Hans-Bredow-Institute

Abstract This article sets out to provide a conceptual contribution to theoretical and empirical work on the level of media repertoires. We will first discuss theoretical approaches which allow for an explanation of media repertoires and relate them to the most prominent approaches to selective audience behavior. Secondly, in order to empirically analyze media repertoires we propose a combination of secondary analyses of existing surveys on media use and qualitative studies on the internal ‘architecture’ of these repertoires and their practical meaning in the user's everyday life. These proposals for secondary analyses are illustrated by two examples based on different data sets and referring to different levels of analysis.

Abstract News value research has contributed a great deal to the understanding of news selection. For a long time scholars focused exclusively on news selection by the media. Yet, more recent approaches — inspired by cognitive psychology — have conceptionalized news factors as relevance indicators that not only serve as selection criteria in journalism, but also guide information processing by the audience. This article examines the theoretical and methodological developments in the German research tradition and discusses selected results for newspaper and television news. Its theoretical perspective focuses on the conceptionalization of news factors as either event characteristics or characteristics of the reality construction by journalists and recipients. This article explores how and why news factors affect media use and the retention of news items. Finally, this contribution's empirical perspective discusses various modifications of the assumed factors and presents methodological advancements in the measurement of news factors in selection processes.

Current technological, organizational and institutional changes fundamentally alter the relationship between journalism and its audience – with consequences not only for journalistic practice, but also for theoretical and methodological issues of media research. After briefly recounting three perspectives on the audience, the paper outlines key aspects of the sociological theory of inclusion and explicates them in a novel and comprehensive heuristic model of audience inclusion in journalism. It introduces two constructs which apply both to journalism and the audience: (1) inclusion performance subsumes inclusion practices and their manifest results, and (2) inclusion expectations subsume attitudes, norms and perceptions with respect to audience inclusion in journalism. The degree of congruence between performances of journalists and audience members is interpreted as inclusion level; the degree of congruence between the expectations is interpreted as inclusion distance. This model can serve as a heuristic for empirical operationalization, helps to systematize existing and future research on digital networked media and journalism into a coherent sociological framework and is also open for comparative research on participation in other social systems.

In recent years, gamification - the use of game design elements in non-game contexts - has seen rapid adoption in the software industry, as well as a growing body of research on its uses and effects. However, little is known about the effective design of such gameful systems, including whether their evaluation requires special approaches. This workshop therefore convenes researchers and industry practitioners to identify current practices, challenges, and open research questions in the design of gameful systems.

In a time of deep mediatization, cross-media approaches to investigating media practices are becoming increasingly relevant. In this respect, we have to consider cross-media from at least two different perspectives. The first perspective considers the ‘individual’ whose cross-media use can be characterized as a particular ‘media repertoire’. The second refers to ‘social domains’ (collectivities and organizations) that can be analysed as communicative figurations characterized by a particular ‘media ensemble’. We propose to interlace both perspectives to help clarify the conceptual and empirical relationship between media use by individuals, on the one hand, and as part of the figuration of a social domain, on the other. From the perspective of the individual, media repertoires are composed of media-related communicative practices that individuals use to relate themselves to the figurations that they are involved in. From the perspective of these figurations, media ensembles are characterized by the media-related communicative practices of the actors involved in them. We argue that a methodological triangulation of media diaries, (group) interviews and sorting techniques is a productive way forward to qualitatively investigate both these perspectives.

Data-driven journalism can be considered as journalism’s response to the datafication of society. To better understand the key components and development of this still young and fast evolving genre, we investigate what the field itself defines as its ‘gold-standard’: projects that were nominated for the Data Journalism Awards from 2013 to 2016 (n = 225). Using a content analysis, we examine, among other aspects, the data sources and types, visualisations, interactive features, topics and producers. Our results demonstrate, for instance, only a few consistent developments over the years and a predominance of political pieces, of projects by newspapers and by investigative journalism organisations, of public data from official institutions as well as a glut of simple visualisations, which in sum echoes a range of general tendencies in data journalism. On the basis of our findings, we evaluate data-driven journalism’s potential for improvement with regard to journalism’s societal functions.

This open access volume assesses the influence of our changing media environment.

Understanding how citizens keep themselves informed about current affairs is crucial for a functioning democracy. Extant research suggests that in an increasingly fragmented digital news environment, search engines and social media platforms promote more incidental, but potentially more shallow modes of engagement with news compared to the act of routinely accessing a news organization’s website. In this study, we examine classic predictors of news consumption to explain the preference for three modes of news engagement in online tracking data: routine news use, news use triggered by social media, and news use as part of a general search for information. In pursuit of this aim, we make use of a unique data set that combines tracking data with survey data. Our findings show differences in predictors between preference for regular (direct) engagement, general search-driven, and social media–driven modes of news engagement. In describing behavioral differences in news consumption patterns, we demonstrate a clear need for further analysis of behavioral tracking data in relation to self-reported measures in order to further qualify differences in modes of news engagement.

Search engines are among the most popular online services used in a range of contexts, including to find information on political issues. As such, they increasingly act as powerful mediators between news organizations and their audiences. The claim that search results are politically biased, while hardly new, has also recently received fresh support from President Donald Trump, who has blamed Google for unfairly prioritizing news outlets critical of his policies. In the context of elections, search engines may serve to inform citizens and have been argued to sway the choices of undecided voters. I examine two related issues: How political parties and candidates are represented in Google Search results and how strongly results in both Google Search and Google News are personalized in the run up to the 2017 German general elections. My results suggest that some parties and candidates are able to exert greater influence over how they are represented in search results than others, through a combination of local branch websites and social media presences. I furthermore find only a small share of results which differ from the mainstream, while controlling for time, language, and location, calling into question the validity of the filter bubble concept.

Approaches to regulating social media platforms and the way they moderate content has been an ongoing debate within legal and social scholarship for some time now. European policy makers have been asking for faster and more effective responses from the various social media platforms to explain how they might deal with the dissemination of hate speech and disinformation. After a failed attempt to push social media platforms to self-regulate, Germany adopted a law called the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) which forces platforms to ensure that "obviously unlawful content" is deleted within 24 hours. It contains an obligation that all platforms that receive more than 100 complaints per calendar year about unlawful content must publish bi-annual reports on their activities. This provision is designed to provide clarification on the way content is moderated and complaints handled on social networks. After the NetzDG came into force, initial reports reveal the law's weak points, predominantly in reference to their low informative value. When it comes to important takeaways regarding new regulation against hate speech and more channelled content moderation, the reports do not live up to the expectations of German lawmakers. This paper analyses the legislative reasoning behind the reporting obligation, the main outcomes of the reports from the major social networks (Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter) and why the reports are unsuitable to serve as grounds for further development of the NetzDG or any similar regulation.

The concept of produsage developed from the realisation that new language was needed to describe the new phenomena emerging from the intersection of Web 2.0, user-generated content, and social media since the early years of the new millennium. When hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of participants utilise online platforms to collaborate in the development and continuous improvement of a wide variety of content – from software to informational resources to creative works –, and when this work takes place through a series of more or less unplanned, ad hoc, almost random cooperative encounters, then to describe these processes using terms which were developed during the industrial revolution no longer makes much sense. When – exactly because what takes place here is no longer a form of production in any conventional sense of the word – the outcomes of these massively distributed collaborations appear in the form of constantly changing, permanently mutable bodies of work which are owned at once by everyone and no-one, by the community of contributors as a whole but by none of them as individuals, then to conceptualise them as fixed and complete products in the industrial meaning of the term is missing the point. When what results from these efforts is of a quality (in both depth and breadth) that enables it to substitute for, replace, and even undermine the business model of long-established industrial products, even though precariously it relies on volunteer contributions, and when their volunteering efforts make it possible for some contributors to find semi- or fully professional employment in their field, then conventional industrial logic is put on its head.

AbstractThe 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".KEYWORDS: audience participationcase studyinclusionjournalismjournalistic role conceptionsself-imagesystem theory ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFurther information on the background of the project and its outcomes is provided in our project blog (http://jpub20.hans-bredow-institut.de). The authors would like to thank the student assistants Christina Heller, Hendrik Holdmann, Mareike Scheler and Niklas Weith, as well as the anonymous reviewers.Notes1. See http://www.ard.de/intern/ard-erste-tagesschau-quote-nachrichten/-/id=1886/nid=1886/did=2680936/10gqz4z/.2. See http://www.facebook.com/#!/tagesschau/likes.3. See https://plus.google.com/112424296951779201005/posts.4. We assume incongruence to be indicated by a difference of means larger than 0.5. This is also supported by t-tests which have shown that differences are highly significant (p<0.001) when larger than 0.45 (journalistic role conceptions and the (expected) importance of participatory functions), 0.47 (general assessment of audience participation), as well as 0.54 ("meta"), 0.65 ("Tagesschau-Blog"), 0.71 (audience mail), 0.74 (Facebook) regarding the (assumed) participation motivations of users.Additional informationFundingFUNDING The presented case study is part of a research project which is funded by the German Research Foundation [grant number LO 853/4-1] for 2.5 years (2011–2014).

Sentiment analysis is an increasingly popular instrument for the analysis of social media discourse. Sentiment scores seemingly represent an objective means of assessing the mood of social media users, consumers, and the public at large. Similar to other computational tools, sentiment analysis promises to reduce complexity and mitigate information overload, and to inform the decisions of marketers, pollsters, and scholars with reliable data. This article argues that the assumptions encoded into sentiment analysis as a method are accompanied by a number of constraints, both regarding its technical limitations (in terms of what sentiment analysis can and cannot accomplish) and conceptually (in terms of what the notion of sentiment implicitly represents), constraints which are often de-emphasized in public discourse. After providing an overview of its history and development in computer science as well as psychology and the social sciences, we turn to the role of sentiment as a currency in the attention economy. We then present a brief study of common framing of sentiment analysis in the news media, highlighting the expectations that exist regarding its analytical capabilities. We close by discussing the kind of conceptual work that takes place around computational methods such as sentiment analysis in specific cultural environments, highlighting their influence on the public imaginary.

The consumption of news increasingly takes place in the context of social media, where users can personalize their repertoire of news through personal news curation practices such as following a journalistic outlet on Twitter or blocking news content from a Facebook friend. This article examines the prevalence and predictors of curation practices that have the potential to boost or limit social media news exposure. Results from a representative online survey distributed across thirty-six countries demonstrate that more than half of all news users on social media engage in such practices. Significant predictors of news-boosting curation are news interest and the willingness to engage in other news-related activities on social media. News-limiting practices on social media are linked to general news avoidance and, in the case of the US, political extremism, which might decrease the chances of incidental news exposure. News-boosting and news-limiting curation practices relate to a wider and more diverse repertoire of news sources online. Personal news curation practices can be conceptualized as forms of news engagement that have the potential to complement or counteract algorithmic news selection or partisan selective exposure, yet, these practices can also solidify existing divides in news use related to interest and avoidance.

This article analyzes how journalists’ role conceptions compare to what the population expects fromthem. We model this interrelation as part of the reflexive relationship between journalism and audiences which is characterized by mutual (self-)expectations that can be more or less congruent. Through a representative CATI-survey (n = 1,000) we explore the tasks German citizens expect journalists to fulfill and compare them with existing representative data on German journalists’ own role conceptions as collected in the “Worlds of Journalism” study. For that purpose, we adapted the item battery on journalistic role conceptions for the audience's perspective and complemented it with potential new journalistic tasks such as moderating public discourse online. Results show that what journalists want to do most is also what the population thinks they should do: these are primarily the traditional journalistic tasks of objective reporting as well as analysis and explanation, but also the promotion of tolerance and cultural diversity. Looking more closely at the population's opinions reveals that respondents, in general, also want journalists to provide source transparency. However, individual citizens’ preferences are diverse, with age, gender, and news usage practices correlating with different expectations of journalism.

Recent journalism research often argues that it is high time that we moved beyond the newsroom and begin asking who it is that is stimulating transformation and not what it is, as individual journalists, entrepreneurs, technology firms, and startups assume an increasingly critical role in the development of the field. This article introduces the concept of ‘pioneer journalism’ to provide just such an analysis across different organizational contexts. Pioneer journalism is understood as a particular group of journalists that incorporates new organizational forms and experimental practice in pursuit of redefining the field and its structural foundations. To introduce this concept, the article argues along three stages. First, it develops a theoretical basis on which to pin our understanding of pioneering practice by reviewing previous research into journalism’s transformation beyond the newsroom. Second, it extends the theoretical discussion into the empirical realm by looking at five extreme cases of pioneer journalists through an explorative interview analysis. Third, and to conclude, an integrated concept of pioneer journalism is outlined as a point of departure from which to further consider journalism’s re-figuration more generally.

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to outline the concept ‘figurational approach’ as one possible way of researching transforming communications. To do this, the authors reflect on our changing media environment, which is understood as being marked by deep mediatization. Second, they develop the argument that mediatization research is right to emphasize the domain specificity of (deep) mediatization. However, there is a need to sharpen the idea of social domain. With this in mind, the chapter demonstrates how it can be a help to investigate transforming communications by analyzing changing ‘communicative figurations’. Finally, in the conclusion, some remarks are made about what this means for practical empirical research.

Debates around climate change are a prominent example of polarized online communication. We examine the German climate hyperlink network and evaluate the degree to which it is shaped by mainstream and skeptical views. By combining the theoretical frameworks of the networked public sphere and counterpublics, we describe the relation between publics and counterpublics and discuss the role of hyperlinks in delineating communities. Our analysis of blogrolls and link lists shows the debate’s structures to be polarized along factional lines with political and scientific institutions supporting the mainstream “climate-friendly” position. We find that skeptics form a counterpublic that is only loosely connected to the mainstream as neither skeptics nor the mainstream want to be affiliated with each other. Skeptics, thus, are mostly excluded within the German online climate network. However, skeptics are part of an “alliance of antagonism” with other groups, such as conspiracy theorists, men’s right groups, and right-wing sites.

Current models of data access in social media research offer clear benefits, but are also fraught in a number of ways, including by posing risks to user privacy, being constrained in terms of reliability and reproducibility of results, and incentivizing questionable and in some cases unethical research practices. I argue that partnerships between academics and industry represent one potential option for improving this situation. While no panacea, such arrangements may be able to contribute to a more rules-based and less anarchic situation in social media research, placing greater emphasis on preserving user privacy and the reproducibility of results, rather than mainly on compiling large data sets. Due to a number of recent shifts, not just in research, but in the public discourse surrounding social media platforms and user data, we are entering an era of increased institutionalization and standardization in the study of online communication. This new environment appears poised to replace the ‘Wild West of social media research’ that we have witnessed in the past, in which academics compile huge troughs of data with few constraints, not always acting in the public’s best interest.

E-petitioning platforms are increasingly popular in Western democracies and considered by some lawmakers and scholars to enhance citizen participation in political decision-making. In addition to social media and other channels for informal political communication, online petitioning is regarded as both a useful instrument to afford citizens a more important role in the political process and allow them to express support for issues which they find relevant. Building on existing pre-internet systems, e-petitioning websites are increasingly implemented to make it easier and faster to set up and sign petitions. However, little attention has so far been given to the relationship between different styles of usage and the causes supported by different groups of users. The functional difference between signing paper-based petitions vs. doing so online is especially notable with regard to users who sign large numbers of petitions. To characterize this relationship, we examine the intensity of user participation in the German Bundestag’s online petitioning platform through the lens of platform data collected over a period of five years, and conduct an analysis of highly active users and their political preferences. We find that users who sign just a single petition favor different policy areas than those who sign many petitions on a variety of issues. We conclude our analysis with observations on the potential of behavioral data for assessing the dynamics of online participation, and suggest that quantity (the number of signed petitions) and quality (favored policy areas) need more systematic joint assessment.