Public participation in the news

Expectations and practices of audience inclusion at the “Tagessschau”

Wiebke Loosen, Jan-Hinrik Schmidt Julius Reimer, Nele Heise

@jpub20team

Hans-Bredow-Institute for Media Research

#ecc12 – Istanbul – October 27th, 2012

Outline

1. Audience participation as inclusion: The #jpub20-Project

2. Selected findings from the „Tagesschau“ case study

3. Conclusion

2 of 14

Journalism-audience-relation as inclusion

• “Audience” is constitutive for journalism – not only practically, but also normatively: journalism should enable ‘the public’ to participate in public life

• Under mass-media conditions, the audience played a subordinate role in everyday newsroom routines

• Under social-media conditions, audience activities become more visible for journalists (e.g. user generated content, user feedback), thus contributing to shifting/blurring boundaries (2)

• But: How to assess the relationship between journalism and audience theoretically and empirically?

• Approach of “jpub20”-Project: conceptualizing relationship as “inclusion” (2)

• Six case studies of different newsrooms (TV/Online and Print/Online) in Germany• Combination of methods: – in depth interviews ‐ with editorial staff and viewers/readers/users– standardized online surveys among full editorial departments and users of online platforms– content analysis of selected broadcasts/issues/articles and users discussions

(1) e.g. Bruns 2005, 2008; Robinson 2010; Lewis 2012(2) Loosen/Schmidt 2012

3 of 14

Heuristic model of audience inclusion in journalism

Audience

Inclusion Performance

Participatory practices

Degree of collective orientation

Inclusion Expectations

Motivations for participation

Assessment of audience contributions

Inclusion Performance

Features of audience participation

Work processes/routines

Journalistic products/output

Inclusion Expectations

Journalistic role perception

Images of the audience

Strategic rationales

Journalism

Inclusion Level

Inclusion Distance

Source: Loosen/Schmidt 2012: 874

4 of 14

Case Study

– Focus today: case study of “Tagesschau”– On air since 1953; produced by ARD (Public

Service Broadcaster) – up to 23 newscasts a day– most popular evening newscast in Germany

(on avg. 10 Mio viewers; 33% market share)

In-depth interviews Standardized survey

Journalists n=10 (from chief editor to ‚multi-media-assistants‘ [= community manager])

n=63(out of 130 people in editorial staff)

Audience n=6 (varying degrees of engagement)

n=4.686(random sample of tagesschau.de users; nth-visitor method)

5 of 14

Participative platforms / channels

6 of 14

Findings 1/2: Journalistic role-conceptions/expectations of the audience

n=60-63 / 4570-4636; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

Journalists:The following question addresses your understanding of the journalistic profession, i.e. which goals to fulfill in your professional work. What are your personal goals in your profession?

Audience [all users]:We now want to know what you consider to be important tasks for journalists of the Tagesschau (on TV as well as online). Tagesschau journalists should…

7 of 14

Findings 1/2: Journalistic role-conceptions/expectations of the audience

n=60-63 / 4570-4636; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 51

2

3

4

5

Journalistic Self-Image

Imag

e am

ong

audi

ence

• inform as objective and precise as possible• explain and convey complex issues• criticise problems and grievances• point to interesting topics and further inf.• inform audience as fast as possible• show new trends and highlight new ideas• control politics, business and society• give the audience topics to talk about• give audience opportunity to express opinion

on topics of public interest• get into conversation about current events• share positive ideals• Encourage/moderate discu. among audience• present my own ideas to audience• concentrate on news that is interesting to an

audience as wide as possible• Build/maintain relationship to audience• provide people with opportunity to publish

their own content• provide useful information for the audience

and act as advisor / guidance• provide entertainment and relaxation• provide audience with opportunity to

maintain ties among themselves

8 of 14

Findings 2/2: (Perceived) Reasons for participation (meta)

n=57-59 / 382-390; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant”/”Disagree completely” to 5 = ”very important” / “agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

Journalists:Viewers/users who comment (e.g. reacting to a newscast or a story) or participate in a different way will have certain goals in mind. We have listed some possible explanation; what do you think: how important are the following reasons for people who participate in Tagesschau/ tagesschau.de?

Audience [only active users]:Now please tell us about your reasons for [participatory practice].

Depending on actual answers, [participatory practice] read:- Sending (E-)Mail to the editors- Commenting on meta.tagesschau.de- Commenting on Tagesschau blog- Commenting on Tagesschau FB page

9 of 14

Findings 2/2: (Perceived) Reasons for participation (meta)

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 51

2

3

4

5

Dis-/agreement journalists

Dis-

/agr

eem

ent a

udie

nce

n=57-59 / 382-390; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant”/”Disagree completely” to 5 = ”very important” / “agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

• To state my/their opinion publicly• To propose a topic that is important

to me/them• To expand my/their own knowledge

by interacting with journalists and other viewers/users

• To share knowledge and experiences• To leave the passive viewer’s role• To point out errors in news stories• To support and advocate a certain

concern, event or group• To fulfill my/their civic obligations• To assist the journalists in their work• To feel included in a community• For self-expression and self-display• To vent anger and frustration• To find help with a problem• Out of boredom• To build relationship with editors

10 of 14

Conclusion

• Digital networked media have brought shifts in routines and expectations regarding audience inclusion into journalism

• Case study on “Tagesschau” has shown that …

• … by and large, professional self image and assessment by audience is congruent• democratic functions of journalism are not disputed at/for the “Tagesschau”• some incongruencies regarding participatory aspects of journalistic self image

• … motivations for user participation are viewed differently• aspect of „stating opinion publicly“ is acknowledged by both• but notable incongruence: journalists assume „self-centered“ motivations for participation,

while active audience rates knowledge exchange higher• Open question: How to go „beyond providing a public space“, how to make value of

user feedback for democratic discourse more visible?

• Future research

• „participatory divide“: Differences within “Tagesschau” audience?• Comparing “Tagesschau” with other media/types of journalism

11 of 14

Thank you!

Wiebke Loosen, Jan-Hinrik Schmidt

Hans-Bredow-InstitutWarburgstr. 8-10, 20354 Hamburg

{w.loosen;j.schmidt}@hans-bredow-institut.de

www.hans-bredow-institut.dejpub20.hans-bredow-institut.de

@jpub20team

12 of 14