April 8th, 2014

Three more months!

Thorough readers of this blog might remember that our project was initially scheduled to run from October 2011 to March 2014 (2.5 years in total), and thus might assume that we have wrapped up everything by now.

However (and to our great delight) we were able to secure HBI-internal funding for additional three months in order to finalize the two remaining case study reports and work on the book manuscript which will summarize our project. So while you better not expect very much blogging activity (since we are busy finalizing the project) over the coming weeks, you can look forward to more output and findings. [js]

Februar 11th, 2014

Breaking (up): “Founding member” Hendrik Holdmann to leave jPub2.0! Team says: Twitter-avatar no replacement!

Hamburg. Hendrik Holdmann (on the right in the photo), member of the jPub 2.0-team since its founding days back in 2011, last week announced to be leaving the research project. The “master of Citavi“, as he was called by his colleagues, was a key figure responsible for the team’s literature data base to approach the magic frontier of a thousand entries (current status: 998).

 

Hendrik Holdmann holding a cup.

Holdmann holds cup. (Photo: jr)

The team espressed its deep sadness about Holdmann’s departure and wishes him all the best and continuing success. Insiders say, there is hope Holdmann will return for writing his MA thesis.

Rumours that Holdmann acted as a model to Flo H. for his famous avatar for jPub’s account on Twitter (in the right hand/on the left in the photo) were not confirmed. Thus, it remains unclear whether Holdmann is going for a career in modeling or break dance, journalism, or research. [jr]

Januar 21st, 2014

Conferences in 2014: Acceptance and Rejection

Clearly, conference submission is one of the main thrills of academic research.. :-)
Our last two review results brought both joy and disappointment: The full paper we’ve submitted to this year’s ICA conference was rejected, which is a pity since we would have loved to travel to Seattle and present the most recent findings of our commparative approach. We are still puzzled over the reasons for the rejection and are waiting for the full reviews to check and improve the paper, since there might be other opportunities or outlets for a revised version.
On the plus side, our extended abstract on comparing the differences in role conceptions between journalists and users at the Tagesschau and a weekly political talk show has been accepted for the DGPuK conference 2014. This is going to be a very interesting opportunity to present our findings to the German(-speaking) community of communication researchers, and we are looking forward to travelling to Passau in May.

Januar 7th, 2014

Zweiter Fallstudienbericht: Publikumsinklusion bei einem ARD-Polittalk

Noch im vergangenen Jahr haben wir eine weitere Fallstudie unseres Projekts abgeschlossen und den Bericht in der Reihe der Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Instituts veröffentlicht:

Loosen, Wiebke; Schmidt, Jan-Hinrik; Heise, Nele; Reimer, Julius (2013): Publikumsinklusion bei einem ARD-Polittalk. Zusammenfassender Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt „Die (Wieder-)Ent­deckung des Publikums“. Hamburg: Verlag Hans-Bredow-Institut, Dezember 2013 (Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Instituts Nr. 28). Online: http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/webfm_send/739.

Diese zwei von insgesamt vier Fallstudien behandelte einen (auf Wunsch der Redaktion ungenannt bleibenden) wöchentlich Polittalk in der ARD. Wie schon in der ersten Fallstudie zur Tagesschau haben wir also erneut ein journalistisches TV-Angebot unter die Lupe genommen und untersucht, wie sich die veränderten Möglichkeiten zur Publikumsbeteiligung sowohl bei den Journalisten als auch bei den Zuschauern bzw. Nutzern des Online-Angebots auf Praktiken und wechselseitige Erwartungen auswirken. Im Unterschied zur Tagesschau, die ein strikt informationsorientiertes nachrichtenjournalistisches Angebot darstellt, ist der Polittalk stark auf Debatte ausgerichtet. Dieser Umstand, genauso wie die wöchentlichen Produktions- und Sendungsrhythmen, wirken sich unserer Analyse zufolge redaktions- wie publikumsseitig auf die Inanspruchnahme von Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten aus; Vorstellungen und (Erwartungs-)Erwartungen über journalistische Aufgaben und die Rolle, die das Publikum dabei spielen kann, unterscheiden sich ebenfalls zwischen den beiden Fallstudien.

 

November 29th, 2013

FAQ: the jpub-questionnaires on audience inclusion in journalism

Here at jpub, we believe that transparency is a key attribute of good scientific research. That’s one reason why we write this blog. And that’s also the reason why we decided to publish in detail the questionnaires we used in our standardized surveys among journalists and audience members. You find the original German versions as well as English translations of the questionnaires underneath this post for download. But if you want to know a little more about the context in which they were used, read on to learn about our methodological approach:

As you might have read in one of our publications (e.g., Heise/Loosen/Reimer/Schmidt 2013) or heard about in one of our presentations, the jpub-project (Re-)Discovering the audience consists of four case studies of different news outlets and their audiences (s. fig. 1):

overview_case_studies

Fig. 1: The four case studies

In each of the case studies, we investigate the journalists’ as well as the audience members’ performances and expectations with regard to audience inclusion as described in the following heuristic model (see fig. 2) developed by Wiebke Loosen & Jan-Hinrik Schmidt (2012; you can download a pre-print version of the paper here):

model_engl

Fig. 2: Heuristic model developed by Loosen/Schmidt (2012)

By comparing performances on both sides, we can determine the inclusion level which can be high or low on either side as well as even or uneven. By comparing inclusion expectations on both sides, we find out about the inclusion distance between journalists and their audience: It is small if expectations are rather congruent; it is large, if expectations differ to a greater extent.

Researching both manifest performances and expectations among journalists as well as audience members  requires a multi-method approach with a fixed set of methods applied in every case study (see fig. 3 for the example of the newscast case study):

methods_applied_in_newscast_case_study

Fig. 3: Methods applied in every case study (example case study: newscast Tagesschau)

For instance, we conduct in-depth interviews with members of the newsroom in different positions (from leading editors to community managers) as well as with audience members who participate to varying degrees (from those who only read or watch the parent medium to those who comment heavily on the medium’s website or run their own user blog there).

Two very important components of our approach are the standardized surveys which we conduct in every case study: one among the respective news outlet’s news staff and one among the users of its online presence.

In addition to some general questions on their position and work in the newsroom as well as on socio-demographic characteristics, the journalists are asked

  • which sources their image of the audience relies on,
  • how often they are in contact with their audience for different purposes (e.g., for research, to moderate online discussions, to promote new content, to make editorial decisions transparent, …),
  • how often they use social media features for journalistic activities (e.g., to find sources or eye witnesses of an event, to receive notifications of errors, to obtain an impression of the public opinion towards a particular topic, …),
  • which roles they ascribe to their audience (e.g., passive viewers/readers, commentators, experts, providers of topics, producers of content, …).

The audience members are asked

  • which journalistic products and offers of the respective outlet they use and how often,
  • which participatory features they use and how often (e.g., sending audience mail, “liking” posts on the outlet’s Facebook page, commenting in the outlet’s discussion forum, sharing website content, …),
  • if they use their real name or a pseudonym when they participate,
  • whom they address when they comment publicly,
  • whom they speak for when they comment publicly,
  • to what extent they want journalists to moderate and engage in online discussions,
  • how they evaluate audience members’ contributions in the respective outlet’s different offers,
  • and – if they do not or only rarely participate – what keeps them from participating.

A special feature of the surveys is that four more item batteries which deal with important dimensions of inclusion expectations are included in both the questionnaire for journalists and the questionnaire for audience members. This allows us to compare directly both sides’ ratings of these items and calculate inclusion distance in the four dimensions (see fig. 4):

model_operationalised_engl

Fig. 4: Operationalisation of inclusion distance in the standardised online surveys

In detail, we ask an outlet’s audience members what motivates them to participate; and we ask the outlet’s journalists what they think their audience’s motivations for participation are. Furthermore, we ask journalists which goals they pursue in their journalistic work; and we ask their audience which goals the respective outlet’s journalists in their view should pursue. Moreover, we ask audience members how much importance they ascribe to certain participatory functions; and we ask journalists how important they assume these functions are to their audience. Finally, we ask both sides to rate some general statements on audience inclusion at the respective news outlet, e.g. with regard to strategic rationales and the impact of participation on the journalistic process and products.

If you are interested in how a comparison of journalists’ and audience members’ (expected) inclusion expectations looks like in detail, you might want to read Including the audience. Comparing the attitudes and expectations of journalists and users towards participation in German TV news journalism., the article we recently published in Journalism Studies.

[jr]

Re-Discovering_the_audience_questionnaire_audience

Re-Discovering_the_audience_questionnaire_journalists

Wieder-Entdeckung_des_Publikums_Fragebogen_Publikum

Wieder-Entdeckung_des_Publikums_Fragebogen_Journalisten

September 20th, 2013

Presentation on Inclusion Distance at #foj2103

Last week, Wiebke and Jan had the pleasure to participate in the biennial “Future of Journalism 2013” conference in Cardiff, UK. The organizers did a great job bringing together around 100 international scholars on journalism and digital media, to discuss recent research and avenues for future collaborations. Various sessions were liveblogged, and you can also see some of the resonance from participants via the #foj13 hashtag.

On Friday morning, we presented new findings from our project, focussing on the concept of inclusion distance and the different comparative logics our research design affords. Below you find the presentation; since we have not yet received any news on whether we are among the papers to be selected for a journal special issue, we do not put the paper online at the moment. However, we are happy to share it if you contact us directly, and we will let you know as soon as it is publicly available.

 

September 11th, 2013

JPub20 News: Article in “Journalism Studies”

It has been a while since we posted some news about the progress within the research project. However, the last weeks – and the current one in particular – have been very busy ones for the JPub20 team.

For one, we are very happy to announce that our article “Including the Audience: Comparing the attitudes and expectations of journalists and users towards participation in German TV news journalism” has been published by Journalism Studies and is now available online. Fifty e-prints are available via this link – first come, first serve.. :-)

The audience has always been an important reference for journalism although, under mass media conditions, it remained an ‘‘operative fiction’’ for its practitioners, reflecting a clear distinction between sender and recipients. Recent shifts in mediated communication towards networked public spheres and the increasing implementation of participatory features force media organizations, journalists and scholars alike to rethink the journalism-audience relationship. We introduce the concept of audience inclusion in journalism, to provide an analytical framework to investigate the relationship between journalists and (their) audience. The article presents the results of a multi-method case study of the German television newscast ‘‘Tagesschau’’ and its online platform tagesschau.de, and compares the attitudes of journalists and audience members towards the role of journalists, the relevance of participatory functions, the motivations for participation, and their general assessment of audience participation. By and large we find congruence between journalists’ and users’ expectations towards audience participation in news journalism. However, there is notable disagreement regarding the (assumed) motivations of users for participating at ‘‘Tagesschau’’.

At the moment, our team members Wiebke and Jan are at the prestigious bienal conference “Future of Journalism” (September 11-13, Cardiff) to present a follow-up paper on how to measure the inclusion distance between journalism and audience; the presentation will be put online in the next days.

August 23rd, 2013

Wir haben fremdgebloggt!

…und zwar über die Ergebnisse unserer ersten Fallstudie bei der Tagesschau: Welchen Journalismus und welche Partizipationsmöglichkeiten erwartet das Publikum von Deutschlands ältester Nachrichtensendung? Warum beteiligen sich aktive Nutzer auf tagesschau.de? Und was halten die Journalisten der Tagesschau davon? Die Antworten in Kurzform gibt es nun hier beim European Journalism Observatory.

[jr]

Juli 7th, 2013

Matter matters – on the “Objects of Journalism”

On June 17, 2013, our project team member Nele attended the conference “Objects of Journalism” in London, which was organized by Juliette De Maeyer and Chris W. Anderson (the Twitter stream is documented in a Storify). The one-day pre-ICA event took place at the prestigious “Frontline Club”, and brought together a bunch of renowned (journalism) scholars from many discplinary backgrounds (as regards methods, theories etc.) to discuss the role of actual things in the journalism production process. The aim of the conference was, in the words of the organizers, to enforce a move

away from perspectives focusing on overarching forces — be they of an economic, ideological or technical nature — as the main explanation of what happens in the making of the news. Without denying the existence of such forces, the approach advocated here tentatively explores the very material objects, sometimes seemingly innocuous or univocal, involved in journalistic production. It is an effort, in other words, towards fully embodying a vast set of heterogeneous objects that were or are enrolled in the making of the news: from the carrier-pigeon to Google algorithms, from Remington typewriters to robot-journalism.
Taking objects seriously strikes us as being an approach towards which some very challenging research and researchers are currently tending, but also as lacking a larger, unified framework for discussing potential items of research. We also aim, finally, to help to facilitate discussion between those who scholars who might embrace this “material turn” and those who might see it as a return to a realist ontology perhaps best left behind.” (cited from the conference website)

The whole event consisted of three panels (with five minute presentations of previously shared papers) and one keynote session; very interesting was the first panel: It was dedicated to “Digital Objects” with five papers discussing questions of what digital objects actually are, the processes related to the emergence and design of these objects (e.g. interfaces, news apps), how new digital features and options affect journalistic work (e.g. data-driven news reporting) and how we can analyze these influences and emergence of (material) affordances (e.g. via “trace ethnography” as introduced by Heather Ford or genealogy as introduced by Kreiss/Anderson). The following discussion revolved around, for instance, the ideologies behind the decisions of designers and programmers, which can be understood as editorial ones, although it is not too easy to uncover underlying coded biases (e.g. certain imagineries of “user/reader experience”). The other panels discussed questions of the “defintion” of newsrooms through certain (arrangements) of technological artifacts, the changing spaces and the relevance of (changing) temporal structures of news making (e.g. different “newsbeats” and how they evolve through services such as Twitter), or the relevance and (dis-)continuities of the materiality of journalism from a historical perspective.

The last panel was dedicated to journalistic processes (such as fact-checking or “original reporting”) and how they are affect and (re-) shaped by new intermediaries. For instance, H. Bodker pointed out that the ways news content and information in general are nowadays disseminated might be best understood as “cultures of circulation”. Within the panel, Nele presented her paper on “bridging technologies”, where she discusses the role of technological objects within the journalism-audience relationship. She proposes a conceptual framework that includes the triangle audience/journalism/technology as a complex network of relations which are structured by cognitive, normative and performative aspects as well as concrete affordances of media communication technologies (e.g. interfaces such as comment areas). Hence, we need an inclusive conceptual framework that is sensitive towards the dynamics between the different actors, their characteristics as well as their interactions, which shape and structure the relation between journalism, audience and technological objects. If you are interested in Nele’s paper, please do not hesitate to send us an e-mail.

Altogether, the conference was very well organized and the concept of the event, mainly aiming at discussion, played out very well. Still, many open questions remain (which is a good thing), among them: How can we achieve a balance between techno- and socio-deterministic views in journalism research? How do historical aspects relate to contemporary developments and how can we “trace” the traces and relevance of materiality within journalistic work? What is the (theoretical) contribution of journalism research with regard to (technological) objects and how can we appropriately adopt theoretical approaches from other fields such as actor-network-theory? The conference presents a first attempt to bring together empirical and theoretical perspectives from different fields to gather a more comprehensive understanding of what the materiality of newswork might mean. The whole event showed that, in the words of Gina Neff, “we should get back to looking at stuff” and that, at the same time, we should be asking: “What sorts of things are thingy, and what sorts of thingyness are there?” (Michael Schudson) Moreover, we need to reflect on the focus of our research: what do we perceive as relevant objects of study? Zvi Reich pointed out that few research is done on telephones which are still crucial artifacts within journalistic work. Hence, the presumed “sexyness” of an object should not be a primary guidance in our research decisions. However, as Chris W. Anderson concluded, “we can study sexy objects but only by making them boring”.

[nh]

Juni 28th, 2013

Streets of London

After last week’s bustle at the International Communication Association’s 63rd annual conference in London, all jpub members have finally returned from the Thames to the Alster: (at least) some tired, all happy. The ICA had compiled a program of really interesting talks, much too many to attend them all, so that I’m still busy downloading and reading the papers of those I missed.

We were very happy that we could present a small portion of the results from our case study at the German daily newscast Tagesschau in a session entitled “Participatory Journalism: Reimagining the Role of Audiences and Journalists” with Carrie Brown-Smith as host.

Heise; Loosen; Reimer; Schmidt: Comparing attitudes and expectations towards audience participation in news journalism. ICA London, June 21st 2013 from jpub 2.0

Here, we focused on comparing the actual importance of different participatory functions (e.g. commentary sections, social media profiles) for audience members with their importance as assumed by the Tagesschau-journalists and pointed out what both sides think audience participation at the Tagesschau is good for.

In the session, we also had the pleasure to hear some high quality talks on related topics, all of which greatly complemented one another:

Rodrigo Zamith presented his and Seth C. Lewis‘ thoughts on how to convert discursive spaces on news websites from public spaces to public spheres. Lea Hellmueller and You Li talked about the integration of participatory journalism in the journalistic field using the example of CNN’s iReporters. Anna Kümpel, Nina Springer and Ramona Ludolph analysed he interaction between users and newsrooms on German, US-American and Swedish news websites. Annika Sehl presented some really interesting findings from her dissertation in which she investigated in how far audience participation contributes to diversity of information and opinion in local reporting.

This way, the session brought together different facets of and views on audience participation in journalism, providing an overview about current research in this area as well as detailed insights into specific aspects.

(If you are interested in our full paper on attitudes and expectations towards audience participation at the Tagesschau but do not have access to the ICA website, please e-mail me at j.reimer[at]hans-bredow-institut.de and I’ll be glad to send you a copy.)

[jr]