations in the data
and the timeframe of analysis, this study is limited to just the first three years (2007, 2008, 2009) of Knight
News Challenge activity.
9 Details on the winners—their affiliations, locations, and project descriptions—can be found at
http://newschallenge.org/winners.
encourage greater engagement with local democracy and be able to “scale up” through
replication in other locales.
How the Judging Works

Knight News Challenge applications are screened by sets of judges chosen by the
foundation. In addition to Knight staff involved at every step of the way, the pool of
judges typically may include a mix of journalists, technologists, entrepreneurs,
academics, and former News Challenge winners, according to former contest director
Gary Kebbel. He said:
In terms of their background, we are looking for a mix of young people and
people established in their careers, people who are in the journalism field, people
who are in the technology field, social networking, mobile—we try to have a mix
of lots of different types of specialties represented. We look for people who, as a
result of our travels or our meetings or our conferences, that we think basically
“get it.” (personal communication, February 24, 2010)
While complete lists of judges from the 2006-09 contest cycles are not publicly
available, in 2010 the foundation identified the set of 25 judges involved in choosing the
latest winners; it did this in a blog post titled, “Knight Foundation is honored to host new
media innovators.”10 Among these invited judges determining the 2010 winners were the
managing editor for The Washington Post’s online operations; quite a few participants
labeled as “entrepreneurs” and “media consultants”; an expert in “social enterprise and
philanthropy”; another working on “participation in emerging democracies”; and media-
focused venture capitalists, among others.
However, it is important to note that this was the final-round set of judges. The
process of choosing Knight News Challenge winners is somewhat complex in that it
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10 See http://www.knightblog.org/knight-foundation-is-honored-to-host-new-media-innovators.
involves different sets of judges both within and across years. In a given contest year, one
set of judges—made up of Knight staff and outside experts—screens the initial group of
roughly 2,500 applications and whittles that down to approximately 250 finalists. These
elite 10% then submit more detailed proposals, which are evaluated by the same group
and reduced to roughly 50 candidates, or the top 2% overall. At that point, a new set of
judges—including Knight staff but mostly composed of outside experts—reviews these
top 50 and chooses the class of winners. The number of winners varies in size each year:
in 2007 it was a bumper crop of 26, in 2008 there were 16 winners, and in 2009 only 9.
Secondly, these groups of judges differ from year-to-year, making it that much more
difficult to draw precise conclusions from multi-year data. Finally, as Kebbel
acknowledged to me, the marketing and judging of the Knight News Challenge has
varied year-to-year according to the particular focus of the foundation: In the first contest
cycle, Knight sought to reach the journalism community; in 2008, it was the international
crowd; and in 2009 (and the most recent 2010 cycle) the emphasis was on attracting more
applicants from techies and Web developers (personal interview, February 24, 2010).
These complexities and limitations must be kept in context as I proceed to analyze the
best (and only) quantitative data available on this the most significant innovation contest
in journalism.
METHODS
Data
This paper draws on data gathered by Latitude Inc., a consulting firm that does
statistical data analysis for a number of media-related clients including AOL, Scripps,
Sports Illustrated, Yahoo! News, and Time Inc., among others.11 In 2009, the Knight
Foundation contracted with Latitude to conduct a content analysis of the proposal
applications it had received for the first three years of the Knight News Challenge—the
2007, 2008, and 2009 contest cycles. The coding was completed in September 2009. In
all, Latitude coders analyzed 5,172 application documents: 243 for Year 1; 2,699 for
Year 2; and 2,230 for Year 3. This represented a census of applications from Years 2 and
3 (2008 and 2009), but only included some finalists (n = 221) and not even all of the
winners (n = 22) from Year 1 (2007). Including this Year 1 data (n = 243) in my data set
would have skewed the results of my analysis, because it would not have allowed for an
apples-to-apples comparison—for example, of Year 1 finalists/winners vs. Year 1 losers.
Therefore, for purposes of validity, my analyses focused exclusively on data from the
second and third years of the contest (2008 and 2009); despite this loss of Year 1 data, the
resulting sample (N = 4,929) still constituted more than 95% of the original data. The
data were found to be sufficiently reliable for analysis.12 The Knight Foundation gave me
access to the final data set in March 2010, and my analyses were conducted shortly
thereafter.
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis is the proposal application to the Knight News Challenge.
Applicants to the contest are asked to complete an online form that poses basic questions
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
""!See http://www.latd.com/#!
12During the content analysis conducted by Latitude, approximately 10% of the entries (or 500
applications) were randomly selected and re-coded by a second coder. Reliability was calculated using
Cohen’s kappa, a standard measure for inter-coder reliability. This statistic is generally considered more
conservative than other methods, such as percent of agreement, because it does not give credit for chance
agreement. An average of the Cohen’s kappa value for all variables yielded a .56 reliability, which is
moderate intercoder reliability and therefore acceptable, particularly in an exploratory context such as this
where the variables can be difficult to pin down.
about their project, its purpose, and its proposed execution. There is limited space for
reply, keeping each proposal to less than 1,000 words.13 Applicants are asked to name
their proposed project and detail specifics such as their requested amount of funding from
the News Challenge, the total project cost including all funding sources, and the
anticipated amount of time to complete the project. Thereafter, applicants respond to a set
of open-ended questions, such as these drawn from the 2009 application:
• “Describe your project”
• “How will your project improve the way news and information are delivered to
geographic communities?”
• “How is your idea innovative? (new or different from what already exists)”
• “What experience do you or your organization have to successfully develop this
project?”
• “What unmet need does your proposal answer?”
• “What will you have changed by the end of your project?”
Because the proposal document was the unit of analysis, Latitude coders were
asked to conduct their evaluation “holistically based on the full submission,” according to
the coding instructions. However, these instructions indicated that these questions “may
help direct attention to appropriate sections of the application.” For example, in assessing
the background of an applicant, coders might pay particular attention to the section
bracketed by the question, “What experience do you or your organization have to
successfully develop this project?” Nevertheless, on every variable coders were asked to
consider “all open-ended questions.”

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13 Because of the space constraints posed by the short-answer question format of the application, News
Challenge applicants may submit additional supporting material, such as a figure or diagram, but there is no
indication that such were coded by Latitude.
Coding and Variables

The dependent variable was categorical, and referred to how far a submission
went in the contest: whether it was an Applicant only (89%), a Finalist (11%), or a
Winner (less than 1%). The coding scheme included 32 variables, most (but not all) of
which were pertinent for this study.14 After becoming thoroughly familiar with the data
set, I chose those variables that seemed most relevant for this analysis. The vast majority
of these variables were already coded as categorical data, but I recoded where needed to
achieve a consistent set where 1 = yes and 0 = no across all variables. I will review the
major variable clusters, in order as they appear later in Tables 2 and 3.
Background
There were three key variables related to one’s background:
• First, coders were asked to assess whether an applicant was made by (1) an
organization or (2) an individual.
• Secondly, coders classified the kind of organization or individual who had
applied. For individual type, the options were: (1) journalist, (2) social activist, (3) artist,
(4) IT/software developer, (5) architect, (6) innovator, (7) researcher, (8) educator, (9)
executive/manager, and (10) other. For organization type: (1) newspaper, (2) media
organization, (3) journalism school, (4) non-profit, (5) local community organization, (6)
research foundation, (7) university, (8) communication organization, and (9) other.
Knowing these distinctions was useful in developing a basis for understanding the kind of
people or organizations submitting to the News Challenge. But, because I was primarily
interested in assessing if one had a “professional media” kind of background, I combined
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14 For example, some variables had limited usefulness because they pertained only to a single contest year,
as in the case of the question about commercial vs. non-commercial applications.
the “individual journalist,” “newspaper” and “media organization” categories to create a
new variable that would reflect any applicant who met either of those criteria (i.e., Media
Background = 1, all others = 0).
Thirdly, coders classified whether a project was focused on the United States (1)
or elsewhere (0).
Features related to contest criteria

I was interested in assessing the extent to which criteria spelled out by the Knight
News Challenge—namely: digital, open-source, innovative, local community, democratic
engagement, and replicable15—were manifest in those applications that advanced.
• First, Latitude classified applications according to the platforms they intended to
use (coders selected all that applied): (1) Web, (2) mobile, (3) print, (4) TV, (5) radio,
and (6) human. The first two were included to represent the digital criterion.
• Second, the open-source criterion was not directly measured in this data set, but
the “software development” category (“Does this product involve the development of
software? Yes or no”) was the best available approximation, given the synonymy of
“open source” and some kind of software creation or modification.
• Third, innovation was measured through the codebook question, “To what
degree does this project involve creating something entirely new or combining existing
elements,” on a 3-point scale where 1 = invention (“creating an entirely new product”)
and 3 = innovation (“taking products that exist and combining them in new ways, for new
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15 For details, see http://www.newschallenge.org/content/frequently-asked-questions#projects.
audiences, or for new purposes”). I recoded such that a “heavy” emphasis on innovation
= 1 and the other two responses = 0.16
• Fourth, the local criterion was assessed by classifying how applicants conceived
of “geographic communities,” whether as: (1) large city areas; (2) cities; (3) greater
metropolitan areas; (4) state; (5) country region (e.g., New England); and (6) nation.
Because of Knight’s historical and contemporary emphasis on “community” in the
smaller, metro-like sense (e.g., the “Knight communities”), I recoded this variable such
that a more narrow conception (neighborhood, city, or metro) of geographic community
= 1 and the others = 0.
• Fifth, the democratic engagement criterion was measured via the question,
“Does this project directly improve individuals’ engagement with local democracy and/or
increase individuals’ input in their local community?” on a 3-point scale of “not at all,”
“a little bit,” and “a lot (focus of the project).” I recoded this variable such that “a lot”
became “high community engagement” and = 1 and other responses = 0.
• Sixth, the replicable criterion was assessed through the question, “Is this project
able to be replicated in other local communities? (must be directly addressed in
submission).” Those projects that explicitly addressed “scalability” were coded as 1 and
others as 0.
Participatory features of the submission

I was interested in assessing the potential for user participation in these proposed
projects, but found that only two variables addressed this directly. User Manipulation
refers to those projects that offered at least “some” or “a lot” in response to the query,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16 It is worth noting again that the primary reason for reducing this and other variables to a 1-0 scale was
for overall consistently with the rest of the data set, which mainly was categorical (yes and no).
“How much are users of this product/service able to manipulate/modify it?”
Crowdsourcing refers to projects classified as “yes” on the question, “Does this
product/service feature crowdsourcing?” The codebook went on to clarify the definition
of this concept:
Crowdsourcing is the term for outsourcing a task to an undefined, generally large

group of people or community in the form of an open call. For example, the
public may be invited to develop a new technology, carry out a design task, refine
or carry out the steps of an algorithm, or help capture, systematize, or analyze
large amounts of data.
Additional clusters of variables

For Category, coders could select all possible categories that might describe a
project’s focus: Journalism, Politics, Social Networking, Technology, and Entertainment.
Some additional categories appeared in the original coding (e.g., Health/Medicine and
Environment) but were deemed less relevant for this analysis.
For Type of Problem Addressed, coders were asked to select all that applied when
considering “What type of problem or unmet need does this submission address?”: (1)
Information flow/access; (2) Community cohesiveness; (3) Information
accuracy/credibility; (4) Organization of information; (5) Economic/financial.
For Nature of the Proposed Solution, coders were asked to select all that applied
in categorizing the proposed project as: (1) Aggregation of information; (2) Transparency
of information; (3) Accuracy/credibility of information; (4) Connectivity among data or
data sets; (5) Connectivity among people (individuals and/or organizations); (6) Increase
in information platforms.
For the Nature of the Information Being Shared, coders were asked to select all
that applied in judging if the project’s information would be shared: (1) One-to-many; (2)
One-to-one; (3) Many-to-one; (4) Many-to-many.
Finally, for the Recency of the Information, coders were asked to select all that
applied regarding the “timeliness” of a given proposal’s approach to information: (1)
Time-critical; (2) Recent but not time-critical; (3) Long-term and/or historical.
Data Analysis
Because the data were at the nominal level of measurement (1 and 0), I used a
series of cross-tabulations and logistic regression to assess the impact of these variables
on the criterion of advancement in the contest.
RESULTS
Sample Profile
As Table 1 shows, in the 2008 and 2009 contest cycles, the median applicant was
39, requested $272,000 in funding, estimated her total project costs at $350,000, and
expected to take two years from start to finish.17 Organizations accounted for just over
half (53.6%) of all applications, and the broad category of “media organization” was used
to describe 20.9% of all applicants—the largest such classification. While applications
classified separately as organizations or individuals, coders could “check all that apply”
when assessing what type of organization or individual a given application appeared to
represent. Therefore, an entity described as a “media organization” may also have been
classified as a “local community organization” or “research foundation.” Furthermore,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17The median statistic was used here because of the misleading means associated with the two “money”
variables—amount requested and estimated total cost—on account of serious skewness in the variables.
because the coding scheme did not include explicit reference to TV and radio news
outlets, these also would have fallen under the “media organization” label.
Table 1 about here
Perhaps the most interesting finding from this profile is that newspapers, by and
large, ignored the Knight News Challenge, accounting for only 2.4% of all applicants.
And this was in 2008 and 2009, at a time when the News Challenge had generated
considerable publicity in the trade press after its debut class of 2007 winners. Even if we
include the number of individual journalists (13.4%) applying, that still adds up to less
than 16% of all those who applied.
With regard to the degree of media background possessed by these applicants, the
variables “media organization,” “newspaper,” and “individual journalist” represent a
combined total of 35.8% of all applicants. In other words, the majority of News
Challenge applicants were not media professionals in this sense; they were educators,
entrepreneurs, local activists, and software developers, or others—but, tellingly, they
were from fields other than the media industry.

Distinguishing Features
RQ1. Based on a quantitative analysis of proposals, what are the distinguishing

features of applicants, finalists, and winners of the Knight News Challenge, and how
are they predictive of one’s proposal advancing in the contest?
To compare the breakdown of variables across the categories of applicant, finalist,
and winner, I conducted a series of cross-tabulations to test for consistency in expected
cell frequencies (see Table 2). To highlight a few of the noteworthy findings18:
First, regarding Background: The chi-square tests suggest that being an
organization (!2 = 18.41, p < .001) and having a media background (!2 = 14.99, p < .01)
were associated with advancing past the Applicant stage.
Table 2 about here
Features Related to the Contest Criteria: There is an increase—from Applicant to
Finalist to Winner—in the proportion of proposals that included mobile as a platform for
use (!2 = 17.52, p < .001), proposed developing software (!2 = 15.40, p < .001),
approached innovation as recombination rather than invention (!2 = 52.58, p < .001), and
explicitly described how they might be “scaled up” elsewhere (!2 = 24.99, p < .001). On
the software development variable especially, the jump from finalist (41%) to winner
(88%) was rather dramatic. Meanwhile, the differences on using the Web as a platform,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18 These findings should be understood in context, beginning with the vast size differences among the
populations in these categories: Applicant (n = 4,369), Finalist (n = 535) and Winner (n = 25). These
differences are so great, particularly given the very small size of the Winner pool, that I would not expect
always to find neatly linear, stair-stepping increases or decreases from Applicant to Finalist to Winner—
even if such trends might suggest something about the assessment of Knight judges. Of the comparisons,
those between Applicant and Finalist are the most meaningful, because of the large population sizes for
both categories and because of the idiosyncratic nature of a group as small as the 25 winners. Ultimately,
these cross-tabulations primarily serve to highlight how certain features were represented among these
different groups, descriptively; the logistic regression to come will add a more theoretical and predictive
element to this process.
having a “local” definition of community, and pursuing high community engagement also
were significant, and their proportions increased from Applicant to Finalist. Thus, as
would be expected, all of the contest criteria were better represented among proposals
that advanced beyond the initial stage.
Participatory Features of the Submission: Projects that afforded user
manipulation (!2 = 38.30, p < .001) and crowdsourcing (!2 = 33.17, p < .001) were
increasingly better represented as one moves up from Applicant to Winner, suggesting
that such features were preferred by the judges—to the point that nearly 9 out of 10
winners offered some form of user manipulation.
Category: Projects classified as Journalism (!2 = 77.35, p < .001) made up three-
fourths (76%) of the winners—significantly more than the relative percentages for
applicants (46%) and finalists (65%). The other categories, even when statistically
significant, seemed rather inconclusive, with the possible exception of Technology (!2 =
15.64, p < .001), which showed significant differences between applicant (24%) and
finalist/winner (32%) levels.
Type of Problem Addressed: A focus on information flow and access (!2 = 41.87,
p < .001) was manifest among 100% of winners, significantly more than among
applicants (82%). The other findings in this grouping were less clear or non-significant.
Nature of the Proposed Solution: The most stark difference in this grouping was
the proportion of projects with a data-oriented solution (!2 = 47.47, p < .001), which
accounted for less than a third of applicants (30%) but grew to make up 80% of the
winners. Other findings here were more muddled and uneven. Projects focused on
aggregation of information (!2 = 23.83, p < .001), transparency of information (!2 =

47.77, p < .001), accuracy/credibility of information (!2 = 8.02, p < .05), and increased
platforms of information (!2 = 25.74, p < .001) saw increases from Applicant to
Finalist—which, as mentioned, is a more meaningful comparison than that of Applicant
vs. Winner.
Nature of the Information Being Shared: The one-to-many approach to
distributing information was evident in nearly all proposals (including 100% of winners),
whereas those projects focused on delivering information to the individual (i.e., one-to-
one and many-to-one) were far less represented. A many-to-many information-sharing
approach, perhaps the one most associated with social and participatory forms of media,
increased from Applicant (65%) to Finalist (74%) but was less apparent among Winners
(48%). What is striking about this finding is that more than more than two-thirds of all
applicants to the News Challenge (and even half of all winners) take a many-to-many
approach to handling information, suggesting ample space for user participation.
Recency of the Information: Finally, only the time-critical classification (!2 =
41.71, p < .001) was more represented among applications that advanced, suggesting that,
in the main, projects that focused on time-sensitive information—e.g., news—were
preferred by judges.
Overall, it is interesting to note that on nearly every statistically significant
variable, there was a proportional increase from Applicant to Finalist. This indicates that
proposals that advanced beyond the initial round generally included more of the content
features that the Knight Foundation was hoping to “find” (and thus measure in this
content analysis), as would be expected. Moreover, it is instructive to take stock of the
flip side—the content features that were less represented in moving from Applicant to
Finalist: Entertainment as the project category; Economic/financial as the problem
addressed; One-to-one in the nature of information flow; and Long-term and/or historical
information. Taken together, these contrast with the Knight Foundation’s intent to
facilitate civic news and information (not entertainment), do it in a nonprofit fashion (and
therefore with less emphasis on the business model “problem”), reach as many people as
possible (not merely the individual), and focus on current events news (as opposed to
historical information).
Likewise, it’s important to note those content features that were overwhelmingly
represented (e.g., 85% or higher) among the winning proposals: innovation (as opposed
to invention), user participation, information flow and access, aggregation of information,
and a one-to-many approach. Each of these factors is in sync with the rhetoric of the
foundation, including its emerging focus on information and participation.
Predictive Factors
Based on these cross-tabulation findings and earlier depictions of the contest, I
would argue that the variability of the Knight News Challenge judging process and the
small number of winners analyzed (n = 25) together make it difficult to identify the
precise factors that might explain ultimate success in the contest. A better and more
meaningful measure would simply be to assess how certain factors contributed to a
proposal’s advancement in the contest—i.e., from Applicant to Finalist or Winner.
Because less than 12% of all applications made it beyond the initial application stage, this
process of advancing was a discriminating one, and thus should reveal something
important about those factors that Knight considered most important in selecting its
finalists and winners.

The data were recoded to distinguish Applicants (n = 4,369) from Advancers (n =
560). Because the data were nominal, a binary logistic regression was performed to
predict applicants’ likelihood of advancing, based on the extent to which certain features
were manifest in their proposal. The outcome variable advancement was 1 = finalist or
winner and 0 = did not advance. A test of the full model (see Table 3) was statistically
significant (!2 = 347.122, p < .001), and 88.6% of the cases were correctly classified.
Table 3 summarizes the unstandardized B coefficients, the standard error, the Wald
statistics, and the estimated change in odds of advancement (with a 95% confidence
interval). The explained variance (Nagelkerke’s R2 = .13) is adequate.
Table 3 about here
A general review of Table 3 shows that the number of statistically significant
variables drops substantially, relative to the number in Table 2, when each variable’s
influence is assessed in relation to others, everything else held constant. For example, the
statistical significance of having a media background that was evident earlier goes away
in this model, as does the significance of two contest-criteria factors, community
engagement and scalability (see Table 2).
Because all the variables were loaded in a single block, the logistic regression
makes apparent the unique contribution of each factor, and therefore allows the reader to
identify the major predictors of advancement, based on the Wald statistics. To provide a
simpler picture of the most salient predictors of advancement in the News Challenge, the
most meaningful variables (i.e., those with a Wald statistic of 10 or higher) are listed in
Table 4; they are sorted by odds ratios, depending on their positive or negative predictive
impact on a proposal’s likelihood of advancing in the contest, controlling for all other
variables.
Table 4 about here
From Table 4, we find that Information Flow/Access and Journalism appear to
stand apart in having the greatest effect in predicting an applicant’s success in the News
Challenge. When controlling for all other variables in the model, the odds of advancing
increased by 99% if a proposal sought to address problems related to the free flow of and
access to information, and increased by 72% if a proposal could be categorized as a form
of journalism. These two variables could be thought of as a “news and information”
grouping. Among the remaining positive predictors, there are five—Innovation,
Technology, Software Development, Transparency of Information, and Connects Data or
Data Sets—that could be thought of as a “technology” grouping, because the words
innovation and transparency have become almost synonymous with digital media
initiatives today. Each of these predictors increased the odds of advancing by roughly
50%. Two other predictors, Crowdsouring and User Manipulation, could be classified as
the “participation” pairing, because of their emphasis on putting some degree of control
in the hands of the crowd; these factors increased the odds of advancement by 48% and
45%, respectively. Finally, the positive predictor Local Definition of “Community” can
be thought to suit the News Challenge’s interest in projects being rooted in a locale to
serve a geographically relevant population—in this case, the more narrowly that a
proposal defines “local,” the better for advancing in the competition.

The negative predictors listed in Table 4 point to key content features that were
associated with not advancing in the contest. The odds of advancement were reduced by
44% if the proposal sought to address an economic/financial problem, by 39% if a
proposal intended to facilitate one-to-one information flow, and by 31% if a proposal
took long-term or historical information as its focus—again, when all other variables in
the model are being controlled. Considered together, these three variables are interesting
for how they differ from the News Challenge’s emphasis on (1) the “problem” of
information flow and access (rather than economic/financial concerns); (2) the need to
have many—in the community, in the crowd—engaged in civic information (rather than
one-to-one communication); and (3) current news (rather than history).
RQ2. In particular, to what extent do participatory media features predict advancing in

the contest?
In this logistic regression model, the participatory-related features of User
Manipulation (Wald = 10.54, p < .01, Exp(B) = 1.46) and Crowdsourcing (Wald = 13.94,
p < .001, Exp(B)=1.48) both positively predicted advancing in the Knight News
Challenge. In other words, when all other things are held constant, proposals that
included features designed for end-user participation were nearly 1! times as likely to
advance in the contest. This suggests that an emphasis on participation, in addition to
other factors noted above, is more often than not a discriminating factor in being chosen
to advance in the News Challenge competition.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of the Knight News
Challenge by examining content analysis data for nearly 5,000 application proposals.
Because of the contest’s importance to the Knight Foundation and the journalism field’s
ongoing innovation, the larger aim of this paper was to develop a scholarly baseline for
thinking about the potential direction and impact of the News Challenge.
Overall, a number of variables contributed significantly to one’s likelihood of
advancing in the Knight News Challenge during the 2008 and 2009 contest cycles. Most
prominent among these were factors that focused on news and information, technology,
participation, and a hyperlocal definition of community. Each of these themes works to
reinforce the manner in which the Knight Foundation has framed innovation generally
and the News Challenge contest particularly. The two most predictive individual
variables, Information Flow/Access and Journalism, speak to the dual emphasis that
Knight has placed on “journalism” (throughout its history) and “information” (through
more recent efforts)—a distinction that is explored more fully in Lewis (2011). The News
Challenge was marketed as a news and information contest, reflecting the both/and
nature of Knight’s interest both in doing journalism and in opening space for all kinds of
civic information—including that produced by citizens—to flourish and flow, under the
assumption that more is certainly better than less information in the public sphere.
Furthermore, Knight increasingly has become interested in the issue of “information
access,” making the digital divide and related concerns a central component of its
strategies, most prominently so in the Knight Commission report that urged the federal
government to make national broadband internet a priority—indeed, the digital
equivalent of the public good achieved by the interstate highway system.19 Additionally,
the technology cluster of variables not only fits with the contest’s digital criterion, but
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19 For more on this issue, see examples such as this press release:
http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases/detail.dot?id=357218.
also suggests a kind of technological determinism that is apparent in Knight’s embrace of
technology as a driver of innovation.
It is also significant to consider the presence of the participatory variables among
the strongest predictors of advancement. While the other major predictors (news and
information, technology, and hyperlocal) are closely related to the contest’s criteria, and
therefore should be expected to figure strongly into the judging process, there was no
imperative that Knight News Challenge applicants make user participation part of their
projects. Nevertheless, the data indicate that participatory elements like Crowdsouring
and User Manipulation were in fact strongly associated with being selected as a finalist or
winner, all other things being equal. This underscores Knight’s turn toward faith in
collective intelligence (Lévy, 1997) and its interest in promoting user participation in
journalism as a normative goal. In the negotiation of professional control and open
participation, these findings would suggest that Knight is erring on the side of the latter,
encouraging news innovators to be more proactive in engaging the audience more fully in
the process of news production. One of the more prominent examples to emerge from the
Knight News Challenge is Spot.Us, a platform for community-funded reporting that
engages both elements: crowdsourcing, in the form of “crowdfunded” financial support,
and user participation, in the form of user-driven contributions to the news-gathering
process (Aitamurto, 2011).
Overall, in these findings there is evidence of a subtle movement away from an
emphasis on professional expertise (which was Knight’s stance, historically) and toward
one of crowd wisdom, of embracing possibilities enabled by networked technologies.
Perhaps it’s because of this turn away from the professional core of journalism that the
contest featured surprisingly few submissions by newspapers, which by and large appear
to have ignored the News Challenge, accounting for only 2.4% of all applicants. And this
was in 2008 and 2009, after the contest had received substantial coverage in the news
industry conversation online. Even when looking beyond newspapers alone, it is clear
that roughly two-thirds of applicants were not media professionals in the traditional
sense. This reinforces the sense that the foundation, in promoting the contest and
designing it for maximum impact, deliberately sought to seek innovative ideas from
beyond the journalism field—and in so doing, pushed out the boundaries of journalism,
rhetorically (in framing) and materially (in funding), to create a space for an
interdisciplinary style of innovation that incorporated input from a variety of sectors. So
it is that those applications that advanced to the finalist and winner stages tended to
include forms of participation and distributed knowledge (i.e., crowdsourcing and user
manipulation) as well as other features (e.g., software development) not typically
associated with journalism.
There is, however, a need to more fully conceptualize the nature of this proposed
participation that was evident in the content of News Challenge applicants. This is
especially true because of the limitations of the logistic regression model; with its
Nagelkerke’s R2 of 13.4%, there is substantial variance being explained by other
factors—among these, perhaps, are other variables associated with participation.
Qualitative research could address this gap by affording a more holistic assessment of
content and its context. Overall, however, these findings offer a significant step forward
in understanding one of the most important pieces in the future-of-journalism puzzle, and
indicate that open participation may be favored over professional control in the context of
journalism innovation and nonprofit support from the Knight Foundation.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics Profiling the Nature of Knight News Challenge

Applicants Overall (N = 4,929) in the Contest Years 2008 and 2009
Variable % Mean SD Median

Age of the applicant (where identifiable) [n = 4,380] 39.2 11.8 38
Amount requested for project [n = 4,715] $1,890,000 $7,490,000 $272,000
Estimated total cost of the project [n = 4,646] $1,500,000 $2,310,000 $350,000
Estimated time to complete project (years) [n = 4,443] 1.76 .96 2.0
Organization as the applicant 53.6
Media Organization 20.9
Non-Profit 9.3
Local Community Organization 9.0
Communication Organization 7.9
University 5.3
Journalism School 3.9
Newspaper 2.4
Research Foundation 2.0
Other 9.0
Individual as the applicant 46.4
Software/IT 13.6
Journalist 13.4
Social Activist 6.9
Innovator 6.3
Educator 4.8
Executive/Manager 4.4
Researcher 3.0
Artist 1.4
Architect 0.1
Other 14.2
Notes: Unless specified, N = 4,929. Percentages may not add to 100% because coders
could choose “all that apply” in deciding what type of organization or individual a given
application represented; e.g., an applicant could be coded both as a “media organization”
and a “newspaper.” Percentages are out of all applicants (e.g., 13.4% of all applicants,
individuals and organizations, were “individual journalists.”
Table 2: Cross-tabulation of Applicants (n = 4,369) vs. Finalists (n = 535) vs. Winners (n

= 25) of the Knight News Challenge in 2008 and 2009
Highest Level Reached Significance Test

Applicant Finalist Winner !2 Sig.
(%) (%) (%)
Proposal Characteristics (% yes) 89 11 1
Background of Applicant
Organization 53 60 84 18.41 ***
Media Background 35 42 56 14.99 **
Based in the United States 67 71 76 4.70 ns
Features Related to the Contest Criteria
Web as a platform for use† 92 96 84 10.21 *
†
Mobile as a platform for use 16 22 32 17.52 ***
Software development 20 26 40 15.40 ***
Innovation (rather than invention) 32 41 88 52.58 ***
Local definition of “community” 58 66 64 11.88 *
High community engagement 44 53 48 13.27 **
Scalability (i.e., replication is explicitly stated) 34 43 60 24.99 ***
Participatory Features of the Submission
User manipulation 62 74 88 38.30 ***
Crowdsourcing 36 48 60 33.17 ***
Category
Journalism 46 65 76 77.35 ***
Politics† 9 12 12 6.07 *
Social Networking 45 51 44 7.11 *
Technology 24 32 32 15.64 ***
Entertainment† 14 12 12 1.04 ns
Type of Problem Addressed
Information flow/access† 82 92 100 41.87 ***
Community cohesiveness 59 67 64 13.63 **
Information accuracy/credibility 46 48 24 5.66 ns
Organization of information 57 61 72 5.74 ns

Economic/financial† 14 9 32 18.67 ***
Nature of the Proposed Solution
Aggregation of information† 88 95 92 23.83 ***
Transparency of information 58 69 20 47.77 ***
Accuracy/credibility of information 41 44 16 8.02 *
Connects data or datasets 30 39 80 47.47 ***
Connects people 74 75 84 1.54 ns
Increases platforms of information 53 64 64 25.74 ***
Nature of the Information Being Shared
One-to-many† 97 98 100 2.69 ns
One-to-one 55 50 36 8.27 *
Many-to-one 43 51 8 24.57 ***
Many-to-many 65 74 48 19.12 ***
Recency of the Information
Time-critical 29 42 52 41.71 ***
Recent but not time-critical 79 79 52 11.02 **
Long-term and/or historical 54 47 80 17.79 ***
Notes: N = 4,929. Cell entries for applicant, finalist and winner are percentages, which
have been rounded. df for each variable = 2. !2 cell entries represent the chi-square
statistic. † denotes variables that each had one cell with an expected frequency of less
than 5, and therefore should be interpreted with caution. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 3: Predicting the Likelihood that a Submission Advanced Beyond the Application
Stage, Based on Features Identified via Content Analysis
B (S.E.) Wald Sig. Exp(B)
Background of Applicant
Organization .274 .098 7.844 ** 1.315
Media Background .125 .099 1.587 ns 1.133
Based in the United States .162 .105 2.379 ns 1.176
Features Related to the Contest Criteria
Web as a platform for use -.050 .220 .052 ns .951
Mobile as a platform for use .282 .119 5.600 * 1.326
Software development .419 .117 12.910 *** 1.521
Innovation (rather than invention) .469 .106 19.575 *** 1.599
Local definition of “community” .320 .101 10.112 ** 1.378
High community engagement .084 .107 .613 ns 1.088
Scalability (i.e., replication is explicitly stated) .219 .100 4.783 ns 1.245
Participatory Features
User manipulation .380 .117 10.542 ** 1.463
Crowdsourcing .390 .104 13.941 *** 1.477
Category
Journalism .543 .107 25.934 *** 1.722
Politics .206 .149 1.908 ns 1.229
Social Networking .138 .110 1.579 ns 1.148
Technology .445 .110 16.221 *** 1.560
Entertainment -.181 .146 1.539 ns .834
Type of Problem Addressed
Information flow/access .686 .179 14.643 *** 1.985
Community cohesiveness .272 .117 5.390 * 1.312
Information accuracy/credibility -.045 .111 .162 ns .956
Organization of information -.172 .108 2.517 ns .842
Economic/financial -.575 .159 13.159 *** .563
Nature of the Proposed Solution

Aggregation of information .332 .212 2.447 ns 1.394
Transparency of information .418 .114 13.467 *** 1.519
Accuracy/credibility of information -.109 .115 .897 ns .897
Connects data or datasets .373 .105 12.629 *** 1.453
Connects people -.255 .129 3.888 * .775
Increases platforms of information .115 .111 1.074 ns 1.122
Nature of the Information Being Shared
One-to-many .269 .349 .595 ns 1.309
One-to-one -.492 .113 18.858 *** .611
Many-to-one -.099 .114 .761 ns .906
Many-to-many -.059 .122 .232 ns .943
Recency of the Information
Time-critical .288 .111 6.776 ** 1.334
Recent but not time-critical -.216 .130 2.762 ns .806
Long-term and/or historical -.368 .110 11.314 ** .692
Constant -4.670 .474 96.934 *** .009
Notes: Entries are the result of a binary logistic regression that included all variables in a
single model. Cell entries are B coefficients (unstandardized), standard error, Wald !2,
significance, and odds ratio. All variables coded as 1 for yes and 0 for no. Dependent
variable: advancing in the contest. Of all applicants (N = 4,929), 560 (11%) advanced as
finalists or winners and 4,369 (89%) did not. Correctly classified: 88.6%. df for each
variable = 1. Model statistics: !2 = 347.122, p < .001. Nagelkerke’s R2 = .134. Odds ratio
> 1 = advancing in contest is more likely. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 4: A Summary of Key Predictors of a Knight News Challenge Application

Advancing Beyond the Initial Stage, Sorted by Odds Ratios
B (S.E.) Wald Sig. Exp(B)

Positive Predictors
Information flow/access .690 .180 14.640 *** 1.985
Journalism .540 .110 25.930 *** 1.722
Innovation (rather than invention) .470 .110 19.580 *** 1.599
Technology .450 .110 16.220 *** 1.560
Software development .420 .120 12.910 *** 1.521
Transparency of information .420 .110 13.470 *** 1.519
Crowdsourcing .390 .100 13.940 *** 1.477
User manipulation .380 .120 10.540 ** 1.463
Connects data or datasets .370 .110 12.630 *** 1.453
Local definition of “community” .320 .100 10.110 ** 1.378
Negative Predictors
Economic/financial -.580 .160 13.160 *** .563
One-to-one -.490 .110 18.860 *** .611
Long-term and/or historical -.370 .110 11.310 ** .692
Notes. These variables are extracted from the previous logistic regression model (see
Table 3 notes for details). The higher the odds ratio above 1.0, the greater impact of that
variable in increasing the likelihood of a given application’s advancement in the Knight
News Challenge, controlling for all other variables in the model (see Table 3). By
contrast, the lower the odds ratio below 1.0, the greater the effect of that variable in
reducing the odds of advancing in the contest, controlling for all other variables in the
model.
References
Aitamurto, T. (2011). The impact of crowdfunding on journalism: Case study of spot.Us,

a platform for community-funded reporting. Forthcoming in Journalism Practice.
Anderson, C. W. (2010). Journalistic networks and the diffusion of local news: The brief,
happy news life of the “Francisville Four”. Political Communication, 27(3), 289-
309.
Anheier, H. K., & Leat, D. (2006). Creative philanthropy: Toward a new philanthropy
for the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.
Baker, R. (2002). Cracks in a foundation: The Freedom Forum narrows its vision.
Columbia Journalism Review, 40(5), 20-24.
Benton, J. (2010). 4/5 of news challenge apps are out; 9/10 of those left will be cut soon;
Knight planning 'news testing labs'. Nieman Journalism Lab [Web page].
Retrieved from http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/45-of-news-challenge-apps-
are-out-910-of-those-left-will-be-cut-soon-knight-planning-news-testing-labs/
Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Browne, H. (2010). Foundation-Funded journalism: Reasons to be wary of charitable
support. Journalism Studies, 11(6), 889-903.
Connell, C. (2010). Knight News Challenge: Casting the net wide for innovation. Miami,
FL: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.knightfoundation.org/research_publications/detail.dot?id=364372
Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists
reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442-464.
Domingo, D. (2008). Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: Dealing
with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
13(3), 680-704.
Downie, L., & Schudson, M. (2009). The reconstruction of american journalism. New
York: Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Entman, R. M. (2010). Improving newspapers' economic prospects by augmenting their
contributions to democracy. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(1),
104-125.
Fremont-Smith, M. R. (2009). Can nonprofits save journalism? Legal constraints and
opportunities. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at
Harvard University.
Guensburg, C. (2008). Nonprofit news. American Journalism Review, 30(1), 26-33.
Hamilton, J. T. (2009). The road ahead for media hybrids: Report of the duke nonprofit
media conference, may 4-5. DeWitt Wallace Center for Media and Democracy,
the Duke Center for Strategic Philanthropy and Civil Society, and the Duke
Center for the Study of Philanthropy and Voluntarism.
Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism.
Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297-308.
Heyboer, K. (2001). The freedom forum's shrinking endowment. American Journalism
Review, 23(9), 16-17.
Ibargüen, A. (2009, June 17). Announcing winners of 2009 Knight News Challenge.
Boston, MA: Future of News and Civic Media Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/speech_detail.dot?id=34850
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Kurpius, D. D., Metzgar, E. T., & Rowley, K. M. (2010). Sustaining hyperlocal media: In
search of funding models. Journalism Studies, 11(3), 359-376.
Lewis, C. (2007). The growing importance of nonprofit journalism. Joan Shorenstein
Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University.
Lewis, S. C., Kaufhold, K., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2010). Thinking about citizen journalism:
The philosophical and practical challenges of user-generated content for
community newspapers. Journalism Practice, 4(2), 163-179.
Lewis, S. C. (2011). From journalism to information: The transformation of the Knight
Foundation and news innovation. Paper accepted for presentation at the
International Communication Association annual convention, Boston, MA, May
2011.
Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankind's emerging world in cyberspace.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Lowrey, W. (2011). Institutionalism, news organizations and innovation. Journalism
Studies, 12(1), 64-79.
Maguire, M. (2009). The nonprofit business model: Empirical evidence from the
magazine industry. Journal of Media Economics, 22(3), 119-133.
Massing, M. (2009). A new horizon for the news. New York Review of Books, 56(14).
McChesney, R. W., & Pickard, V. W. (Eds.). (2011). Will the last reporter please turn
out the lights: The collapse of journalism and what can be done to fix it. New
York: New Press.
McKinsey & Company. (2009). "And the winner is..." Capturing the promise of
philanthropic prizes. Retrieved from
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/socialsector/And_the_winner_is.pdf
Mitchell, B. (2010). Clues in the rubble: A user-first framework for sustaining local
news. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard
University. Discussion Paper Series. Retrieved from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_papers/d56_
mitchell.pdf
Mitchelstein, E., & Boczkowski, P. J. (2009). Between tradition and change: A review of
recent research on online news production. Journalism, 10(5), 562-586.
Nelson, A. (2009). Experimentation and evolution in private U.S. Funding of media
development. Center for International Media Assistance, a project of the National
Endowment for Democracy. Retrieved from
http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ned/0017788/index.html
Osnos, P. (2010, May 4). Non-Profit news: How start-ups can pave the way. The Atlantic.
Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/05/non-profit-
news-how-start-ups-can-pay-their-way/56121/
Paterson, C., & Domingo, D. (2008). Making online news: The ethnography of new
media production. New York: Peter Lang.
Robinson, S. (2007). "Someone's gotta be in control here": The institutionalization of

online news and the creation of a shared journalistic authority. Journalism
Practice, 1(3), 305-321.
Robinson, S. (2010). Traditionalists vs. Convergers: Textual privilege, boundary work,
and the journalist-audience relationship in the commenting policies of online
news sites. Convergence, 16(1), 125-143.
Shaver, D. (2010). Online non-profits provide model for added local news. Newspaper
Research Journal, 31(4), 16-28.
Singer, J. B. (2007). Contested autonomy: Professional and popular claims on journalistic
norms. Journalism Studies, 8(1), 79-95.
Singer, J. B. (2010a). Journalism in the network. In S. Allan (Ed.), The routledge
companion to news and journalism. (pp. 277-86). New York, NY: Routledge.
Singer, J. B. (2010b). Quality control: Perceived effects of user-generated content on
newsroom norms, values and routines. Journalism Practice, 4(2), 127-142.
Singer, J. B., & Ashman, I. (2009). User-Generated content and journalistic values. In S.
Allan & E. Thorsen (Eds.), Citizen journalism: Global perspectives. (pp. 233-42).
New York: Peter Lang.
Singer, J. B., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Hermida, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., Reich,
Z., & Vujnovic, M. (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at
online newspapers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sokolove, M. (2009, August 6). What's a big city without a newspaper? The New York
Times Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/magazine/09Newspaper-t.html
Westphal, D. (2009). Philanthropic foundations: Growing funders of the news. Los
Angeles: Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern
California. Retrieved from
http://communicationleadership.usc.edu/pubs/PhilanthropicFoundations.pdf
Wilhelm, I. (2009). Knight of the newsroom. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 21(19), 2.
Running head: SHOVELING TWEETS
Shoveling tweets: An analysis of the microblogging engagement

of traditional news organizations
By
Marcus Messner, Ph.D.,
Maureen Linke, M.S.,
and Asriel Eford, M.S.
Contact:
School of Mass Communications
Virginia Commonwealth University
901 W. Main Street, Richmond, VA 23284
mmessner@vcu.edu, (804) 827-0252
Paper accepted for presentation at the International Symposium on Online Journalism

in Austin, TX, April 1, 2011
Shoveling tweets - 2
Shoveling tweets: An analysis of the microblogging engagement

of traditional news organizations
Abstract
This study analyzed the adoption and use of the microblogging platform Twitter
by newspapers and television stations in the U.S. in 2009 and 2010. The results of a
content analysis show that the use of social bookmarking tools on news organizations’
websites and the adoption of Twitter have become important tools in the news
distribution. However, the study also reveals that news organizations rarely use Twitter as
a community-building tool and that shovelware still dominates the Twitter feeds. The use
of the main Twitter channels has not developed beyond the utilization as a promotional
tool.
Introduction
The popularity of Twitter has grown rapidly in only the five years of its existence.
Started as a project by a San Francisco based podcasting company in 2006, the
microblogging platform had 100,000 users one year later and was named “best blogging
tool” by the influential South by Southwest festival (Hamilton, 2007). Time named
“tweet” one of the top buzzwords of 2008 and due to the overall buzz the number of
Twitter users quickly increased into the millions (Cloud, 2008).
News events in which Twitter played a significant role in the early news
dissemination or in circumventing government restrictions, like the Mumbai terror
attacks in 2008, the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, the earthquake in Haiti in 2010,
and the Middle East uprisings in 2011, turned microblogging into an international
phenomenon that also demonstrated its political and journalistic impact. The use of
Twitter as a campaigning tool in the 2008 U.S. presidential election also stressed its
potential for public relations and fundraising (Garrison-Sprenger, 2008; Shirky, 2011;
Smith 2010). By early 2011, Twitter had become the ninth most popular website in the
world with 200 million users and the seventh most popular in the U.S. Only Facebook is
a more popular social network today (Alexa.com, 2011a).
Twitter has not only gained great popularity with its users, but it has also become
a valuable tool for journalists to find sources, monitor conversations and build an online
following through social bookmarking and tweeting. Farhi (2009) pointed out that “its
speed and brevity make it ideal for pushing out scoops and breaking news to Twitter-savy
readers” (p. 28). Nevertheless, many news organizations struggled to use Twitter beyond
the means of news dissemination. As Lowery (2009) stated, “we’d used Twitter to push
our stories, viewing it as another channel by which to market our content,” but
acknowledged that “its potential is much greater” (p. 33).
After the initial news events that suddenly turned Twitter into a journalistic tool,
many news organizations began experimenting with Twitter. CNN had been one of the
early adopters with 150 employees tweeting by the fall of 2008 (Garrison-Sprenger,
2008). However, some professionals also became skeptical of the use of Twitter and its
effect on the quality standards of journalism, which led to a discussion over stricter
guidelines for Twitter usage. Many news organizations implemented such social media
guidelines for their employees (Ahmad, 2010; Morton, 2010).
This study attempted to track the adoption rate of social bookmarking tools for
Twitter and the use of Twitter accounts by news organizations in the United States from
its initial stages in the spring of 2009. The analysis of the use of sharing tools on news
organizations’ websites as well as the posts on their Twitter accounts helps to determine
whether news organizations are using the microblogging platform to its full potential as a
dissemination channel for news content while at the same time actively engaging in the
conversation of the social network.
Literature Review
The potential of Twitter as a journalistic tool became known to a broader
audience when citizen journalists utilized the microblogging platform for eyewitness
reports. The first account of an US Airways jet that landed on the Hudson River in
January 2009 came from a Twitter user, who posted an iPhone photo on Twitpic, a
website used to share photos on Twitter, all before rescue boats and traditional news
media made it to the scene (Johnston & Marrone, 2009). The first reports of an
earthquake in China’s Sichuan region in May 2008 came from Twitter users while the
ground was still shaking (Gabarain, 2008). Twitter and other social networking sites’
ability to spread the news quickly have posed a challenge to traditional news media in
their efforts for quick and reliable reporting on disasters and led them to adopt social
media platforms themselves (Bloxham, 2008; Schulte, 2009).
Twitter functions as a free online service that combines social networking,
blogging and texting on the same platform. In 140 characters or less, users post short
messages, called “tweets,” to their audience, which is comprised of their “followers.”
Each post is published on the user’s profile page which includes a thumbnail picture of
the user’s choice and a short personal description. Users chose who they want to interact
with and who they want to follow. Crawford (2009) noted that “Unlike radio, which is a
one-to many medium, Twitter is many-to-many” (p. 528).
At the end of 2008, 11% of American adult Internet users used a service like
Twitter or another service that allowed them to send and receive status updates. Twitter
was found to be most commonly used among young adults between the ages of 18 and
34. However, compared to other social networking sites, Twitter did not have the
youngest following. The average age of a Twitter user was 31, while MySpace and
Facebook had average user ages of 27 and 26 (Lenhart and Fox, 2009). In early 2011,
11% of Internet users worldwide were visiting Twitter on a daily basis. Only one other
social network, Facebook, received more visits (Alexa.com, 2011b).
News organizations have been turning to social networking tools in an effort to
build their online audiences. The New York Times describes its social media marketing as
one of the several essential strategies for disseminating news online and as a “brand
enhancer” (Emmett, 2009, p. 42). Many media companies have used Facebook to drive
traffic to their website through both advertisements and Facebook pages that encourage
users to join their fan community. Other news organizations like CNN have taken the use
of Facebook further by participating in a project called Facebook Connect. Users register
on the CNN website, giving CNN access to their Facebook profiles, posted materials and
circle of online friends. Users can import their profiles, privacy settings and friends into
the CNN forum and in return are able export their favorite stories, videos and blogs from
the CNN website onto their Facebook profile. This exposure resulted in an large increase
of web traffic from CNN’s Facebook community (Emmett, 2009).
Social networking sites are also being used by journalist as an investigative
reporting tool. Many journalists have cited using social networking websites like
MySpace and Facebook to track and contact sources. A reporter from the Boston Globe
used MySpace to study the appeal gang life has on young people. A reporter for the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel used information from the MySpace to write a profile story
and obtain pictures. Student journalists working for Virginia Tech University’s campus
newspaper were the first to post the names of victims of the previous day’s school
shooting after searching social networking sites for information (Spencer, 2007)
Research on social media and traditional news media is still evolving at this point.
Arceneaux and Weiss (2010) concluded from their research on press coverage of Twitter
that traditional news media have encouraged and promoted the use of Twitter. Waters,
Tindall and Morton (2010) found that reporters increasingly used social media platforms
to find expert sources. Lariscy, Avery, Sweetser and Howes (2009), however, found that
business journalists make very little use of social media for story ideas or to find sources.
There still seems to be hesitancy in some areas of journalism to use and adopt social
media tools. In addition, Ahmad (2010) raised the question whether journalism is
“reduced to a tool for Twitter” (p. 154).
As Gordon (2009) pointed out, “with commenting opportunities available on
almost any kind of content Web site … it’s hard to find a news organization that’s not
trying to tap into ‘social media’” (p.7). Morton (2010) stressed that journalists should
refrain from debating their opinions with their audience and rather engage in discussions
about their journalistic mission. The Washington Post, probably most prominently in
2009, issued social media guidelines that restricted reporters from stating their political
opinions in tweets. Many professionals, on the other hand, believe that restrictions on
social media content will impose restrictions on using social media tools to their fullest
potential. Gleason (2009) wrote that “being up-front about their opinions will make
journalists more believable, not less” (p.7).
Twitter has taken on an increasingly prominent role in journalism. However, as
Lowery (2009) pointed out, “one of our worst mistakes, and one many news
organizations are still making, was to automate” (p. 33). The time restraints within
editors’ workflows led many news organizations to treat their Twitter accounts like an
automated RSS feed with little audience interaction. Nevertheless, it takes a new
approach to Twitter in order to make it work. “We started thinking about our Twitter feed
as a separate product, another platform not just to push our journalism, but to do it well”
(Lowery, 2009, p. 33). Farhi (2009) also stressed that Twitter could be used as a
“community organizing tool for the newsroom itself” (p. 29). Social bookmarking tools
allow audiences to share and engage with news content that is then posted in the most
popular social networks like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. That’s where the
conversation begins. Hermida (2010) described this new journalistic environment as
“ambient journalism.” However, journalists must move beyond automated feeds to
engage in or monitor this conversation.
Palser (2009) stressed that “twitter-fluent newsrooms and journalists will use the
tool not only as a hook into their Web sites, but also as a stand-alone channel” (p. 54).
Twitter offers for instance newspapers a new way to connect with young and affluent
audiences that will not pick up a printed newspaper. Schulte (2009) wrote, “That the
social networking scene has pushed into the news business is no surprise, but what is
raising eyebrows is how quickly the famously slow-footed industry embraced it” (p. 23).
Through the adoption of social media, the user has become an important part of every
news story.
However, no research study has yet analyzed the adoption rates of Twitter by
traditional news media. It is also unclear whether news organizations are engaging their
Twitter communities or use an automated approach to their Twitter news feeds. The
dissemination of social bookmarking and sharing tools on news organizations’ websites
is also an important area to consider when analyzing the Twitter engagement of
traditional news media. This research study, therefore, will break new ground and help to
better understand how news organizations are engaging the microblogging platform.
Research Questions
Based on the above literature review the following research questions were
derived:
RQ1: How have traditional news media adopted social bookmarking for the
microblogging platform Twitter?
RQ2: Is there a difference in the adoption of social bookmarking for the
microblogging platform Twitter and other social networking sites by traditional
news media?
RQ3: Is there a difference among traditional news media in their use of social
bookmarking?
RQ4: How have traditional news media adopted the microblogging platform
Twitter?
RQ5: Is there a difference among traditional news media in their adoption of the
microblogging platform Twitter?
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to analyze the adoption of social bookmarking tools
as well as the adoption of the microblogging platform Twitter by traditional news media.
To answer the five research questions, a two-study approach was chosen. The first
content analysis examined the social bookmarking adoption and the second content
analysis the adoption of Twitter. Data for the content analyses was collected during 2009
and 2010 to be able to determine changes and differences in the adoption of social
bookmarking and Twitter over time.

Both studies examined content samples from national newspapers and television
networks, cable news channels as well as local television stations. The use of the top 100
newspapers by circulation as well as national television channels and local television
news stations located in the top 24 markets was determined appropriate for this study
because of their widespread circulation and viewership across the country. Content was
captured from the websites of the largest 100 newspapers in the U.S. based on their
circulation as determined by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. 1
However, The Rocky Mountain News discontinued operations and was not
included in the coding. The newspaper sample was, therefore, reduced to 99 for both
years.
In addition, the websites of the five national television news organizations as well
as 95 local news television stations in the top 24 television markets in the U.S. based on
the ranking by Nielsen Media Research were accessed to collect content. Each local news
1
The sample of newspapers included the following: USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, The Daily News, The New York Post, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune,
Houston Chronicle, Arizona Republic, Newsday, San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, The
Boston Globe, The Star Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer, The Plain Dealer, The Atlanta Journal Constitution,
Star-Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, The Chicago Sun Times, Detroit Free Press, The Oregonian, The San
Diego Union Tribune, The Sacramento Bee, The Indianapolis Star, St. Louis Post Dispatch, The Kansas
City Star, The Orange County Register, The Miami Herald, San Jose Mercury News, The Baltimore Sun,
The Orlando Sentinel, San Antonio Express News, The Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, The
Seattle Times, Tampa Tribune, South Florida Sun, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Courier Journal,
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Charlotte Observer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The
Oklahoman, The Columbus Dispatch, St. Paul Pioneer Press, The Detroit News, Contra Costa Times, The
Boston Herald, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Omaha World – Herald, The
Buffalo News, The News and Observer, Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Virginian Pilot, Las Vegas
Review-Journal, Austin American-Statesman, The Hartford Courant, The Palm Beach Post, The Press
Enterprise, The Record, Investor's Business Daily, The Tennessean, Tribune Review, The Fresno Bee, The
Commercial Appeal, Democrat & Chronicle, The Florida Times-Union, Daily Herald, Asbury Park Press,
The Birmingham News, The Honolulu Advertiser, The Providence Journal, The Des Moines Register, The
Los Angeles Daily News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Grand Rapids Press, The Salt Lake Tribune, The
Akron Beacon Journal, The Blade, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, Dayton Daily News, Sarasota Herald-
Tribune, La Opinion, Arizona Daily Star, Tulsa World, The News Tribune, The News Journal, Post-
Standard, Lexington Herald-Leader, Morning Call, Journal News, Philadelphia Daily News, Albuquerque
Journal, The State, The Post and Courier, The Daytona Beach News Journal.
television station affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC was included in the study.
However, the Detroit CBS affiliate WWJ-TV only ran syndicated programming in 2009
and 2010 and had no news department. Therefore, it was not included in the study’s
sample. For the purpose of simplification, the national television news organizations and
local television stations will be subsequently addressed together as television stations. 2
In order to study the adoption of social bookmarking, the websites of the 199
traditional news media were accessed. The coding was done once for each of the websites
for March 25 or March 26, 2009 and for August 1 or August 2, 2010. This 16-month
period was deemed appropriate to track changes in the adoption rate. The unit of analysis
for this first study was the top news story on each of the news organizations’ homepages.
The top news story was determined by its position on the website and the headline size.
Each top news story was opened so that the full article could be viewed and social
bookmarking tools could be easily located. Each top news story was then coded for the
following: media category (newspaper or television), name of news outlet as well as
month and date of access for the coding. In addition, it was determined whether the use of
e-mail as the most common sharing tool was available, whether social bookmarking tools
were available and how many, as well as the availability of sharing tools for the
2
The sample of television networks, cable news channels and television stations included the following:
CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News; New York: WCBS, WNBC, WNYW, WABC; Los
Angeles: KTTV, KABC, KCAL, KNBC; Chicago: WFLD; WLS – TV, WBBM, WMAQ; San Francisco:
KTVU, KGO- TV, KPIX, KNTV, Philadelphia: WTXF, WPVI, KYW – TV, WCAU; Dallas/Fort Worth:
KDFW, WFAA, KTVT, KXAS; Washington, D.C.: WTTG, WJLA, WUSA, WRC; Boston: WFXT,
WCVB, WBZ-TV, WHDH; Miami: WSVN, WPLG, WFOR, WTVJ; Detroit: WJBK, WXYZ, WDIV;
Houston: KRIV, KTRK, KHOU, KPRC; Phoenix: KSAZ, KNXV, KPHO, KPNX; Seattle: KCPQ, KOMO,
KIRO, KING; Minneapolis: KMSP, KSTP, WCCO, KARE; Cleveland: WJW, WEWS, WOIO, WKYC,
Sacramento: KTXL, KXTV, KOVR, KCRA; San Diego: KSWB, KGTV, KFMB, KSND; Denver: KDVR,
KMGH, KCNC, KUSA; Tampa: WTVT, WFTS, WTSP, WFLA; St. Louis: KTVI, KDNL, KMOV,
KSDK; Atlanta: WAGA, WSB – TV, WGCL, WXIA; Baltimore: WBFF, WMAR, WJZ, WBAL; Orlando:
WOFL, WFTV, WKMG, WESH; Indianapolis: WXIN, WRTV, WISH, WTHR.
predominant social media platforms Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. This allowed for a
comparison of the adoption rates among different social media platforms.
The second study analyzed the adoption of Twitter itself by traditional news
media. Using the same sample of news organizations as the first study, the main Twitter
feed of each news organization was searched for in Google to determine whether the
newspapers and television stations had adopted Twitter. The searches showed that 90.5%
(n=180) of traditional news media had a Twitter account in 2009 and 99.5% (n=198) had
one in 2010. In 2009, the available Twitter accounts were evenly split between
newspapers (n=90) and television stations (n=90). In 2010, 99.5% (n=198) of the
traditional news media had a Twitter account. Only one local television station did not.
Subsequently, 180 Twitter accounts were analyzed in 2009 and 198 accounts in
2010. The content was retrieved by accessing each available account once for April 4 or
April 5, 2009 and for August 1 or August 2, 2010. The unit of analysis for this second
study was the content of each Twitter post. Each post was coded for the following: media
category (newspaper or television station), name of news outlet as well as month and date
of access for the coding. In addition, it was determined whether the content of the post
was news related, whether the post had a hyperlink and if so whether it linked to the news
organization’s own website. Each Twitter account was also coded for the number of posts
each news outlet posted on the day assessed. In total, 1568 posts were analyzed in 2009
and 1112 in 2010.
The coding manuals for the two studies were pre-tested and revised before the
actual coding began. Two trained coders analyzed the website content and Twitter posts.
Overall, intercoder reliability was assessed at .87 for Scott’s Pi (1955).

Findings
In order to determine the adoption rates of social bookmarking tools and the
microblogging platform Twitter, two content analyses were conducted, which examined
content in 2009 and 2010. Overall, the websites of 199 traditional news media were
analyzed for social bookmarking tools as well as 2680 posts on the news organizations’
Twitter accounts. In the following, the five research questions will be answered
separately.
The first research question asked how traditional news media adopted social
bookmarking for Twitter. The findings show that this adoption rate has increased greatly
from 2009 to 2010. Only 36.7% (n=73) of news organizations had a sharing function for
Twitter within the top stories on their websites in 2009. However, by 2010 the adoption
rate had increased to 91.5% (n=182).
The second research question asked whether differences existed in the adoption of
bookmarking by traditional news media for Twitter and other social networking sites. It
was found that the most common sharing tool on the websites of traditional news media
was the e-mail function that lets users send articles to other users. In 2009 and 2010, all
199 news organizations had this function available on their websites. Almost all news
organizations also made social bookmarking tools available to their users. In 2009, 96.5%
(n=192) of traditional news media allowed the sharing of articles via social bookmarking
tools. The number slightly increased to 98.5% (n=196) in 2010. However, at the same
time the number of available social bookmarking tools increased sharply. While the news
organizations only made 16.4 tools available on average in 2009, they made 110.3 tools
available in 2010.
Differences were also found in the adoption rates of social bookmarking for
Twitter and other major social networking sites. While Facebook already had a higher
adoption rate than Twitter for its bookmarking tool with 83.9% (n=167) in 2009, it even
increased it to 97.5% (n=194) in 2010. MySpace, on the other, had a similar low adoption
rate as Twitter with 38.2% (n=76) in 2009. Nevertheless, MySpace’s subsequent increase
was much more modest than the one of Twitter. In 2010, the bookmarking tool for
MySpace was available on the websites of only 59.8% (n=119) of the news
organizations.
The third research question asked whether differences existed among traditional
news media in their use of social bookmarking. The analysis found that both newspapers
and television stations had high adoption rates for social bookmarking tools. The
adoption by newspapers increased slightly from 96% (n=95) in 2009 to 97% (n=96) in
2010). The adoption by television stations increased from 97% (n=97) in 2009 to 100%
(n=100) in 2010. While in 2009 newspapers had offered on average 17.9 bookmarking
tools and television stations only 14.9 tools, this trend reversed in 2010 when newspapers
offered 88.3 tools and television stations 132 tools.
Table 1: Adoption of Social Bookmarking Tools, 2009
Facebook MySpace Twitter
Newspapers 86.9% (n=86) 41.4% (n=41) 44.4% (n=44)

Television 81.0% (n=81) 35.0% (n=35) 29.0% (n=29)
Total 83.9% (n=167) 38.2% (n=76) 36.7% (n=73)
Table 2: Adoption of Social Bookmarking Tools, 2010
Facebook MySpace Twitter
Newspapers 94.9% (n=94) 52.5% (n=52) 88.9% (n=88)

Television 100% (n=100) 67.0% (n=67) 94.0% (n=94)
Total 97.5% (n=194) 59.8% (n=119) 91.5% (n=182)
A stronger adoption trend for bookmarking tools of major social networking sites
was found across the board for television stations. In 2009, newspapers had higher
adoption rates for Facebook with 86.9% (n=86), MySpace with 41.4% (n=41) and
Twitter with 44.4% (n=44). Fewer television stations had tools available with adoption
rates of 81% (n=81) for Facebook, 35% (n=35) for MySpace and 29% (n=29) for Twitter.
Nevertheless, this trend reversed as well. Television stations significantly increased their
adoption rates by 2010 for Facebook with 100% (n=100), MySpace with 67% (n=67) and
Twitter with 94% (n=94). The adoption rates for newspapers increased as well, but were
slightly lower for Facebook with 94.9% (n=94), MySpace with 52.5% (n=52) and Twitter
with 88.9% (n=88). The adoption rates for Twitter increased significantly for both
newspapers and television stations (see Tables 1 and 2).
The fourth research question asked how traditional news media adopted Twitter.
The analysis of the Twitter accounts showed that the use of the microblogging platform
increased between 2009 and 2010. While 90.5% (n=180) of the news organizations had
an account in 2009, the adoption increased to 99.5% (n=198) in 2010. Only one local
television station did not have a Twitter account. In 2009, the news organizations on
average tweeted 8.7 times a day, with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 110 posts.
However, despite having an account, 34.4% (n=62) of the news organizations with a
Twitter presence did not post once on the day content was collected for this study. In
2010, news organizations only tweeted 5.6 times, with a minimum of 0 and a maximum
of 96 posts. Of the news organizations with a Twitter presence, 26.3% (n=52) did not
post on the day content was collected. In 2010, the Twitter accounts had an average of
13,116 posts for their lifetime, with a minimum of 515 and a maximum of 145,328 posts.
In 2009, of the 1568 Twitter posts 94.3% (n=1478) were news related and 5.7
(n=90) were personal. This finding was confirmed in the following year. Of the 1112
Twitter posts in 2010 96.5% (n=1073) were news related and 3.5% (n=39) were personal.
Most of the posts in both years also included hyperlinks that directed users to the website
of the news organization. In 2009, 93% (n=1458) of the posts had hyperlinks of which
98.6% (n=1438) linked to the news organizations’ websites. Only 1.4% (n=20) of the
links directed users to external websites. This finding was again confirmed in the
following year. In 2010, 95.5% (n=1062) of the posts had hyperlinks of which 99.3%
(n=1055) directed users to the news organizations website, while only 0.7% (n=7)
directed users to external websites.
The fifth research question asked whether there is a difference among traditional
news media in their adoption of Twitter. It was found that there was hardly any difference
in the adoption rates of newspapers and television stations. In 2009, 90.9% (n=90) of
newspapers and 90% (n=90) of television stations had adopted Twitter. Those adoption
rates increased to 100% (n=99) for newspapers and 99% (n=99) for television stations
(see Table 3).
While the adoption trends were very similar, differences were found in the use of
the Twitter accounts. In 2009, newspapers accounted for 65.9 percent (n=1033) and
television stations for only 34.1 percent (n= 535) of the Twitter posts. This reversed in
2010, when newspapers accounted for 29.7% (n=330) and television stations for 70.3%
(n=782) of the posts. While newspapers had on average posted 11.5 times on the day
content was collected in 2009, they only did 3.3 times in 2010. Television stations, on the
other hand, increased their average postings from 5.9 times to 7.9 times. In 2010,
newspaper Twitter accounts showed an average of 14,596 posts for their lifetime, while
television station accounts showed a lower average of 11,636 posts.
Table 3: Adoption of Twitter
2009 2010
Newspapers 90.9% (n=90) 100% (n=99)

Television 90.0% (n=90) 99.0% (n=99)
Total 90.5% (n=180) 99.5% (n=198)
On the Twitter accounts of newspapers, 95% (n=981) of the posts were news
related and 5% (n=52) personal in 2009 and 97.6% (n=322) news related and 2.4% (n=8)
personal in 2010. Similar results were found for television stations. In 2009, 92.9%
(n=497) of the posts were news related and 7.1% (n=38) were personal. In 2010, 96%
(n=751) of the posts were news related and 4% (n=31) were personal.
Hardly any difference was also found in the use of hyperlinks. Of the newspapers’
Twitter posts 95.3% (n=984) included a hyperlink in 2009 and 97.9% (n=323) in 2010.
Of the Twitter posts by television stations 88.6% (n=474) included a hyperlink in 2009
and 94.5% (n=739) in 2010. Newspapers and television stations also mostly linked to
their own websites. In 2009, 99% (n=974) of the hyperlinks directed user to the
newspapers website and 99.7% (n=322) of the hyperlinks in 2010. Of the hyperlinks in
the Twitter posts of television stations 97.7% (n=464) directed to the station’s website in
2009 and 99.2% (n=733) in 2010.
Discussion
The results of this study show that traditional news organizations have been quick
in adopting the microblogging platform Twitter between 2009 and 2010. Most news
organizations adopted social bookmarking tools for Twitter and are engaged on their
Twitter accounts. The use of social bookmarking tools on the news organizations’
websites has emerged as an important tool in the news distribution. Nevertheless, this
study demonstrates a difference in the adoption of social networking sites in traditional
media bookmarking with Twitter quickly increasing its adoption by newspapers and
television stations.
The study discovered that every news website studied allowed consumers to share
articles by e-mail. Most of the websites included buttons or links that allow users to
conveniently share news stories with others on a number of social networking or social
bookmarking platforms. From 2009 to 2010 the average number of available social media
sharing tools has increased dramatically, especially on the websites of television stations.
While television stations were lagging behind in 2009, they have fully caught up with
newspapers and are leading the way now.
The study also demonstrated a difference in the adoption rates between Twitter
and other social networking sites in traditional media bookmarking. MySpace, for
instance, only experienced a modest increase. Facebook, on the other hand, is fully
adopted by news organizations. It is a surprising finding, however, that nearly all news
organizations had a Twitter account in 2010 while almost every 10th did not provide a
Twitter social bookmarking function on its website. For some news organizations there
seems to be a disconnect between their own Twitter engagement and allowing their
audience to engage directly as well.
Traditional news media have fully adopted Twitter accounts as tools for news
dissemination. A news organization without a Twitter account has been the rare
exception in 2010. However, while Twitter facilitates open dialogue, traditional news
media are not using Twitter as a community-building tool, nor are they engaging with
their audiences on a frequent basis on their main twitter accounts. While the
generalizability of the results of a one-day analysis is limited, it was striking to find that
one-third of news organizations with Twitter accounts did not post anything on the day of
the analysis in 2009. In 2010, still one-fourth of the news organizations did not tweet on
the day of analysis. This shows that Twitter is not used regularly by all news
organizations that have an account. The differences in usage are also underlined by great
variation in the number of daily tweets. While some news organization did not tweet at
all, others posted around 100 times in one day. Overall, the average of posts also
decreased between 2009 and 2010, which could signal a greater selectiveness of news
organizations of what they tweet about. Newspapers tweeted fewer times in 2010, while
television stations tweeted more. However, the average number of tweets over the
lifetime of all Twitter accounts show that there has been great activity by news
organizations overall.
The findings of this study show, nevertheless, that Twitter is used like the Web
during its initial stages in the 1990s. Shovelware still dominated the news organizations’
Twitter accounts in 2009 and in 2010. Most posts by newspapers and television stations
are news related and link to the news organizations’ websites. The use of the news
organizations’ official Twitter channels has not yet developed beyond the utilization as a
promotional tool to drive traffic to their websites. Very few posts point to a personal
interaction with Twitter followers. Even television stations, which increased their
adoption and use of Twitter, did not change their overall strategy on the microblogging
platform.
While Twitter now is fully adopted by news organizations, its full potential as a
community building and engagement tool has not been developed, yet. While Twitter
facilitates an open dialogue in many areas, traditional news media are not using their
main Twitter accounts as a community-building tool, nor are they engaging with their
audience on a frequent basis. Instead, Twitter is being used like a streaming RSS service
for news stories that promotes and re-distributes previously published news content.
News organizations should address this lack of community engagement and develop
guidelines that do allow for a better dialogue with their audiences and to make use of
Twitter’s full potential as a social network.
Conclusion
This study stresses the importance that Twitter has gained in the news
dissemination strategy of major news organizations in the U.S. It also found weaknesses
in that strategy of most newspapers and television stations, which can be addressed by
increasing the engagement with the Twitter community in the news organizations’ main
Twitter accounts.
As with all research, this study has limitations. This study did not take into
account personal Twitter accounts of reporters, editors, producers and anchors. It is likely
that individual Twitter accounts of news personnel will show a greater engagement with
news audiences. This should be an area addressed in future research. The lack of
engagement in the main Twitter accounts of news organizations should also be analyzed
in a study that tracks posts over a longer period of time.
Nevertheless, even if a news organization has a strategy in using its main Twitter
account as a news promotion tool and leaves the audience engagement to its news
personnel, its strategy could backfire. As reporters and anchors change jobs, they will
take audiences with them or their personal Twitter accounts will be discontinued. In
either way, news organizations are risking to lose their community engagement and to
having to rebuild their Twitter audiences. A better audience engagement on their main
Twitter accounts will not only allow them to use the microblogging platform to its full
potential as a social network, but will also guarantee that their community building and
engagement efforts are to last.

References
Ahmad, A. N. (2010). Is Twitter a useful tool for journalists? Journal of Media Practice,
11(2), 145-155.
Alexa.com (2011a). Top Sites. Retrieved on March 3, 2011 from
http://www.alexa.com/topsites.
Alexa.com (2011b). Twitter.com. Retrieved on March 3, 2011 from
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/twitter.com.
Arceneaux, N., & Weiss, A. S. (2010). Seems stupid until you try it: Press coverage of
Twitter, 2006-2009. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1262-1279.
Bloxham, A. (2008). Facebook 'more effective than emergency services in a disaster'. The
Telegraph. Retrieved February 3, 2009 from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1914750/Facebook--%27more-effective-than-
emergency-services-in-a-disaster%27.html.
Cloud, J. (2008). The top 10 everything of 2008. Time. Retrieved on February 25, 2009
from http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/
0,30583,1855948_1864100_1864109,00.html.
Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media.
Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 23(4), 525-535.
Emmett, A. (2009). Networking news. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on
December 2, 2010 from http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4646.
Farhi, P. (2009). The Twitter Explosion. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on

Gabarain, C. (2008). Twitter and the Sichuan earthquake: Proving its value? World Bank
Retrieved February 3, 2009 from http://eapblog.worldbank.org/content/Twitter-
and-the-sichuan-earthquake-proving-its-value.
Garrison-Sprenger, N. (2008). Twittery-do-dah, twittering pays. Quill, 96(8), 12-15.
Gleason, S. (2009). Going public. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on
Gordon, R. (2009). Social media: The ground shifts. Nieman Reports. Retrieved on
December 2, 2010 from
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101883.
Hamilton, A. (2007). Why everyone's talking about Twitter. Time. Retrieved on
February 3, 2009 from
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1603637,00.html.
Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the news. Journalism Practice, 4(3) 297-308.
Johnston, L., & Marrone, M. (2009). Twitter user becomes star in US Airways crash.
New York Daily News. Retrieved on October 1, 2010 from
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-01-15/local/17914601_1_airways-crash-
plane-users.
Lariscy, R. W., Avery, E. J., Sweetser, K. D., & Howes, P. (2009). An examination of the
role of online social media in journalists’ source mix. Public Relations Review,
35(3), 314-316.
Lenhart, A., & Fox, S. (2009). Twitter and status updating. Pew Internet & American
Life Project. Retrieved on October 1, 2010 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Twitter-and-status-updating.aspx.
Lowery, C. (2009). An explosion prompts rethinking of Twitter and Facebook. Nieman
Reports. Retrieved on December 2, 2010 from
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101894.
Morton, J. (2010). Staying neutral. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on
Palser, B. (2009). Hitting the tweet spot. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on
Schulte, B. (2009). The distribution revolution. American Journalism Review. Retrieved
on December 2, 2010 from http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4844.
Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 19(3), 321-325.
Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28-41.
Smith, B. (2010). Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in
social media. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 329-335.
Spencer, J. (2007). Found in (My) Space. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on
Waters, R. D., Tindall, N. T. J., & Morton, T. S. (2010). Media catching and journalist-
public relations practitioner relationship: How social media are changing the
practice of media relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3) 241-264.

About the Authors
Marcus Messner, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Mass Communications
at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Maureen Linke, M.S., is an online producer at USA Today and a 2010 graduate of the
Multimedia Journalism Masters Program of the School of Mass Communications at
Virginia Commonwealth University.
Asriel Eford, M.S., is a communications coordinator at Shockwatch and a 2009 graduate
of the Multimedia Journalism Masters Program of the School of Mass Communications
at Virginia Commonwealth University

Educating the new generation journalist:
from Moodle to Facebook
Carla Patrão Antonio Dias Figueiredo

carla@dei.uc.pt adf@dei.uc.pt
Centre for Informatics and Systems (CISUC), University of Coimbra, Portugal
Abstract
The education of journalists is beginning to use social media tools extensively as a reflection of the fact that society
now lives, not just with technology, but in technology. The action research project we describe in this paper, which is
still in progress, tries to answer the question: “how can we educate the new generation journalist by exploring
innovative learning experiences based on social contexts mediated by technology?” The analysis of the data
collected so far reveals increased motivation and participation of the students in the learning experience, closer
connection to the reality of the profession, and improvement of the students’ personal skills in the area of journalism.
The recent migration of the project to Facebook is now offering outside visibility and contact with journalism
professionals from outside the academic world.
Keywords
Action research, journalism education, social media.
1. Introduction
The debate about the education of journalists has been focused on the skill set necessary for the professional
performance (Baughman, 2007; Deuze, Neuberger, & Paulussen, 2004; World Journalism Education Council, 2007).
This trend has been more evident in recent years, as technological change becomes increasingly influential. This
means that higher education institutions in this area must strengthen their concern with the exposure of students to
the cultures of technological change and educators must use their creativity to reduce the gap between academic
education and professional reality (Hirst, 2010; Howard, 2005).
While in the past journalists were educated through apprenticeship, by just practising the profession, the emergence
of journalism as an academic discipline at universities was accompanied by the strengthening of the theoretical bases
of the phenomenon of communication in society. In some cases, however, this has been done at the expense of a
decline in the development of technical skills. This paper subscribes to the idea that education in journalism must
contemplate two knowledge dimensions: the theory that explains the phenomena of communication and the practical
skills and personal techniques needed in the professional context. Surely, the balance between one and the other is a
matter of adjustment for educational institutions, considering that employment and professional success will be the
ultimate judge of what is (and what is not!) a good journalist.
This work tries to bring together the two fields in an attempt to reconcile the instructional understanding of the
relationship between society and technology and the learning of a set of skills essential to survive successfully in the
profession. Our effort has been concentrated in enabling an innovative learning context based on technologies and
oriented toward the development of competences. Our key question is: “How can we educate the new generation
journalist by exploring innovative learning experiences based on social contexts mediated by technology?” In the
spirit of action research, we are concerned with continuous improvement, year after year, until the definition of the
experience, supported by data emerging from the students’ reports, can reflect the results of their participation in the
consolidated model.
Our alternative approach to the traditional initiation of the students into the particularities of journalism is to let them
learn and practice the professional competences of journalism in a community context. However, the sense of
belonging to a learning community mediated by technology is hard to create, since a community only emerges and
maintains itself while their elements share a common interest, so we had to make sure that those conditions were
sustained.
We begin by briefly describing the challenges faced by the new generations of journalists. We then present the
experience we have developed with students of New Media Studies at Coimbra College of Education, Portugal. We
have used two platforms for this experience. We started with Moodle, a Learning Management System (LMS) that we
had been using for some years, and we then moved to Dolphin, a social networking platform we have specifically set
up for our students. Finally, in the last phase of our action research project, we are using Facebook as an open
platform accessible to all, where the work of the students is fully visible to the outside world.
2. The new generation journalist
In recent years, much has been written about the shifts in the profession of journalist, so that one might question the
relevance of still discussing change outside the boundaries of the fact that modern society is now living in technology,
rather than with technology. The revolution brought about by information technologies and by the Internet,
comparable to the aftermath of electricity in the industrial age (Castells, 2001), is an ongoing process of adaptation
for journalists and a challenge for the media industries and for the universities that educate the professionals of the
future.
The core features for the journalism profession did not, however, change that much (Porter, 2009). The substance
from which the journalists get their nourishment are still the noticeable events, with more or less associated
production means. The codes of ethics for professionals are, to a large extent, the same, the personal competences
of readiness, efficiency in production, versatility, easy writing and communication skills are still highly valued
requirements for the professionals in the media industry. However, the system of values and beliefs historically built
into the professional discourse of journalism, as an occupational ideology, and the professional identity are being
challenged by the emergence of technology (Deuze, 2005).
The major change is in the magnification and abundance of the media circuits for information, as well as in the logics
of personalization for each consumer’s habits and preferences. Existing newspapers are facing the online challenge
of content dissemination and survival in social media, as their paper editions are threatened by a decreasing number
of readers and announcers. Others publicize independent publications for specific platforms, like the iPad (Parr,
2010), trying out business models that the companies in the industry are still failing to find (Giles, 2010; Kramer,
2010). On the other hand, very popular social platforms, like Twitter or Facebook, connecting networks of individuals,
are inspiring examples about the extent to which the future of the media will be around a one-man social scenario of
wired individuals in a network. The readers, formerly known as information consumers, are now invited to act as
citizen journalists and to comment and discuss the day’s agenda in the media. More than ever, the future of
journalism is involved with the idea of community (Lavrusik, 2010; Mensing, 2010) and challenged by the Internet
(Deuze, 1999).
Where does this lead us when trying to characterize the new generation journalist? Those who are starting in the
existing labor market will find significant differences from the old-age journalism they have been told about, not only in
the technological apparatus they must use, but also in the kind of professional socialization they must adapt to. Now,
it is much harder than it was in the past to find a more experienced colleague who can act as an advisor. A new
sense of proximity with audiences is also emerging, as their feedback is closer than ever.
The institutions offering graduate studies in journalism are all dealing with the complex issue of striking the right
balance between theory and practice in this new context. Traditionally, the teaching of journalism was based on the
“wisdom of the craft”, passed from an experienced journalist to a newbie. In fact, the emergence of journalism as an
academic area of studies in universities in the USA has followed a similar process of socialization with the profession
(Carey, 2000). For a long time, however, it has been recognized that the universities should not ignore the theoretical
necessities of the employment area, so that students could easily cross the gap between theory and practice (Burgh,
2003; Skinner, Gasher, & Compton, 2001). Nolan (2008) argues that the debate about education in journalism
frequently ignores the role played by universities, and this contributes to widen the dichotomy between universities,
as critical and reflective forums, and the professional sector as merely concerned with practice.
It is also a fact that applied research is hard to find in the abundant literature about the education of journalists. Most
of it focuses exclusively on essay and conceptual discussion, although accuracy and objectivity are terms deeply
intrinsic to the genetic code of journalism. This does not mean that much of what is happening cannot be read on the
Internet, in blogs and opinion articles. However, those are prone to pass ephemerally, like daily newspaper printed
editions.
3. Between the management of content and social participation: three cycles for action research
Our adoption of social media technologies in journalism education has two main empowering intentions: visibility, and
the involvement of students in a community. Visibility is surely a wish of any student of journalism concerned with her
professional future, but also something that the university tries to provide by offering opportunities in newspapers,
television, radio, the Internet, or even in special publishing projects (Byline: Published Work A.L.C.J.I., 2010). In fact,
a significant part of the time spent when graduating in journalism is used in learning and improving professional skills.
Thus, the gathering of the resulting works in a public portfolio would be an important argument to help graduates face
the professional market.
Social media technologies are reflected in several web applications (now available in computers and mobile phones)
that make our social group of reference closer than ever. Any teacher recognizes that motivated students learn much
better. The motivation and participation of the students is achievable by introducing novelty in the learning process.
Part of this novelty can be found and renewed when exploring the active presence of others with similar interests in a
community of practice. The traditional concept of community refers to a group of individuals sharing the same space,
but a community can also be defined as those who share an identity and a way to think and act (Wenger, 1999).
Our experience has been developing with the voluntary participation of students of Media Studies at the Coimbra
College of Education, in Portugal, with the following aims:
• To improve their professional skills in journalism;

• To develop a consciousness about the quality of the journalistic product;
• To approach the concept of cyberculture.
Our research agenda was to observe the social interaction in the learning community and look for data about the
students’ perception of their learning experience and community experience. We have adopted an action research
approach based on the reports of the students throughout the experience, to help us strengthen the opportunities for
improvement and translate good practices into teaching methods. Our choice of action research as a convenient
research approach for the project resulted from our wish to progress in uncharted territory by trying out various
solutions – each solution corresponding to an exploratory cycle – so as to accumulate knowledge from solution to
solution.
Cycle one: Scouting possibilities with Moodle
The stage for our first experience happened in Moodle, an academic open-source learning management system
(LMS), five years ago. At the time, we used Moodle as a meeting point for content sharing and interactive and
systematic communication between teacher and students. The platform was then highly regarded in higher
education, and some of its tools were most promising for our objectives. These included discussion forums,
collaborative wikis, synchronous chats, and facilities for developing portfolios of academic works.
The platform fascinated the group from their first visit. It was a novel resource that afforded flexibility of time and
made possible different learning paces, among other advantages. The students used it with great passion and
explored all the possibilities the space offered, both as a learning process and as a mediator for socialization. For
example, in Moodle, we have created disciplines as online newspapers where the student’s academic experiences of
media production could be published.
The experience was successful in the first years, if measured by the enthusiastic participation of the students and the
skills they practiced and demonstrated. In later years, however, the participation started to decrease and the
community became harder to motivate. In the personal evaluation records of the students they complained about the
lack of interactivity of the platform and its outdated design (compared to the social media they were now using in their
leisure time). Also, the external visibility of the academic works they produced was poor, since only other students or
related stakeholders could access them.
These results questioned the continuity of Moodle as the platform to support our exploration of communities of
practice in journalism education. A more attractive space was needed where the students could express their
creativity without the implicit implication of mandatory assessment. We also needed an independent space for
participation where a more genuine sense of community could be developed. The name “Myempowermedia” was
chosen, to stress that one of our major concerns was to make the students more autonomous and empowered.
Cycle two: The Dolphin promise for the Myempowermedia project

The Myempowermedia project was tested in the final months of 2008/2009, using the Dolphin social networking
platform, by Boonex (2010). At the time, seven finalist students in a curricular internship experience where invited to
test the environment. The challenge was for the students to share, not only their experiences and the work produced
within the internship, fostered by an external media company, but also other journalistic works developed in the last
years of the course, such as news, coverage and chronicle texts, video, and audio. They where invited to use the
forums to describe their experiences, discuss difficulties, and promote and publicize their individual portfolios. They
where also invited to contribute with insights about their use of the Dolphin platform.
The Dolphin platform was designed explicitly to support social interaction as an all-in-one bundle of PHP community
scripts. It includes features that let any member create forums, chats, message boards, blogs, events, and media
sharing. Another advantage is that it enables easy follow up of the individual activity of each member inside the
community. Clearly, Dolphin was a promising departure from the previous experience with Moodle.
The reaction of the test students was very warm when the idea was presented. The registration process was almost
immediate. However, the subsequent participation of the test group was disappointing. Only three of the seven
students had an active participation: a total of seven articles, ten photos, and no commentaries added about these
shared journalistic products. In the forums, the students complained about the difficulties in uploading video files and
about the confusing welcome page.
The explanation for these insipid results could relate to the timing we had selected: we had invited students a step
away from graduation, at a time when they were already confronted with the challenge of professional integration and
concerned with the conclusion of their academic year. The time required for involvement in the community and
reading and commenting the others’ work just was not enough. The remarks emerging from this test where useful to
ground our first experience of implementation: the technical insufficiencies would need to be solved, the welcome
page simplified, and new strategies for participation, involvement, and community building had to be developed.
Community candies
In the beginning of the academic year 2009/2010, the Myempowermedia Project was formally presented to the
second year students of the graduation course of Media Studies at the Coimbra College of Education. This was our
core group for research. Another two groups of students were also invited to register: first year students of Media
Studies and second year students of Multimedia Design.
The Dolphin platform was presented as a place to welcome individual portfolios of journalistic materials produced in
the academic activities and as a place for debate around the themes discussed in the classes. Registered members
were free to post data, create events, and interact with others. All the students where invited to use the platform in
these conditions.
To ensure participation and a dynamic learning experience, another challenge was launched only for the students of
the core group. They where split into two subgroups, so that each subgroup could organize an independent and
competitive online journalistic publication. The sections where created and the roles distributed. In each publication, a
director and a section editor were voted, along with students taking the role of regular journalists. Each week the
edition was prepared and the deadlines for delivery and publication of journalistic products were defined. Both
publications created a special section about the profession of journalist. Some interesting works were published, like
interviews to professional journalists, a report of a visit to a local radio, and theme coverage about new media
courses in the academic context and about a local press. An example from one of the publications, “Clash”, is
illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: News capture from "Clash", one publication in the Myempowermedia project
The works presented to the community where expected to address the concept of journalistic products suitable for
publication in multiple media supports. The quality of the journalistic product is a concern in any professional career in
journalism. In fact, this concern can be considered in both its individual and collective dimensions. The journalist must
build the dialogue with the alignment of work and the requirements of the employer, and it is legitimate to consider
that the journalist is the first person responsible for that work. Nevertheless, as a professional, he or she should know
the implemented structures of the media organizations to ensure the quality of the journalistic product for the reader.
Some examples are stylebooks, revision departments, or even the hierarchies in the newsroom that ensure
coordination and coherence among colleagues.
One of the objectives in the Myempowermedia experience was to observe the potential of social interaction in a
learning community with common interests. The mandatory task of evaluation was prepared as an opportunity to
encourage this concern with the quality of the journalistic product.
A document of scoring rubrics was proposed to the community members, consisting of a grid of qualitative units to
serve as a base to analyze the works published in the community. A rubric is a scoring tool that lays out the specific
expectations for an assignment by identifying the aspects that should be taken into account in its assessment and
providing detailed descriptions of what characterizes the successive levels of performance, between unacceptable
and very good (Stevens & Levi, 2004). A scoring rubric can take a holistic or a stratified structure, while referring to a
task or a specific set of tasks (Moskal, 2000). The holistic structure combines different criteria of assessment in the
same scale. The stratified structure allows a separate assessment of the presence or absence of the elicited
qualitative factors, presenting a stratified and descriptive classification.
A grid of stratified rubrics was created to evaluate three types of published works in individual portfolios and in
common projects of the students in the community: news, video and photography. The students were involved in the
elaboration of the final version of the rubrics, so that they could understand and feel committed to them as evaluation
criteria. The rubrics were first used to evaluate news, videos and pictures published in the local media. The next step
was to set the details for the process of evaluation. A blind review process was established, so that a student could
use the rubrics to evaluate the journalistic products of other colleagues without any constraint.
The qualitative analysis of the journalistic materials in the rubrics was supported by descriptors of present and absent
characteristics that resulted in a position in a four level scale: “Week”, “Improvements can be done”, “Expectations
fulfilled” and “Expectations exceeded”. The rubrics for news comprised trends related to the adequacy of the title,
organization and structure of the news, orthography, and grammar, and a few more subjective factors, like journalistic
style, appropriate use of information sources, relevance, and originality.
The rubrics proposed to evaluate photos took into account their connection to the context, as ways of supporting
news pieces, and their power of impact. Two other technical factors where also considered: the set and the balance
between brightness and colour of the photo as an artistic object. In the assessment of video, the descriptors were
about the consistency of the edition, quality of narration, and title and legend insertion.
The experience extended over the entire academic year of 2009/2010. In the second semester, between March and
June, the possible continuation of the online community after the closing of the course was discussed with the
students. They decided to maintain the community and to continue posting their works in one of the former
publications. However, at the end of the semester the participations where scarce, so the Myempowermedia project
was closed, in August of 2010.
4. Content analysis of the Myempowermedia project
Translated into numbers, the Myempowermedia project gathered 123 members and 40 blogs, with personal portfolios
from the students in the core group. Close to the end of the academic semester, all the members registered in
Myempowermedia were asked to publish a small essay evaluating their learning experience in the project. The
analysis of their written reports was based on the search and classification of data in two major categories:
perceptions about the learning experience and perceptions about the community experience. Table 1 shows the sub-
categories of data emerged from the analysis:
Perceptions about the learning experience Perceptions about the experience in community
Practice of journalistic writing Share Works and assignments with others ++

Practice on elaborating news Share experiences and interests
Improvement of Professional skills Teamwork
Professional experience Cooperation
Approach to Professional reality Exchange of ideas, critics and commentaries
Deadline responsibility Healthy competition
Daily pressure and buzz The advantages of new technologies

Reviewing of works Promoting one’s work
Discerning thinking Freedom to write
Attention to news Entertaining experience
Management of an online newspaper Put knowledge into practice

Autonomy and responsibility Sense of responsibility
Pair evaluation Enriching experience
A fair assessment method

Individual motivation
Misuse of rubrics
Delay in completing evaluations
Knowledge about Web 2.0
Knowledge about the potential of the Internet for a portfolio

An interesting and productive dynamic
signs in front of sub-categories of data represent a repetition of the related content in independent essays
Table 1: Categories of emerging content in written evaluation reports of students.
The most common sub-categories of data reveal that students valued the possibility to improve professional skills
(experience, approach to professional reality, and responsibility of deadlines) in the learning experience. The
evaluation system also emerged as a significant sub-category in which students signal pair evaluation as a positive
initiative. One of the students wrote “this experience allowed us to practice writing and improve our skills as future
professionals in this area (…) In my opinion we also gained practice in the elaboration of journalistic works, personal
experience and responsibility in dealing with deadlines” (Student #1). Another example also summarizes the
emerging sub-categories of content: “the advantages are not only in the presentation of our works as a curriculum
vitae, but also the possibilities of improvement through suggestions that other users leave in comments. Searching
for news, selecting the more important themes, consulting several sources, applying in practice knowledge gained in
other curriculum units (…) are some of the tasks we were involved in this semester.” (Student # 9).
In the perceptions about the experience in community the students refer to teamwork and cooperation as the key
elements. The main dimensions of this type of content are translated into aspects like the exchange of ideas,
comments and critics, and the possibility to show and promote a portfolio, as Student #10 wrote: “The advantage in
using the social media platform is sharing information in community. This exchange of opinions and suggestions was
a great achievement in the platform.” Students also referred to a sentiment of healthy competition, the freedom to
write and publish, and the opportunity to put skills to practice.
A third category of content also emerged from data analysis, gathering the criticisms to the experience as felt by the
students, in particular about Dolphin. We classified this content as criticisms to the Myempowermedia experience and
found the emerging sub-categories shown in Table 2.
Critics to Myempowermedia Experience

Not all participants showed the same motivation
Not all faced the experience as an opportunity
Questioning the design and the functionality of the platform
Placement of multimedia content
Unappealing design
Personalization of the space
A positive platform, but needing improvements
Abundance of other sources for participation
Lack of external exposure
sign means the repetition of the category in another

independent report
Table 2: Critics to Myempowermedia experience
Some of the students reflected in their reports their small participation, alluding to the unattractive design of the
Dolphin platform and to the web address that was hard to remember. As a student wrote: “I found myself trying to
remember the name or the link, and if I remembered it, I could not find it in Google or I could not get it right. I think
that the general layout should be more appealing” (Student #32). Some other students agreed about the confusing
logic of content in the environment.
Another area mentioned by some students referred to the abundance of public forums and social networks that they
used on the Internet, which relegated the participation in Myempowermedia to a second plan: “Myempowermedia is
different, but nowadays there are so many forums on the Internet that we tend to ignore some of them; in my case,
Myempowermedia was somewhat forgotten. I think that this happens because the teacher only talks about it during
the classes and I only remember to post something on that day. I think that Myempowermedia lacked external
exposure.” (Student #37). For another student, the unexplored Dolphin platform was no more than a regular forum:
“Myempowermedia is a forum that gradually tends to die because the students finish the discipline and will never
remember to return again. It’s like some other blogs in which I participated; they eventually disappear because there
is no more motivation to post. We hope to be read by many but in fact nobody will notice.” (Student #34).
Another group of students criticized the quantity of web platforms that they had to use in their academic activity: “It is
complicating and confusing when we are called to different platforms around the disciplines we are enrolled in. It
would be important to reach an agreement between the teachers and the school about what to use.” (Student #39).
Some other comments about the Dolphin platform recognized its potential and versatility: “It is an exciting tool to
exchange ideas among people with concurrent interests” (Student #40); “In the age of social networks, success is in
innovative services and content to attract the attention of new users and draw them from the countless social
networks on the Internet.” (Student #41)
Some reports show that the learning experience strengthened the student awareness of the concept of Web 2.0,
namely the potential of the Internet to disseminate their portfolios. The experience in community revealed fuzzy
feelings by some students, because not all of them showed the same degree of voluntarism in their participation. The
design and functionality of the Dolphin platform was also questioned, mainly regarding the scarce variety of options
for personalization and for the insertion of multimedia content.
Summarizing the recommendations for future experiences, the need to improve the technological support for the
insertion of media content comes on the top. The Dolphin platform revealed too few configuration options for the
students and some problems in the management of multimedia content. The need to improve the system of
incentives to participation and the visibility of the published works also became apparent. The context of competition
between teams and the system of evaluation rubrics were seen as positive aspects to maintain.
5. “Posts of Pescada”: the current experience in Facebook
The current learning experience started recently, in September 2010, and involved another group of second year
students of New Media Studies. A significant part of these students had already participated in the Myempowermedia
project. This time, the selected name for the project was “Posts of Pescada”, a joke around the Portuguese idiomatic
expression “mandar postas de pescada”, that means showing off and talking nonsense. This time, the students were
invited to publish their academic works in a blog and to index their publications in a Facebook group, on a weekly
basis.
The students chose to structure the content into sections by journalistic gender. Every week, each group works in a
different gender, leading them to practice the various possibilities. To approach the profession each group also works
on the topic “journalism and profession” once a week. The students have researched and treated several issues
related to the profession and have interviewed several journalists who gave them a closer view of the professional
reality. They are also using scoring rubrics to improve their publications.
Although the experience is still in progress, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn. One advantage of using
Facebook is the exposure. None of the previous experiences gave students a community as large as the one they
were able to enrol on Facebook (now with 495 members). The community built around the group is generating
constant interaction between students. Besides other students from the course, and alumni who are participating with
their comments, various professional journalists and friends joined the group. In previous learning experiences, we
had never managed to bring journalists to the community. The students are, thus, gaining a richer learning
experience, with the feedback and knowledge received from those already in the profession. To take this experience
one step ahead we might be inspired by the words of Alfred Hermida (2010): “we need to stress that social media
technologies do not just offer journalists new ways of doing old things. They offer the potential to explore new ways of
telling stories, of collaborating and connecting with audiences, of rethinking how we do journalism.” The consolidated
result, in any case, must be treated through personal reports and open interviews to the participants.
5. Conclusion
Our action research project is now in its third cycle, trying to consolidate innovative strategies to prepare future
journalists for the professional challenge of a learning context based on social media. This is a tendency followed by
other associations concerned with the education of journalists (AEJMC, 2010).
The reports published by the students who participated in the Myempowermedia project show their agreement about
the success of the learning experience, which is visible in their approach to the professional reality. In fact, the
students reported that they felt improvements in their professional skills, resulting from the observance of deadlines,
the necessity of critical thought, the importance of following the media agenda, and a general feeling of autonomy.
The students’ reports also praised the assessment system for the journalistic works, based on a grid of rubrics, as a
positive feature. The experience in community was valued by the perceptions of teamwork and cooperation.
Throughout the Myempowermedia experience, our second cycle of action research, we could see how the social
media platforms can be resourceful helpers to promote journalism education through participation and interaction
between users. In the communities that were built up, the students developed skills, discussed issues, shared views,
increased their general knowledge, and became more informed.
Facebook has brought substantial differences in relation to the two previous experiments. The students are now more
motivated to participate and to produce content. However, the lessons learned from the previous experiences are
also recognized as critical contributions in our logic of continuous improvement.
References
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. (2010). Social Media in the Classroom. Retrieved
December 12, 2010, from http://aejmc.blogspot.com/
Baughman, J. L. (2007). Broader Education for Journalists - Chronicle.com. The article presents a letter to the editor
in response to the August 10, 2007 article "A J-School Adapts to the Market.". Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Broader-Education-for/36389/
BOONEX. (2010). BoonEx - Community Software Experts. The World's Most Advanced Free Community Software.
Retrieved December 14, 2010, from http://www.boonex.com/
Burgh, H. (2003). Skills are not enough - The case of journalism as an academic discipline. Journalism, 4(1), 95.112.
Byline: Published Work - Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University. (2010). . Retrieved December
8, 2010, from http://journalism.nyu.edu/bylines/
Carey, J. W. (2000). Some personal notes on US journalism education. Journalism, 1(12), 12-23.
st
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: reflections on the internet, business and society (1 . ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Deuze, M. (1999). Journalism and the Web. International Communication Gazette, 61(5), 373-390.
Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism,
6(4), 442-464.
Deuze, M., Neuberger, C., & Paulussen, S. (2004). Journalism Education and Online Journalists in Belgium,
Germany, and The Netherlands. Journalism Studies, 5(1), 19-29.
Giles, R. H. (2010). New economic models for U.S. journalism. Daedalus, 139(2), 26-38.
Hermida, A. (2010). MediaShift . How to Teach Social Media in Journalism Schools | PBS. Retrieved November 27,
2010, from http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/08/how-to-teach-social-media-in-journalism-schools242.html
Hirst, M. (2010). JOURNALISM EDUCATION "DOWN UNDER" A tale of two paradigms. Journalism Studies, 11(1),
83-98.
Howard, T. (2005). DO THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM AND THE EDUCATION OF JOURNALISTS MATTER?
Gazette: International Journal for Communication Studies, 67(6), 551-553.

Kramer, L. (2010). Navigating the Future | American Journalism Review. American Journalism Review. Retrieved
November 28, 2010, from http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4961
Lavrusik, V. (2010). The Future of Social Media in Journalism. Retrieved November 28, 2010, from
http://mashable.com/2010/09/13/future-social-media-journalism/
Mensing, D. (2010). Rethinking [Again] the Future
Of Journalism Education. Journalism Studies, 11(4), 511-523.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(3).
Nolan, D. (2008). Journalism, education and the formation of 'public subjects'. Journalism, 9(6), 733-749.
Parr, B. (2010). Is Rupert Murdoch’s iPad-Only Newspaper the Future of Journalism? [OP-ED]. Retrieved December
1, 2010, from http://mashable.com/2010/11/21/the-daily-ipad-journalism/
Porter, J. (2009). Journalism Education, Preparing the Next Generation of Journalists. Retrieved November 28, 2010,
from http://blog.journalistics.com/2009/journalism_education_preparing_future_journalists/
Skinner, D., Gasher, M. J., & Compton, J. (2001). Putting theory to practice - A critical approach to journalism studies.
Journalism, 2(3), 341-360.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2004). Introduction to Rubrics. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing (VA).
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
World Journalism Education Council. (2007). Journalism Curriculum. WJEC conference. Retrieved from
http://wjec.ou.edu/issuesVideos/education/journalismcurriculum.html

ISOJ 2011 Research Papers

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ISOJ 2011 Research Papers

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Aitamurto & Lewis, 2011, page 1

Tanja Aitamurto and Seth C. Lewis

Tanja Aitamurto, MA, M.Soc.Sc.

Seth C. Lewis, Ph.D.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND KEY CONCEPTS

Open APIs and news organizations

Benefits of open APIs for news organizations

Acceleration of internal and external product development

Open business strategies: New ways to commercialize news as a product

Leveraging the brand and generating traffic

Ecosystem effect: Creating a community of developers

Navigating the challenges of open APIs

At one organization, the navigation of legal rights created a back-and-forth ping-pong of

We have to be careful about opening an API if there’s no commitment to maintaining

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers. Cambridge,

Boczkowski, P. J. (2010). News at work: Imitation in an age of information abundance. Chicago:

Chesbrough, H. (2006b). Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial

Franklin, B. (2008). The future of newspapers. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 630-641.

Singer, J. B. (2008). Five Ws and an H: Digital challenges in newspaper newsrooms and

C.W. Anderson, College of Staten Island (CUNY)

Paper Submitted to the 12th International Symposium for Online Journalism

Introduction: Aggregate This!

of their ideal other.

understood by examining different visions of what constitutes meaningful empirical evidence in

journalism today, in short, must be approached as questions of ontology, not epistemology.

“aggregating the work of others is no substitute for boots-on-the-ground journalism” (Keller

serious, old-fashioned work of traditional journalism” (Huffington 2011, np).

an exploration the actual hybridized practices of journalistic aggregation. Connecting these

Public Rhetoric and the Contest Over Journalistic Jurisdiction

seize neglected or vulnerable areas of journalism’s professional jurisdiction by claiming it as their

Schudson put it, also drawing on Abbott:

“Expert” professionals—in this case, journalists—seek, via occupational struggle, to

workers doing original reporting.

Despite increasingly sophisticated theoretical work on this topic, empirical research

an effort to add some substance to this discussion of rhetorical boundary-maintenance. This

is very often centered around notions of “ontological originality.”

about the disappearance of a journalistic “golden age” under impact of forces of

commercialization, corporatization, or technology. The actual mechanics of that decline seemed

less important than the general lament.

producers Kasi concluded (ibid, 253).

In this debate, we encounter a de-emphasis on the positive democratic outcomes

print media. “I don't agree with the premise,” Jarvis responded

and 2010 may have their most impact on jurisdictional contests.

overview of the concept of the black box:

journalism in the digital age.

specific fieldwork (much of it occurring during an extensive period of research in Philadelphia). As

news companies like Philly.com and The Newark-Star Ledger.

A Schematic Overview of Aggregation as Journalistic Work

continuous news desk, sections immediately distinguished by their employee workspaces

preparing to move into larger offices).

adder of importance at Philly.com.

pieces of content in an uncoordinated or quasi-coordinated fashion. In many cases, these end-

aggregation. A news aggregator coordinates amongst a series of quasi-institutionalized (or

according to a rapidly shifting criteria of importance, popularity, and newsworthiness.

anything interesting or meaningful to say about aggregation as a form of newswork.

day, the goal was is to refresh the page until 6 or 7pm.”

journalists; during my earlier Philadelphia fieldwork, professional reporters working for

in financial terms, when other aggregators linked to NBC.

Journalists engaged in the work of news aggregation consume massive amounts of

always thought of journalism up until now.”

It is interesting to compare the aggregation practices I observed at Philly.com and

Creativity and Speed