The Influence of Shareability and Metrics in Journalistic Decision-Making

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University and the Institute for Communication and Media Studies of Leipzig University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degrees

Master of Science in Journalism (Ohio University),

Master of Arts in Global Mass Communication (Leipzig University)

Michelle K. Rotuno-Johnson

December 2020

This thesis titled

The Influence of Shareability and Metrics in Journalistic Decision-Making

MICHELLE K. ROTUNO-JOHNSON

has been approved for

the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism,

the Scripps College of Communication,

and the Institute for Communication and Media Studies by

Hans K. Meyer

Associate Professor of Journalism

Scott Titsworth

Dean, Scripps College of Communication, Ohio University

Christian Pieter Hoffman

Director, Institute for Communication and Media Studies, Leipzig University ii

Abstract

ROTUNO-JOHNSON, MICHELLE K., M.S., Journalism; M.A., Global Mass

Communication,

December 2020

3702711

The Influence of Shareability and Metrics in Journalistic Decision-Making

Director of Thesis: Hans K. Meyer

Committee Members: Jatin Srivastava, Alexander Godulla

This paper examines how social media metrics and website traffic have influenced journalists’ perceptions of what is newsworthy. Drawing on research that establishes a tendency for editors to adjust stories on their website based on audience preferences, the researcher hypothesizes journalists at higher levels of newsroom production will view metrics and traffic as more important than journalists at lower levels of newsroom production. This paper also examines if shareability can be considered its own news value. A survey of journalists indicates that news workers at all levels of production rely on more traditional news values to shape their coverage, though they do prefer for their stories to do well online.

iii

Acknowledgments

This project was an exercise in patience, tenacity, and humility. People told me that grad school would be the most stressful time in my life, and I think I believe them. I could not have done this without the encouragement and help of several people.

First, thank you to Dr. Hans Meyer at Ohio University for your support and guidance with my survey, writing, and research. Your help has been more valuable than I can say, and you helped me push my thinking and improve my work. Thank you also to

Dr. Jatin Srivastava at OU and Dr. Alexander Godulla at the University of Leipzig for being willing to see this through with me as my other committee members. I am grateful to the Scripps School of Communication at OU and the Institute for Communication and

Media Studies at Uni Leipzig for the opportunity to study abroad in Germany. My colleagues Yasmeen Ebada, Tess Herman, Bailey Dick, and Natascha Toft Roelsgaard kept me smiling and encouraged me to keep pushing to the finish line.

Thank you to my parents for instilling in me the values of higher education and self-improvement. Thank you to my partner Lexi for your patience and constant support, even when the stress of writing and revising made me surly.

Lastly, thank you very much to the journalists who completed my survey, for your contributions to my research.

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... iii Acknowledgments...... iv List of Tables ...... vi Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 4 Gatekeeping and Agenda-Setting ...... 5 News Values in Newsroom Routines ...... 8 Laying the Foundation for News Value Research ...... 10 The Internet and Social Media: Changing How Newsrooms Work ...... 12 New Values in the 21st Century ...... 14 Other News Values Research: Appealing to the Audience ...... 16 Different Coverage Levels, Different Values ...... 17 Defining Shareability ...... 18 Summary and Research Questions...... 23 Chapter 3: Method ...... 25 Survey Instrument ...... 25 The Factorial or Vignette Survey Method in Communication Research ...... 27 Survey Distribution ...... 28 Chapter 4: Analysis and Results ...... 29 Descriptive Statistics ...... 29 Statistical Tests ...... 35 Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 40 Research Limitations ...... 43 Theoretical and Practical Implications...... 46 Final Thoughts ...... 48 References ...... 49

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Survey Respondents’ News Value Rankings...... 30 Table 2 Survey Respondents’ Scenario Rankings ...... 32

Chapter 1: Introduction

The wide availability of social media has altered the news media landscape. Long gone are the days people waited for the morning newspaper or television updates to learn about the goings-on in their neighborhoods and across the world. Now, details of important events spread on social media before news organizations have a chance to get the facts on air, online, or to print. A recent Pew study found two-thirds of adults get at least some news from social media (Shearer & Matsa, 2018). And, a 2018 study found eight in 10 newspeople use social media in their daily routine, for gathering information, reporting, and sharing stories (Willnat & Weaver). The proliferation of social media users in the last 10-15 years has also created a more direct channel from the audience to the reporter. Journalists receive instant feedback on Twitter, Facebook, and other social platforms on their job performance and what their viewers, readers, and/or listeners want to be covered.

As newsrooms’ online and social audiences grew, companies developed ways to track the traffic. What is the top story on our website? How long are people spending on each story? How many people saw this Facebook post? Social media analytics give news decision-makers data in real time to determine what news is the most enticing to their audiences, if not the most important. Studies (Bright & Nicholls 2014, Harcup & O’Neill

2017, Vu 2014) show that, for online editors at least, audience reaction dictates which stories are shared on social media and featured in prominent places on news websites.

One pair of researchers said the online audience has “a clear impact on journalistic practice.” (Bright & Nicholls 2014, p. 178). 1

Do reporters feel this influence, too? If reporters and editors are pursuing stories simply because they are shareable, not because of other inherent value, this could indicate a massive shift in newsroom routines where the audience tells journalists what is important, and journalists follow their lead.

This project attempts to determine how social media reaction and engagement, or

“shareability,” factors into a journalist’s decision to pursue and/or publish a news story. It builds on recent articles (specifically authored by Harcup & O’Neill) suggesting a revision of Galtung and Ruge’s 1965 news values study in the field of journalism and mass communication. This thesis will also use Shoemaker and Reese’s 1996 book,

“Mediating the Message,” to examine influences on news content and how news values fit into their hierarchy of influences. Existing academic research (Bright & Nicholls 2014,

Harcup & O’Neill 2017, Vu 2014) has already established a trend among news organizations to include social media metrics and online web traffic into their daily decision making. There is also an established precedent for news organizations to also change the day-to-day layout of their print publications based on what editors and gatekeepers consider important and interesting to the public, but also as a means of competing with other news organizations.

Existing studies on news values and social media have either been content analyses, or surveys and interviews focused on editors and gatekeepers, not journalists

“in the trenches.” Thus, this project focused on contacting journalists at all levels of production to determine if there is a difference between how people at different levels of decision-making view the importance of social media and metrics, or if journalists across 2

the board still rely on more traditional news values. This research is crucial to understanding if the established tendency of editors and other gatekeepers to focus on posts that are performing well has filtered down to the rest of the newsroom, and, if so, what impact this may have.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This thesis will primarily build on the idea of news values. Caple (2018) provides a working definition of both newsworthiness and news values:

One way of defining newsworthiness is ‘worthy of being published as news,’ and the criteria that are commonly used to determine newsworthiness are known as news values. The newsworthiness of an event, however, is only one among many factors that determine whether the said event will be published as news, and the concept of ‘news values’ has been applied to a wide range of decisions that determine what gets published, when, and how (p. 2).

Johan Galtung and Marie H. Ruge (1965) proposed a list of 12 factors news gatekeepers consult to determine an event or story’s newsworthiness. These factors are frequency, threshold, unambiguity, meaningfulness, consonance, unexpectedness, continuity, composition, reference to elite nations, reference to elite people, reference to persons, and reference to something negative.

This formed the foundation for a myriad of other articles that have re-evaluated and updated this original list as the media and the audiences they strive to serve have changed. If we are to imagine, for a moment, that news values research began as a small village or neighborhood, it must now resemble a sprawling city. Researchers have spent the last 55 years building on one another's' work, darting down back alleys, crossing and re-crossing paths many others have trodden on, and carving out new “neighborhoods” represented by different approaches. Research in news values crosses over with gatekeeping theory, the hierarchy of influences framework, and agenda-setting theory, among others.

Gatekeeping and Agenda-Setting

As Galtung and Ruge (1965) and Shoemaker and Reese (1996) note, events are constantly happening all over the world: political decisions, natural disasters, major vehicle accidents, and medical breakthroughs can happen at any moment. In a newspaper or on a nightly broadcast, there is only so much space and so much time for the news of the day. Thus, reporters and editors must decide what stories are important and relevant to their particular audiences and in what order to present these stories to the public. The gatekeeping theory explains the process by which news is delivered to the public.

Information flows constantly over news wires, on social media and from reporters in the field. News organizations -- or, rather, the people working for news organizations -- decide when to open their proverbial gates to the flood and allow information to pass to the public, and when to keep the gates shut. In doing so, news workers shape the reality of their audience by telling them what is news (DeFleur, 2016).

There are multiple influences on gatekeepers, as Shoemaker and Reese (1996) argue, which includes the worker’s individual background, newsroom routines, and the structure of the newsroom, as well as limited time, access to sources, and limited space.

Thus, each news organization has its set of individual gatekeepers. Some researchers (Vu

2017, Bright & Nicholls 2014, Lee & Lewis 2012) have argued that gatekeepers have begun to select stories based on audience interest and input in the social media age, bringing items through the gate to drive up online traffic or social media discussion. This would indicate a shift in the traditional gatekeeper role, moving from the audience as

recipients of media and financial commodities to the audience as “active participants in a digital network of communication” (Lee & Lewis, p. 9).

This more active role of the audience, along with the greater availability of information, lead Bruns (2003) to coin the term “gatewatching” to refer to the process by which any Internet user may select information relevant to his or her community or personal life and share it. For journalists, this can mean publishing a story connecting a reader to another site where they can gather more information about said story, publicizing news instead of publishing it. “These gates,” Bruns writes, no longer allow news to come to us, but enable us to access the news contained within” (p.34). This allows for quicker news reporting and for better-sourced stories (p.35) but can allow for bias to creep into news stories if they are using a biased source (p. 40). This can create problems for news outlets who post initial reports or user-generated content without enough context, such as when CNN and The Washington Post settled libel and slander lawsuits with a Kentucky teenager who was the subject of a viral video at the Right to

Life march in January 2019 (Knight, 2020). Still, there is ample evidence that journalism has changed in the digital age, and understanding traditional journalism roles is important for the foundation of this project.

Along with gatekeeping comes the agenda-setting theory. After certain stories make it through the gates, editors and producers must decide what is the top story on the nightly broadcast or in the newspaper. Again, there is not enough room in a newspaper or minutes in a broadcast to cover the vast and varied happenings of the world. Gatekeepers must decide what items to report prominently and how much information to give their 6

audiences, thus determining which stories are most important and setting an agenda for the day. Even on the vast frontier of the Internet, digital editors choose which news stories are at the top of their websites, which stories should be shared on social media, and which are not worthy of inclusion on their particular corner of the web. Story placement signals to the audience what is most important and what they should pay attention to (DeFleur, 2016).

This theory was put forth by researchers McCombs and Shaw, who compared what undecided voters thought were key issues of the 1968 presidential campaign with what mass media outlets presented as key issues. McCombs and Shaw suggest the media impact voters’ judgments of what they said were major issues and thus shape the

“political reality,” indicating what is important based on how where a story is placed and how much information is shared (McCombs & Shaw 1972, p. 176). In other words, media do not tell people how to think about certain issues, but they do tell people which issues should be on their minds. The resulting public opinions may also have an impact on policymakers (DeFleur, 2016).

The audience may now be taking a more active role in how editors select and display content online, and even a passive role as news sites display “most viewed” or

“most shared” stories. The availability of real-time data allows members of the media and members of the public alike to consider popular stories in a different way (Lee & Lewis

2012, p. 9-10). Some newsrooms display data showing how long readers spend on a story, how many times a certain story is shared, and how many people are reading a story at a particular time (Bright & Nicholls 2014, p. 172). This can create discord for 7

journalists if data is showing them a difference between what people want to read and what institutional ideas of journalistic roles tell them what people need to read. There are myriad examples of this discord and a number of studies that show how audience preferences affect which stories editors keep on the front page of their websites; this research will be examined in subsequent sections of this thesis.

News Values in Newsroom Routines

The factors that influence how journalists go about selecting and presenting stories are the subject of this next section. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) developed the hierarchy of influences model to explain the forces that shape mass media. The researchers hypothesize that social systems, social institutions, media organizations, routine practices, and individual communicators all factor into how mass media are conceptualized, constructed, produced, and shared. For the purposes of this study, media organizations and routine practices are the most applicable. Shoemaker and Reese describe news values as a product of news routines. These values are established deep in news organizations, and news judgment “is the ability to evaluate stories based on agreed-on news values, which provide yardsticks of newsworthiness and constitute an audience-oriented routine” (p.111). News values predict what an audience will find appealing and important, so workers at all levels of the news decision-making process have an idea of what their audiences will pay attention to.

News decision-makers also must give advertisers information about audiences so the advertisers can disseminate their messages. In practice, news values direct gatekeepers to make consistent story selections. In part, this means news organizations 8

and individual news workers select what to put in broadcasts and articles based on what they think will draw the audience to their individual product. This analysis is still valid in the 21st century, as news outlets compete in online spaces for advertising dollars and pageviews.

Shoemaker and Reese offer this analogy for how news is selected:

Even if the media could tell everything that went on in a day, it would not be very useful. If a friend returned from a week’s vacation and asked you what happened during that time, you would probably start with the most important things first and work your way down. If you had time, you might throw in something unusual or funny. You would assume that your friend knows the sun normally rises and sets, so you would not include that in your narrative. The most important news would be that which deviated from the norm, or that would directly affect your friend (tornado sightings, tuition going up) (p. 111-112).

Hartley (1982) described news values as an ideological code which would fit into

Shoemaker and Reese’s hierarchy of news influences. Hartley says news values are

“man-made,” and that “an individual journalist, whether male or female, is unable to escape their institutionalized force (presented as the right way of doing journalism), even when s/he contests their ideology” (n.p.). He said some of Galtung and Ruge’s values are applicable worldwide, while others are only applicable in “the north-western corner of the world” (n.p.). News values are crucial in news selection but only a part of the construction of events into stories. News events are assigned to their “proper” place in the established order of what should be covered. Hartley (citing Hall et al., 1978) also said newspeople have cultural “maps” of the world, which enable them to identify what events are unusual, significant, and unexpected (n.p.). These maps assume society is fragmented, composed of individual persons, hierarchical, and consensual by nature:

We are left with a closed societal circle, with everyone inside. In the consensual model, there are no dissidents, since everybody has access to the expression and resolution of their grievances in the official establishment of social institutions (p. 83).

Journalists work to make sense of social events, so they are especially concerned with what deviates from these agreed upon societal norms, as Shoemaker & Reese point out. Hartley uses examples such as terrorism, murder, “violent” demonstrations, and treason as events far outside the “permitted threshold” of civilized society. This definition would include major events that have been covered extensively by news organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom, particularly the former’s election of a political outsider in 2016, and the exit of Great Britain from the European Union that has been a main focus of UK media for the past four years. And, as this thesis has already established, there is an ever-growing body of work that explores how social media and online metrics may be changing the traditional structure of newsrooms.

Laying the Foundation for News Value Research

In 1965, Galtung and Ruge studied the coverage of three crisis events in three

Norwegian newspapers to answer a seemingly simple question: “How do ‘events’ become ‘news?’” They began with an extended metaphor, imagining the world full of broadcasting channels “each one emitting its signal or its program at its proper wavelength” (p. 65). These channels are always emitting some “signal,” as there is always something happening to each person around the world. Thus, there is a

“cacophony” (p. 65) of sound going on across all channels. Galtung and Ruge state:

Obviously this cacophony does not make sense. It may become meaningful only if one station is tuned in and listened to for some time before one switches on to 10

the next one. Since we cannot register everything, we have to select, and the question is what will strike our attention (p. 65).

There are 12 “obvious implications” of this metaphor, and Galtung and Ruge

(1965) provide a list of characteristics that can signal events most likely to be selected as news stories. The first eight, they say, should be largely universal: frequency, threshold, unambiguity, meaningfulness, consonance, unexpectedness, continuity, and composition.

The last four are deemed “to be important in at least the north-western corner of the world:” reference to elite nations, reference to elite people, reference to persons, and reference to something negative. Galtung and Ruge assume three things if their factors are all operating: The more events satisfy the criteria mentioned, the more likely that they will be registered as news (selection); Once a news item has been selected what makes it newsworthy according to the factors will be accentuated (distortion); Both the process of selection and the process of distortion will take place at all steps in the chain from event to reader (replication).

This leads to four hypotheses: The more distant the nation, the higher the tendency to report elite action; The lower the rank of a person, the more negative the event; The more distant the nation, the more negative the effect; and The more culturally distant the theater, the more relevant must the event appear to be. Galtung and Ruge suggest there may be a “complementarity of news factors” (p. 80) and that news factors may combine in pairs or sets of three or more to make a particular event more likely to be selected (p. 81). They conclude by saying these are only hypothetical news factors, not demonstrated factors, and call for further research on the subject (p. 85).

The Internet and Social Media: Changing How Newsrooms Work

Galtung and Ruge understood in 1965 that there are simply too many events going on in the world for the news media to cover every single one. Today, news moves too quickly for even traditional gatekeepers to perform their function before the general public knows what is going on. Social platforms have become important for both newsgathering and news disseminating but also provide journalists with an instant link to readers’ likes, dislikes, comments, interests, and more. This section of the literature review examines social media and the culture surrounding it as grounds for one or more

“new” news values, pointing at shareability (which will be defined later in this thesis) as its own value.

Metrics and Audience Data. A number of studies examine how audience data affects journalistic decisionmaking. Bright and Nicholls (2014), Lee and Lewis (2012), and Vu (2014) asserted that readership statistics have a clear impact on the gatekeeping practice. This assertion is key to the core of this thesis. Bright and Nicholls say there is evidence of a “still limited, but potentially developing, turn toward online populism” (p.

1), a sentiment echoed by Vu, who suggested the gatekeeping practice is becoming

“audience-centric” (p. 1105). Bright and Nicholls studied five major UK news outlets

(both tabloid and quality) and implied the audience has a clear impact on journalistic practice, influencing editorial decisions about which articles go on the front page. Bright and Nicholls found that if an article is one of the most-read stories on a news site, editors were close to 25 percent less likely to remove it from the front page. The researchers found a greater audience influence in the “quality” publications rather than the tabloids. 12

Vu (2014) theorizes editors adjust the stories on their front pages because of the perceived economic benefits of having more readers and suggests a revision of the hierarchy-of-influences theory attributed to Shoemaker and Reese (1996). Harcup and

O’Neill (2017) also emphasize that pressure to get clicks and shares influence how editors treat stories online.

In studying how reader preferences affect where editors place stories on news websites, Lee and Lewis (2012) declared that online audiences have “an intricate and dynamic role in influencing whether and how online newsroom editors decide to feature certain news stories over others at multiple time points a day” (p. 24). Lee and Lewis found that while audience preferences affect where editors place stories, there was no overall effect of editorial decision-making on what audiences wanted to read (p. 24). This conclusion correlates with the Bright and Nicholls study (2014) and the Vu (2014) study, demonstrating that audiences affect and shape online news coverage and decisions. This means web traffic disrupts routine practices in newsrooms, with gatekeepers placing stories in prominent areas on their websites to attract readers.

With this disruption of traditional newsroom routines comes a disruption of traditional news roles. Similar to Vu (2014), who suggested the gatekeeping practice is changing, Araujo and van der Meer (2018) noted sometimes a reversal of agenda-setting happens when news media outlets and journalists shape their news coverage around public interest and the public agenda. Both of these studies imply journalists are changing practices to please their audiences. User-generated content in online news has become a source for journalists and supplements the work of professionals, giving the audience a 13

more active role in news production. Araujo and van der Meer’s findings indicate that some news values (social impact, geographical closeness, facticity) associate with higher levels of user activity online, and that news media outlets and certain influential actors explain activities online (p. 15). They argue the agenda-setting pattern has become less straightforward: “the findings advocate for a more nuanced understanding of the relation between news and social media, characterizing this interrelation as a dynamic interplay rather than a mechanical causal linkage” (p. 15). Unlike the Bright and Nicholls (2014),

Lee and Lewis (2012), and Vu (2014) studies, Araujo and van der Meer’s study identifies specific news values; however, each one exhibits how audiences influence web content and social media traffic.

New Values in the 21st Century

In a 2001 study, Harcup and O'Neill revisited Galtung and Ruge’s study in an examination of news values in British newspapers, to determine how valuable the previous study is. Harcup and O'Neill addressed several concerns and limitations with

Galtung and Ruge’s study. They noted the 1965 study is limited to the reporting of foreign news, and how major events are covered. They also said Galtung and Ruge suggest a list of factors first and put forward hypotheses rather than beginning with a study of what appears in newspapers. “...(Galtung and Ruge’s) factors could be identified on actual newspaper pages only with the use of copious amounts of necessarily subjective interpretation on the part of the researchers” (p. 6). Harcup and O'Neill’s study is focused on published news items and what may or may not lead to their selection, noting many news items “appear to have little or no relation to actual events at all” (p. 7). Harcup and 14

O'Neill say none of their concerns “should be taken as suggesting that Galtung and

Ruge’s study is of no value today” (p. 10).

Harcup and O'Neill (2001) studied the front pages of The Daily Telegraph, The

Sun, and The Daily Mail, which they say give them a mix of tabloid news and broadsheet news. The researchers said that examining all stories on the front page allows them to examine news values in domestic and international stories, which distinguishes their study from Galtung and Ruge’s. They said Galtung and Ruge’s study seems to ignore day-to-day coverage of “lesser, domestic and ‘bread and butter’ stories” (p. 15). Harcup and O'Neill concluded by suggesting certain combinations of news values “appear almost to guarantee coverage in the press,” but do not go so far as to suggest a hierarchy of values (p.15). Their research suggests “that the media itself may also be responsible for the prominence of many apparently manufactured stories that have little relation to actual events” (p. 16). This fits into Shoemaker and Reese’s hierarchy of news values, in that it suggests news values are part of the organization structure of newsrooms and that newspeople select or pursue stories based on these intrinsic notions of what is newsworthy.

As Harcup and O’Neill noted, Galtung and Ruge’s news values do not cover some areas of news: entertainment (including picture opportunities, reference to sex, reference to animals, and humor); reference to something positive; reference to elite organizations or institutions; and agendas, promotions, and campaigns. They suggested their own list of contemporary news values, which is the basis for analysis in this thesis: the power elite, celebrity, entertainment, surprise, bad news, good news, magnitude, relevance, follow-up, 15

and newspaper agenda. They said these values more accurately reflect modern journalism, and focus more on how news is selected rather than how it is covered. They emphasized their list is open to critique, and that a list of news values may never fully explain why some events are covered while others are not.

Harcup and O'Neill revisited Galtung and Ruge again in 2017, performing a content analysis of 711 lead news stories from 15 British publications in 2014. They identified “bad news,” “surprise,” and “entertainment” as the top three most prominent news values (p. 1478). Harcup and O'Neill proposed an updated set of contemporary news values that include “shareability,” “celebrity,” and “audio-visuals” (p. 1482). These researchers emphasized that “the pressure to obtain clicks and shares will also influence decisions about what news to select, as well as news treatment” (p. 1483). Crucial to discussion of how metrics affect the news selection process, they wrote “there is a need for empirical research into whether or not news organisations’ desire to have their output widely shared on social media may be impacting selection decisions; and, if so, with what consequences?” (p. 1482). Given the results of this study, and the studies Vu (2014),

Bright and Nicholls (2014), and Araujo and van der Meer (2018) completed, there is evidence of social media metrics, engagement, and web traffic having a heavy impact on how newsrooms operate. For this proposed thesis, the researcher will focus only on shareability as a possible new value, to limit the scope of the project.

Other News Values Research: Appealing to the Audience

A news site’s attractiveness to the audience is an important factor for editors, according to Vandendaele’s (2017) study of the “sub-editing” or copy-editing phase in 16

newsrooms in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Vandendaele enumerated six guidelines the sub-editors followed when looking at an article: Keep it short and simple (KISS); get it right; be the reader’s guide; know your audience; know your newspaper; and make it look good. “In the end, all six production values are aimed at improving the reader’s experience,” she wrote. “I could claim that in fact ‘reader appeal’ is the ultimate production value” (n.p.). This points again to news organizations’ desire to put forth content that the audience wants to see, as well as content that is relevant to readers. Vandendaele discussed news values and decision-making by these editors, linking their guiding values to general writing principles (conciseness, accuracy of language, accuracy of facts and sourcing, clarity, flow, audience appeal, style; and design) (n.p). Vandendaele’s study points to the influence of the audience on newsmaking decisions. Similar to Harcup and O’Neill (2017)’s suggestion that audio- visuals are a new value, Vandendaele said “attractiveness” to readers is a value for these copy editors.

Different Coverage Levels, Different Values

Existing research did not “verify a differential use of news factors across types of news outlets” (p. 2) so Boukes and Vliegenthart (2017) investigated how popular, quality, financial, and regional papers emphasize various news factors in coverage of economic news. Boukes and Vliegenthart selected seven of the eight daily newspapers in the

Netherlands and the only financial newspaper. They analyzed two popular, tabloid type newspapers; three regional newspapers; three quality newspapers; and the financial paper. A majority of the articles in their study (78 percent) were in the “influence and 17

relevance” category. Just over 55 percent had to do with geographical proximity. Popular and regional newspapers emphasize personification, negativity, and geographic proximity the most. Quality newspapers did not differ from other newspapers on certain factors that authors assumed they would (eliteness, influence, relevance, controversy). The financial newspaper relied the least on the seven studied news factors.

The Boukes and Vlieganthart study suggests different newspaper types value the seven studied news values differently. Thus, the institutional routines of news organizations at different levels of coverage may affect what a journalist thinks is newsworthy, just as his or her role in the newsroom may do the same. This correlates with the 2014 Bright and Nicholls study, which suggests a greater audience influence in quality publications than tabloid ones. This thesis strives to delineate these differences.

For example, a copy editor at a national news outlet may think differently than a copy editor at a local news outlet. Both copy editors may have different opinions than the reporters whose work they check over. And, the newsroom managers at the highest level may think something else entire. Where do these differences begin -- with the journalist’s role in the newsroom? With the area the news outlet covers? With the journalist’s age? If these differences exist with traditional news values, do journalists of different roles, newsrooms, and generations also view the importance of social media and metrics in different ways?

Defining Shareability

So far, we have established that some gatekeepers are adjusting their online coverage to reflect what they think their audience wants to read, and that journalists at 18

different types of news outlets may hold varying opinions on what is important. Now, we turn to the concept of shareability. This thesis uses Harcup and O’Neill’s 2001 list of news values and adds shareability into the discussion. Thus, it is crucial to define what shareability is and why it may stand alone as a news value. As mentioned before, Harcup and O’Neill included shareability in their 2017 list of updated news values. Harcup and

O’Neill described shareable articles as “stories that are thought likely to generate sharing and comments via Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media” (p. 1482). Their definition is short, but other scholars in the fields of journalism and mass communication have endeavored to supply a definition. These other researchers also use the terms

“virality” and “spreadability.”

In “Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture”

(2020), authors Jenkins, Ford, and Green explore what drives Internet users to share content of all kinds. They define the term spreadability by saying it...

...refers to the technical resources that make it easier to circulate some kinds of content than others, the economic structures that support or restrict circulation, the attributes of a media text that might appeal to a community’s motivation for sharing material, and the social networks that link people through the exchange of meaningful bytes (p. 4).

The heart of this spreadable media model “is the idea that audience members are more than data, that their collective discussions and deliberations -- and their active involvement in appraising and circulating content -- are generative” (Jenkins, Ford &

Green 2020, p. 176). These authors argue that the model of online culture has become more participatory and that audiences shape how media flows: “The decisions that each of us makes about whether to pass along media texts...are reshaping the media landscape 19

itself” (p. 1-2). This argument is in line with what previously mentioned researchers Vu

(2014), Harcup and O’Neill (2017), Araujo and van der Meer (2018), and Bright and

Nicholls (2014) concluded in their studies: that gatekeepers pay attention to audience interests and have begun shaping news websites and social media output accordingly.

Jenkins, Ford, and Green provide criteria for what makes content spreadable (and shareable) in “an era of digital sharing” (p. 197). They say content is more likely to be shared if it is available when and where audiences want it, portable, easily reusable in a variety of ways, relevant to multiple audiences, and part of a steady stream of material (p.

197-198).

Another researcher who endeavored to define shareability is Al-Rawi (2017), who focused on viral news. He includes newsworthiness in his discussion, citing Galtung and

Ruge (1965) as well as Harcup and O’Neill (2001); he points out the latter pair of authors does not elaborate on what shareability means and how to define it. Al-Rawi describes viral news as “networked news stories that spread online mostly through social media in a much faster and wider manner than other news stories” (p. 5). Mills (2012) primarily discusses viral ad campaigns on social media, but does offer a definition of shareability.

First, he defines successful viral marketing campaigns as “contagious,” where the content spreads across social networks. Similarly, Mills identifies four key driving forces of success in viral marketing, which he calls the SPIN Framework: the spreadability of content, the “propagativity” of content, the integration of multiple media platforms, and the nexus which he defines as “the successive reinforcement of the campaign by virtue of sequentially releasing units of viral content” (166-168). He says for a marketing message 20

to be spreadable, consumers must view the content as both likeable and shareable. A consumer must be motivated to redistribute the message. A message or story must also be easy to spread for people to engage with it, which constitutes propagativity . Mills describes shareability as “the degree to which the consumer feels that the content will have a similar effect (of stimulation or engagement) on others in their social network” (p.

166-167). Users who are able to share an interesting message with one click will be more likely to than users who must follow several links to share the message. Also, the message will be seen by more people if the user has a larger network of followers (167).

This aligns with the criteria Jenkins, Ford, and Green lay out for what makes something

“spreadable.” At the heart of both models is the power of users to shape a media landscape by sharing and spreading content that resonates with them and their social circles.

Of course, news media have measured audience interest in stories for years with reader polls, focus groups, Nielsen ratings, and the like. And the idea of shareable stories is not new; some print readers may still cut out articles from a newspaper or magazine and mail them to friends and loved ones to share a tangible story they find compelling or relevant. However, shareability in the digital age combines audience metrics with audience participation for a new idea of why certain stories are selected. If we assume shareability as its own news value, it does not mean a shareable story operates outside every other news value. As Galtung and Ruge (1965) hypothesized, news events that combine more than one news value are more likely to be selected. Online articles or social media posts can be shareable because they satisfy other news values that resonate 21

with audiences. This thesis asks if shareability belongs on the list of news values because of the importance media organizations place on social media metrics and website traffic, and because of the rise in user-generated content becoming its own story.

Recall “The Dress,” a social media post that became a global sensation in 2015. A member of a wedding party posted a photograph of a dress on her Tumblr site, asking her followers for feedback on whether the article of clothing was white and gold, or blue and black. This sparked a flurry of online debate between people who saw it differently. As

Mahler (2015) noted, media companies moved quickly to get articles online and capitalize on the discussion. The BBC (2015) noted a Buzzfeed article on the dress was shared more than 20 million times. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major news organizations shared stories about this optical illusion. “The Dress” became a news item because of how many people online were talking about it, so media outlets snapped it up to participate in the discussion. By the metrics put forth by Jenkins, Ford, and Green, posts and articles about the dress became shareable because they were widely available and relevant to a huge number of people who wanted to add their opinion to a lively online discussion. Mills might say “The Dress” became popular because the story was easy to spread and people were eager to share it with those in their own social network. For news networks, the dress photo and articles about it were the very definition of what Harcup and O’Neill see as shareable: likely to generate sharing and comments on social media.

The definition of “shareability” as a news value must go deeper than what Harcup and O’Neill put forth, because it must account for the audience. Therefore, for the 22

purposes of this thesis, shareability is defined thus: events or social media posts considered likely to create discussion and encourage sharing on social media based on how the audience is reacting, or how media outlets perceive audience members may react.

Summary and Research Questions

Existing studies (Vu, O’Neill, Araujo and van der Meer, Lee and Lewis, Bright and Nicholls) indicate social media metrics and website traffic monitoring shape the direction of content in newsrooms and can disrupt the traditional news flow outlined by

Shoemaker and Reese. In particular, editors in the Araujo and van der Meer, Lee and

Lewis, Vu, and Vandendale studies exhibit a practice of adjusting their content to gain higher web traffic. As Harcup and O'Neill suggested in their 2017 study, “shareability” can be considered a rising influence on news content, and can fit into Shoemaker and

Reese’s hierarchy of influences as part of the organizational structure: newspeople identify sharable content based on their individual understanding of what is newsworthy but also their understanding of what makes something shareable.

Aforementioned researchers have either focused directly on gatekeepers or done content analysis on front pages (which are put together by digital editors and digital directors), but have not surveyed journalists at all levels of the news process. Existing literature establishes that gatekeepers at high production levels adjust content to fit the perceived wants of their audiences but does not examine how these practices may filter down into the thinking of reporters, anchors, photographers, et cetera. This thesis will establish how journalists think about social media and shareability in their day-to-day 23

work, and will be unique in that it compares journalists at different production levels, different countries, from different fields, and of different ages. Ideally, this project will fill in a gap in news values research and also establish how user engagement, online traffic, and social media metrics are worked into daily news routines.

This paper will address the following questions:

Research question 1: How do journalists at different levels of production differ in how important they consider social media and metrics?

RQ2: How do journalists in the US and UK differ in how important they consider social media and metrics?

RQ3: How do journalists of different ages differ in how important they consider social media and metrics?

In addition, the following hypotheses can be made:

Hypothesis 1: Gatekeepers (editors, executive producers, social media managers, newsroom managers, etc.) are more likely to rank shareability as important than reporters, photographers, and producers.

H2: Gatekeepers are more likely to rank web metrics as important than reporters, photographers, and producers.

H3: Journalists at national and international outlets will be more likely to rank shareability and metrics as important than journalists at regional and local outlets.

Chapter 3: Method

Harcup and O'Neill’s 2001 list of contemporary values served as the primary basis for this study. A “shareability” or “metrics” news value was included as a key factor, given the evidence outlined in the literature review that employees of news stations adjust their content based on a perceived or demonstrated audience reaction to certain types of content.

Survey Instrument

This was a survey-based study. Participants were questioned about their newsmaking decisions and the culture of decision-making in their own newsrooms and organizations, as well as some demographic questions. The survey instrument was designed with Qualtrics survey software through Ohio University.

The survey began with demographic questions: respondents’ ages, roles in the newsroom, the type of coverage their outlet provides, the medium they work for, their level of journalism education, how long they have been working in journalism, how proficient they consider themselves with social media, and the type of stories they work on.

The remainder of the survey contained four parts:

1. Likert scale questions to measure how journalists agree or disagree with certain

statements (i.e. “When working on a story, I think about how the audience will

react to it on social media;” “Celebrity stories are interesting to my readers, so

they are news”). This section of the survey was designed to touch on shareability,

metrics, and the use of social media to develop stories and sources, allowing the 25

researcher to identify several groups of similar questions for analysis. These

questions indicate journalists’ attitudes about social media metrics, virality, and

web traffic, and are a valuable tool for analysis particularly when comparing

results among groups of journalists.

2. Behavior questions to determine how many times a week they use social media or

check web metrics (i.e. “How many times per week do you look for sources via

social media;” “How many times per week do you share a social media post from

your news organization to your own social media page?”) This indicates how

“plugged in” journalists are to social media, what they use it for, and if they

access Internet metrics through their news organization.

3. A list of topics and scenarios, and ask how prominently they would place the

items on a web page (i.e. “A story explaining how a new federal law will affect

your audience;” “A Twitter video of a “Star Wars” actor claiming the Earth is

flat.”) These scenarios were developed using the news values Harcup and O’Neill

(2001, 2017) identified in their studies (the power elite, celebrity, entertainment,

surprise, bad news, good news, magnitude, relevance, follow-up, and newspaper

agenda) with the addition of the “shareability” news value they suggested in their

2017 study. Each of these news values is included at least once in the list of

scenarios in the survey. Respondents were asked to answer as if they were the

digital editor for a new national news outlet in their country. They were given

three options for ranking these scenarios and could choose if the story would

appear in a prominent position at the top of the page, be included elsewhere on the

website, or not appear on the website altogether.

4. A list of Harcup and O'Neill’s news values, plus the value of shareability, which

respondents were asked to rank from most to least important. This allows for

analysis of how journalists think about these news values in daily life, and how

important they consider shareability.

The Factorial or Vignette Survey Method in Communication Research

Part of the survey method in this thesis project includes a list of scenarios for respondents to analyze and decide how newsworthy they are. This scenario method is also referred to as a vignette study or factorial survey. It is a method which is not common in communication research (Glogger & Otto, 2019) but that offers “more realistic scenarios presented to respondents” (Altzmuller & Steiner, 2010). A given scenario, or vignette, may combine several factors to present a more complex survey question to the respondent.

In a vignette or factorial study, participants are “presented with hypothetical descriptions of objects or situations, and are asked to evaluate these descriptions or state their opinions and behavioral intentions, based on the situations or objects described”

(Glogger & Otto, 2019). Typically, a vignette study includes “a whole population of vignettes in order to elicit their beliefs, attitudes, judgments, knowledge, or intended behavior with respect to the presented vignette scenarios” (Altzmuller & Steiner, 2010).

This method allows a researcher to analyze characteristics of the vignettes and participant characteristics simultaneously. The vignettes, or scenarios, in this thesis project are each 27

linked to one or more of the news values Harcup and O’Neill outlined in their 2001 article. The suggested value of shareability from their updated article (Harcup & O’Neill,

2017) is also included.

Survey Distribution

Since journalists at all levels of production are included in this survey, a voluntary response sample of a specific population was chosen. The survey was distributed via a

URL to journalist groups on social media, via the researcher’s Twitter account, and through journalist email listservs beginning May 19, 2020. This included the

“journalism” page on reddit (over 34,000 members); a listserv through Investigative

Reporters and Editors; the private Facebook pages “Riotrrs of Journalism (8.721 members),” “S*** My Viewers Say” (3,484 members), “Solutions Journalism Network

Group (3,808 members),” “The Social Media Geek Out (16,226 members),” and “The

Squishy Margarita Fan Club (18 members).” This last group is a network of current and former Gannett company coworkers the researcher has worked with. Page member statistics are current as of June 1, 2020. As an incentive, the researcher offered a $20

Amazon.com gift card for every 75 people who completed the survey and entered their email address on a separate, secure form.

The survey was available until 12:00a.m. on August 1, 2020. By June 1, 2020, there were 23 responses. On June 21, 2020, there were 45 responses. On July 23, 2020 there were 59 responses and on August 1, 2020 there were 69 responses. Nine of these responses were removed from the data set because the respondents completed less than five percent of the survey, leaving the researcher with 60 responses. 28

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results

Descriptive Statistics

When asked to rank news values from most to least important, no survey respondent ranked shareability higher than third most important (see Table 1). Just over

16 percent selected shareability as least important. Two other news values were ranked by more respondents as the least important: news agenda (23.3 percent) and celebrity

(32.6 percent). About 80 percent of people ranked celebrity in the bottom three, compared to 37.2 percent who put shareability in the bottom three, 30.3 percent who put news agenda in the bottom three, and 65.1 percent of people who put entertainment in the bottom three. When selecting which news value was most important, 30.2 percent of respondents chose relevance and 32.6 percent chose magnitude. (n=43). This implies celebrity is the least important news value to journalists and that journalists stick to traditional news values.

Table 1

Survey Respondents’ News Value Rankings

Powe Enter Bad Good Mag News Celeb Surp Follo Relev Share r elite tain news news nitud agen rity rise w-up ance abilit ment e da y 1 9.3 4.7 7.0 7.0 32.6 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 2 20.9 4.7 7.0 4.7 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 18.6 0.0 3 9.3 2.3 18.6 11.6 4.7 9.3 0.0 4.7 11.6 16.3 11.6 4 7.0 2.3 18.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 2.3 11.6 9.3 11.6 9.3 5 18.6 2.3 16.3 7.0 2.3 11.6 0.0 9.3 23.3 2.3 7.0 6 14.0 2.3 18.6 11.6 2.3 7.0 2.3 16.3 14.0 4.7 7.0 7 7.0 7.0 4.7 27.9 2.3 9.3 4.7 11.6 11.6 2.3 11.6 8 4.7 9.3 4.7 11.6 4.7 14.0 9.3 18.6 7.0 0.0 16.3 9 4.7 20.9 2.3 4.7 0.0 7.0 20.9 14.0 11.6 2.3 11.6 10 2.3 32.6 2.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 27.9 7.0 9.3 7.0 9.3 11 2.3 11.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 23.3 32.6 7.0 0.0 4.7 16.3 Note: Survey respondents’ rankings of news values from most (1) to least (11) important (n=43), in percentages of how many respondents ranked each value.

A majority of respondents (70.6 percent) said they agree or strongly agree with the statement “I am excited when a post I make on social media gets some ‘buzz’”

(n=51). More than 82 percent said they agree or strongly agree with the statement “I want my stories to perform well on my news organization’s Web page” (n=51). More than 90 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “it is important to share breaking news on social media” (n=51). When asked about their social media use in story gathering, 84.3 percent of respondents said they strongly agree, agree, or somewhat agree with the statement “I get ideas for new stories from what I see on social media.” More than 90 percent were in levels of agreement with the statement “social media are a valuable tool for information gathering.” This indicates that journalists use social media as both a way to get information and as a way to share stories.

When asked directly if viral videos are newsworthy, 10 percent of respondents said they agree or strongly disagree with the statement, with a majority (56 percent) saying they somewhat agree, or neither agree or disagree (n=50). This indicates journalists do not perceive something as newsworthy just because it is going viral.

Respondents were more likely to disagree with the statements “my news organization puts more emphasis on shareable content than is necessary” and “I feel pressure from my superiors to be more active on social media” (n=51), indicating they may not feel institutional pressure to use social media.

When presented with news scenarios (see Table 2), journalists were most likely to select stories with the news values of magnitude and relevance, and least likely to select stories with the news values of shareability and celebrity, as being placed highest on their hypothetical news pages. More than 78 percent of respondents said they would place a story explaining how a new federal law will affect their audience in a prominent position on the website (n=46), and 82.6 percent reacted the same to a story about a major employer in their country laying off 20 percent of their workforce nationwide (n=23).

Just over 53 percent of respondents said they would place “a new fad teenagers are doing that has resulted in three confirmed deaths” at the top of their news page, with 42.6 percent saying this item would appear on the website, but not at the top of the page

(n=47). All three of these stories speak of relevance and magnitude to the journalists’ audiences, implying these news values are important to journalists.

Table 2

Survey Respondents’ Scenario Rankings

Scenario 1 - Items would appear 2 - Item would appear 3 - Item would not on the front page of the on the website, but not appear on the website website, at the top of at the top of the page the page A medical anomaly in 10.6% 44.7% 44.7% India that doctors have found a promising treatment for A small-town politician 23.4% 63.8% 12.8% saying something controversial A video of a firefighter 14.9% 51.1% 34% saving a dog from a burning building in Brazil A story explaining how 78.3% 17.4% 4.3% a new federal law will affect your audience A Twitter video of a 6.4% 31.9% 61.7% “Star Wars’ actor claiming the earth is flat Photos of a fashion 10.6% 36.2% 53.2% trend that are getting a lot of buzz on social media A new fad teenagers are 53.2% 42.6% 4.3% doing that has resulted in three confirmed deaths Newly-discovered 31.9% 46.8% 21.3% photos of a white politician from France in blackface A train crash in Canada 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% that killed 58 Canadians A major food drive 51.1% 42.2% 6.7% your news organization is spearheading

Table 2 continued

Scenario 1 - Items would appear 2 - Item would appear 3 - Item would not on the front page of the on the website, but not appear on the website website, at the top of at the top of the page the page A popular Egyptian 4.4% 60% 35.6% actor’s claims he was detained unfairly at London Heathrow Airport A story that is very 15.6% 62.2% 22.2% popular on your competition’s Web site The New York City 37.8% 48.9% 13.3% Police Department announcing via Twitter they will investigate social media rumors about one of their top officers sexually assaulting a crime victim The leader of your 4.4% 26.7% 68.9% country photographed wearing a Christmas necktie in April A story about a well- 66.7% 24.4% 8.9% known journalist in your newsroom being arrested on child pornography charges A major employer in 82.6% 17.4% 0% your country laying off 20 percent of their workforce nationwide A police chase in a 33.3% 48.9% 17.8% major city in your country that is performing highly on other news outlets’ social media pages

A third of respondents said they would place a story about a well-known journalist in their newsroom being arrested on child pornography charges on the top of the page (n=45), a story which definitely has relevance to a news outlet’s audience.

About half of respondents (51.1 percent) said they would place “a major food drive your news organization is spearheading” at the top of their news page, with 42.2 percent saying it would appear on their website, but not at the top of the page (n=45). This indicates that the news organization’s agenda is a prominent news value in this specific situation.

In contrast, when presented with options specifically designed for shareability and entertainment, the majority of respondents chose not to place these options on their hypothetical news pages. “A Twitter video of a ‘Star Wars’ actor claiming the earth was flat” was only selected by 6.4 percent of respondents as being worthy of the top of the page, and 61.7 percent said they would leave this item off their websites entirely. When presented with the item “photos of a fashion trend that is getting a lot of buzz on social media,” 10.6 percent of respondents said they would place this at the top of their news page and 53.2 percent said they would not select it (n=47). Both of these stories fall under the entertainment and shareability news values. Also, the scenario “the leader of your country photographed wearing a Christmas necktie in April” was deemed by 68.9 percent of respondents as not worthy of selection on their news site, and 4.4 percent said it was worthy of the top of the site (n=45). This can be categorized as the power elite news value, and also surprise. The item “a story that is very popular on your competition’s web site” was included just for its shareability value -- would journalists want to capitalize on potentially high website metrics, regardless of the story’s subject? This scenario was deemed worthy of the top of the page by 15.6 percent of respondents, and not worthy of the site at all by 22.2 percent of respondents (n=45). These findings indicate journalists at 34

all levels of production are more likely to consider traditional news values more newsworthy than values such as shareability, celebrity, and entertainment.

Statistical Tests

To answer research questions 1 and 2 and explore hypotheses 1 and 2, the researcher separated newsroom roles into two groups, news gatherers and news processors, based on the research of Bass (1969). Bass says news gatherers are reporters and writers “who collect information and prepare news copy according to accepted standards,” and news processors prepare the information for print, the web, the radio, or

TV, “creating a unified package of news, a finished product ready for the consumer”

(72). By this simple, yet crucial distinction between levels of gatekeeping in the newsroom, survey categories are classified thus:

News gatherers: Reporter, photographer/videographer, special projects, anchor/host.

News processors: Video editor, sound editor, producer, copy editor, social media and/or digital producer, editor, executive producer, director, manager, news director.

Respondents were permitted to choose more than one newsroom role, so there are people who fit into multiple categories. Twenty-two people selected only news gathering roles, 22 selected only news processing roles, and 12 fit in both categories.

To determine how newspeople in different newsroom roles view the importance of social media, a factor analysis was performed on the attitude and behavior section in the survey to identify five Likert scale items that measured how respondents viewed viral videos and their tendency to use social media for newsgathering (Cronbach’s alpha was

.822). The items were: “covering videos that go viral online is important,” “viral videos 35

are newsworthy,” “what athletes and celebrities say on social media can be worthy of a news story,” “stories about celebrity scandals are interesting to the public; therefore, they are newsworthy,” and “I check trending topics on social media.” This created a new variable consisting of five items, called “SMScore.” As determined by one-way ANOVA, there was no statistically significant difference in means between the news gatherer and news processor groups (F(2,46)=.383, p=.684), thus implying a person’s role in the newsroom does not affect how he or she views viral videos and social media use. Given that Hypothesis 2 was that news producers are more likely to rank web metrics as important than news gatherers, these results show the researcher must fail to reject the null hypothesis.

A factor analysis was performed on the scenario section of the survey to identify items that measured similar news values (Cronbach’s alpha was .756). The scenarios were “a video of a firefighter saving a dog from a burning building in Brazil,” “a Twitter video of a ‘Star Wars’ actor claiming the Earth is flat,” “photos of a fashion trend that is getting a lot of buzz on social media,” “the leader of your country photographed wearing a Christmas necktie in April,” and “a police chase in a major country that is performing highly on other news outlets’ social media pages.” Each of these scenarios has an audio/visual element, coupled with a shareable element and/or an entertainment element.

This created a new variable consisting of five items, called “ShareableItem,” to more easily compare how different groups responded to these particular scenarios. A one-way

ANOVA was conducted to determine there was no statistically significant difference in means between the news gatherer and news processor groups (F(2,44)=.977, p=.385). 36

This again implies there is no significant relationship between a person’s role in the newsroom and how they might treat a shareable story. Given that Hypothesis 1 was that news producers are more likely to rank shareability as important than news gatherers, these results again show the researcher must fail to reject the null hypothesis.

In response to Research Question 1 (How do journalists at different levels of production differ in how important they consider social media and metrics?), the above results indicate there is no statistically significant difference between newsroom roles and the respondents’ attitudes about what is newsworthy.

There was an uneven distribution of ages in the response set, so the seven age groups were distilled into two to make analysis more even. The first group was respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 (34 people) and the second comprised respondents from 35 to over 75 (17 people). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare these groups’ means on SMScore and Shareability. The ANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference between how the groups considered items shareable

(F(1,45=4.075, p=.05) but did not find a statistically significant difference between their attitudes on social media (F(1,49)=.140, p=.710).

In taking a closer look at the data using crosstabs, the older age group was indeed more likely to consider some shareable stories more newsworthy. The item “photos of a fashion trend that is getting a lot of buzz on social media” was selected by four respondents in this age group as worthy of being placed on the top of a news web page, compared to one respondent in the 18-34 age group. The item “a Twitter video of a ‘Star

Wars’ actor claiming the earth is flat” was selected by three people in the older age group 37

as a story they would put in a prominent place on a news website, whereas no one in the younger age group found it newsworthy. And, the scenario “the leader of your country photographed wearing a Christmas necktie in April” was selected by two people in the older age group, compared to zero in the younger. Thus, in answer to Research Question

3 (How do journalists of different ages differ in how important they consider social media and metrics?), there is only a statistically significant difference in how people in different age categories deem stories shareable.

To test Hypothesis 3 (Journalists at national and international outlets will be more likely to rank shareability and metrics as important than journalists at regional and local outlets), the researcher first created a new variable to identify respondents who only selected one option, as respondents were allowed to choose more than one level of coverage their news outlet provided. This included 25 respondents, broken into two groups: those who provide local or regional coverage only, and those who provide national or international coverage only. An ANOVA indicated no statistically significant difference in mean scores among how these groups considered social media

(F(13,8)=.828, p=.634) and shareability (F(7,11)=.591, p=.751). Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these groups is not rejected.

There were not enough data to answer certain research questions and hypotheses; only four respondents from the United Kingdom replied, so Research Question 2 could not be answered. If there had been enough responses from UK journalists, the researcher would have been able to compare how journalists in the US and UK ranked shareability

among news values, how they responded to certain scenarios, and how they responded to behavior and attitude questions about social media use.

Chapter 5: Discussion

Harcup and O’Neill (2017) called for more research into how news organizations’

“desire to have their output widely shared on social media” (p. 1482) may affect news decision-making after a study that suggested that pressure to get clicks and shares may be changing the process of journalism. Bright & Nicholls (2014) also hinted at “a turn to online populism” (p.1), where audience preferences shape what content online editors place on their news sites. The results of this thesis project indicate that journalists at all levels of newsroom production consider social media important tools for information gathering and dissemination. However, they are more likely to select stories that fulfill more traditional news values than stories that will perform well on social media and news websites, as seen in the Boukes and Vliegenthart (2017) study. When asked to rank news values from most to least important, respondents did not rate shareability as being important, though the celebrity news value was ranked least important by more people than the shareability value. The responses in the scenario section also imply that journalists think stories of magnitude and with relevance to their audiences are most worthy of being selected, not stories that may perform well on social media. This indicates journalists at all levels of newsroom responsibility still view traditional news values as the most important when selecting and reporting news.

Data analysis shows there is not a statistically significant difference in how respondents at different levels of news decision-making view the importance of shareable stories and social media use. This indicates that reporters and photographers hold similar views to copy editors and newsroom managers. Journalists prefer for their stories to 40

perform well on social media, but do not appear to pursue stories because of their intrinsic shareability. Analysis also shows there is no difference in how journalists covering local stories and those covering national and international stories view shareability and metrics. Analysis of responses by age found journalists over 35 are more likely than those under 35 to select a story because of its shareability or entertainment value, but no significant difference between how the two age groups use social media and rely on it for their work.

All together, the results of this study indicate that though social media and web metrics are something journalists are aware of and consider valuable, the importance of said metrics does not influence day-to-day practices in newsrooms. This seems to contradict the studies that are foundational to this thesis, many of which indicate a focus on web metrics and audience reaction has changed the journalistic practice, at least at the editorial level. As for the question of if “shareability” is a news value, the results of this study imply journalists consider magnitude and relevance the most important and tend to think shareability as a less important reason for selecting a story. Galtung and Ruge wrote in 1965 that a combination of news factors might make a particular story more likely to be selected; there is evidence journalists consider shareability as a complement to other news values, not a crucial criterion for story selection. The results of this study indicate shareability is not a standalone news value, but that those who study newsrooms and journalistic decision-making should not count it out of the discussion.

This study also indicates the role of journalists as gatekeepers and agenda-setters has not shifted severely enough to change the fundamental hierarchy of influences. 41

Journalists listen to their audience, interact with people, and are aware of the pull social media has. However, the journalists surveyed do not see something as a story just because people are talking about it online, nor do they seem to value celebrity opinions and antics as “news.” They value stories that affect their audience more than stories that simply entertain, surprise, and/or spark conversation. They appreciate when their own stories create buzz on social media or are popular on their news organization’s web site, but do not necessarily seek stories based on virality. This implies that journalists are still the ones telling the audience what is newsworthy, not the other way around.

The results of this study could be because the journalists surveyed were hesitant to admit they are being influenced by their audiences or the financial incentives of having good web traffic, as Vu (2017) noted in his study. It is possible journalists place great emphasis on their roles as guardians of what is important, and thus eschew the idea that what is viral on social media could be as crucial to their audiences. This attitude is beneficial to the industry and to society as a whole only if journalists retain their commitment to core journalistic principles. A journalist’s duty is to the public and to the truth. If journalists ignore their audiences wholesale, they risk missing important conversations and issues. This study suggests journalists are trying to find a balance between what their audience wants to know and what their audience needs to know. For audience members, this study implies they can rely on news media for stories that impact their lives, and can turn to other sources if they want a more steady diet of salaciousness, surprise, and entertainment. Audience members have an enhanced voice in the journalism

process, but that voice is sometimes left at the gate in favor of journalistic norms and ideas of what is newsworthy.

Research Limitations

The findings of this study must be seen in light of some limitations. The first limitation is a matter of timing. The survey was distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been a major news event for much of 2020 in the United States and

United Kingdom. Reporters may have been working from home with a disrupted schedule or been furloughed; thus, they may not have had the time or interest to take a lengthy survey without promise of an incentive. Also, one week after the survey went live, news outlets in many cities in the US and some in the UK began covering civil unrest after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota and the subsequent calls for police reform and justice for Black Americans killed in police custody. Of course, journalists always have news to cover. However, extenuating circumstances may have played a factor in how many were able to complete the survey.

The second limitation is the project’s scope. This proposed study was very broad, and would require several hundred respondents from both the US and the UK to properly analyze the research questions and hypotheses. The third limitation is also a matter of timing. The survey was lengthy, which could have affected the number of responses.

And, the fourth limitation is the lack of responses, which increases the likelihood that any statistical differences in data are due to chance. A larger sample size would have increased this study’s validity and its statistical power.

Existing literature displays a tendency of researchers to focus on major news outlets and news decision-makers when studying where social media and Web metrics fit into the news decision-making road map. Thus, the researcher felt it was imperative to include the more “rank and file” members of the newsroom, as well as newsrooms that offer local and regional coverage, to more accurately look for differences between these groups. The researcher felt confident that distributing the survey on social media and by email was the best way to reach newspeople, especially as the survey content focused on social media and Web traffic. The researcher contacted a number of journalist unions and organizations in the US and UK via email to ask if the survey could be distributed to their members; these organizations either said no or failed to respond. The results of this study may have been different with more survey responses and a more equal distribution of categories. A greater response rate would have allowed for more nuanced discussion of how a journalist’s role in the newsroom, age, or the medium they work for may impact their opinion on what is newsworthy and how to treat viral stories. To get more responses, the researcher could have used email address databases from news organizations, contacted more journalists directly on social media, and provided more incentives to encourage participation.

The survey’s length was necessary to provide enough metrics to adequately measure how the respondents consider news values and how they interact with social media on a regular basis. Simply asking respondents to rank news values would have been simpler and provided a quicker survey experience for them, but would not have allowed as in-depth of analysis. Behavior questions, attitude questions, and the scenario 44

section provide a more detailed depiction of how newspeople perceive shareability, how often they use social media to interact with readers and viewers, and what news value is most important to them in story selection. And, including demographic questions about the newsperson’s age, level of education, social media proficiency, and time in the field would allow for analysis of other variables if this survey is duplicated in the future.

This project may have been too broad for a Master’s thesis and be better suited for a doctoral student or other researcher who is able to devote more time and gather enough responses to provide more thorough results. Additionally, future researchers could shorten the survey instrument or narrow the scope of the study to include only a certain level of responsibility in the newsroom. The researcher feels strongly that, despite the low response rate, the number of questions and variety of methods in the survey are a strong framework for a study that can fill gaps in existing research about the impact of metrics on journalistic decision-making. This research is important if journalism is to survive, both financially and ideologically. Journalists who only seek to please their audiences risk losing credibility. And, journalists who do not pay at least some attention to their audiences risk losing that audience.

As it stands, this study suggests that though journalists take note of what is happening on social media and are cognizant of metrics and web traffic. The results of this study also imply that journalists mainly stick to traditional news values, particularly magnitude, relevance, and the power elite. They do not consider viral posts, entertaining videos, or controversial topics as newsworthy. Journalists are focused on stories that impact their audiences directly or concern those in power to shape their coverage. 45

Though other studies show evidence of editors adjusting their online coverage to please their audiences, this study also suggests the gatekeeping and agenda-setting functions of journalism have not wavered much, if at all, in the digital age. This may change in the future as those who grew up with cell phones and computers continue to enter the workforce, and as the journalism industry continues to evolve.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study implies that a “culture of the click” has not permeated newsrooms in the United States enough to change the traditional gatekeeping and agenda-setting functions of journalism. For those who champion traditional journalistic roles, this must be a good sign. It means reporters, editors, and everyone else in the newsroom have so far resisted the lure of web traffic, likes, and shares as a measure of success and are instead sticking to the traditional ideas of what journalism should be: a service to the public, dedicated to educating their audiences about important events that affect them directly, not an aggregator of popular content seeking to serve the public’s desire for “soft” content.

Turning to an entirely metrics-based newsroom could have consequences for both the journalism industry and the public. If a news organization focuses only on shareable stories online, there is a possibility that audience members perceive a single news organization to prioritize entirely different stories based on how and where they interact with the organization. For example, a television station could have a viral story about a celebrity dominating its social media and website presence, but a separate story about local government leading the nightly newscast. Someone who only gets the news online 46

would theoretically view the viral story as more important, even if the story does not directly affect his or her life. Someone who only watches the evening broadcasts would view the local government story as more important. Certainly, algorithms on social media will also affect this: posts that have higher interaction will be more likely to show up on a person’s Facebook or Twitter feed. However, this opens up a new line of inquiry: if the audience sees more viral stories than stories that affect them directly, how does that influence their own ideas of what is going on in the world? Do audience members actively seek out stories about what is happening in their communities and across the nation, or are they only seeing what the media place in front of them? This highlights the importance of a well-informed populace as a contributor to journalism. Audience members must not be passive if news journalism swings entirely to a viral model, and instead remind news workers that a free and informed democracy relies on its journalists to report relevant information.

However, journalists should not entirely resist listening to what their audiences want to read -- it is, of course, possible that journalists do not represent the entirety of the communities they serve and will miss important conversations if they are not attuned to the public. Metrics can be a tool to identify how journalism can succeed, both financially and in practice. As this research shows, journalists are indeed listening to what their viewers, readers, and listeners say and are cognizant of topics in the public forum.

Journalists and the public are working together more than in the past, a relationship that must continue to be evaluated as time goes on.

Final Thoughts

This study was influenced in part by the researcher’s own experience as a digital content producer at a mid-market television station, where she observed a disconnect between how newsroom managers and reporters valued viral stories. She observed that the news director, general manager, and digital director pushed for stories that would be

“good on social” much more than stories that affected the local audience. The researcher also observed a difference in how often Millennial reporters and producers used social media versus how often Gen X and Baby Boomer reporters and producers used social media. In undertaking this thesis project, the researcher hoped to discern if the pattern she observed was similar in other newsrooms. The researcher was also very curious about how journalistic roles and coverage levels might influence a single journalist’s evaluation of what is newsworthy.

This research is crucial to understanding how social media and metrics may be affecting the practice of journalism and, in turn, the quality of work produced. Journalism has faced continual challenges from a loss of revenue, shrinking newsrooms, and the conglomeration of media outlets. Journalists have also been facing more pressure from the public since the 2016 presidential election. Though focusing on viral and entertaining stories may drive audiences to social media and Web pages, these stories do not necessarily sustain society or the industry as a whole.

References

Altzmuller, C. & Steiner, P.M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research.

Methodology 6(3), 128-138. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240483121_Experimental_Vignette_Stu

dies_in_Survey_Research

Araujo, T. & van der Meer, T. G. L. A. (2018) News values on social media: Exploring

what drives peaks in user activity about organizations on Twitter. Journalism

21(5) 1-19 Retrieved from

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1464884918809299

Bass, A.Z. (1969). Refining the ‘gatekeeper’ concept: A UN radio case study. Journalism

Quarterly 46(1), 69-72.

BBC News (2015). “Optical illusion: Dress colour debate goes global.” BBC News, 27

February 2015. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-

highlands-islands-31656935

Bednarek, M. (2016). Investigating evaluation and news values in news items that are

shared through social media. Corpora 11(2), 227-257. Retrieved from

https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/cor.2016.0093

Boukes, M. & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). A general pattern in the construction of economic

newsworthiness? Analyzing news factors in popular, quality, regional, and

financial newspapers. Journalism 21(2) 1-22.

Bright, J. & Nicholls, T. (2014). The life and death of political news: Measuring the

impact of the audience agenda using online data. Social Science Computer

Review, 32(2), 170-81.

Bruns, A. (2003). Gatewatching, Not Gatekeeping: Collaborative Online News. Media

International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, 2003(107), pp. 31-44.

Caple, H. (Jun 2018). News values and newsworthiness. Oxford Research Encyclopedia

of Communication, 1-21. Retrieved from

10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.850

DeFleur, M.L. (2016). Mass communication theories: Explaining origins, processes, and

effects. New York, NY: Routledge.

Galtung, J. and Ruge, M.H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace

Research 2(1), 64-91.

Glogger, I. & Otto, L.P. (2019). Journalistic views on hard and soft news: cross-

validating a popular concept in a factorial survey. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly 96 (3), pp. 811-829. Retrieved from https://journals-

sagepub-com.proxy.library.ohio.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077699018815890

Harcup, T. & O’Neill, D. (2001). What is news? Galtung & Ruge revisited. Journalism

Studies 2 (2), 261-280.

Harcup, T. & O’Neill, D. (2017). What is news? Galtung & Ruge revisited (again)

Journalism Studies 18(12), 1470-1488.

Hartley, J. “Understanding news.” Routledge, London: 1982.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. “Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a

networked culture.” New York University Press, New York: 2018.

Knight, C. (2020). “Washington Post, Nick Sandmann settle $250 million lawsuit out of

court.” The Cincinnati Enquirer, July 24, 2020. Retrieved from

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/07/24/washington-post-nick-

sandmann-settle-250-million-lawsuit-out-court/5501639002/

Lee, A.M. & Lewis, S.C. (2012). Audience preference and editorial judgment: A study of

time-lagged influence in online news. In: the international symposium of online

journalism, Austin, TX, 20–21 April.

Mahler, J. (2015). “The white and gold (no, blue and black!) dress that melted the

Internet.” The New York Times, Feb. 27, 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/business/a-simple-question-about-a-dress-

and-the-world-weighs-in.html

McCombs, M.E. & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The

Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2), 176-187.

O’Neill, D. (Nov. 2012). No cause for celebration: the rise of celebrity news values in the

British quality press. Journalism Education 1(2), 26-44.

Shearer, E. & Matsa, K.E. “News use across social media platforms 2018.” Pew Research

Center, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-

across-social-media-platforms-2018/

Vandendaele, A. (2017). Trust me, I’m a sub-editor: Production values at work in

newspaper sub-editing. Journalism Practice 3, 268-289. 51

Vu, H.T. (2014). The online audience as gatekeeper. Journalism 15(8), 1094-1110.

Willnat, L. & Weaver, D. H. (2018). Social Media and U.S. Journalists. Digital

Journalism 6(7), 889-909.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !