Challenges of a platform press: Algorithmic accountability and transparency in news media An analysis of current news media policies in the Netherlands and Germany Student Name: Jannick Frömming Student Number: 456984 Supervisor: Drs. Matthijs Leendertse. Master Media Studies - Media & Business Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication Erasmus University Rotterdam Master’s Thesis June 2017 CHALLENGES OF A PLATFORM PRESS ABSTRACT This thesis explores current news media policies regarding algorithmic accountability on third-party platforms and notions of a digital public sphere in Germany and the Netherlands and aims to give suggestions of how they might be adapted to conform to current changes. Algorithmic curation processes active on platforms shape the way users assimilate information and are therefore possibly shaping public opinion. As of today, those procedures are mostly happening concealed from the user, raising the question of accountability on platforms. Thus, the question of how actors such as media companies, public institutions, and governmental institutions can redefine their media policies in the context of a platform press is asked in this paper. A thematic analysis of expert interviews with professionals working in the media industry, researchers, journalists and activists exposed actions that could be considered in the frames of professional responsibility, public responsibility, the political frame and the market frame of accountability. Main findings of this paper concerning media companies are the need for making journalistic processes transparent when they are active on platforms, due to an abundance of otherwise unaccounted content and strengthening institutional authenticity outside of the platform eco-system. To weaken monopolistic structures, political actors should consider breaking-up platforms and subsidize the creation of alternatives to the established actors. Doing so would provide consumers with a choice and possibly diminish the power a few platforms have right now. The digital space platforms occupy is subject to several national laws, making it difficult to effectively impose guidelines on platforms. Furthermore, media literacy should be promoted not only by public institutions but also by private actors. Currently, consumers are not equipped to utilize publishing tools provided by platforms and are mostly unaware of the consequences algorithms have on the content they receive. Finally, a clear account of the effects platforms have on public opinion has yet to be established in order to advance research on this topic. An ideal digital public sphere is possible to a certain extent, but always with the limitations of the traditional model and not within the current options available for users. KEYWORDS: accountability, algorithms, platforms, journalism, media literacy, public sphere Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Relevance of research question ............................................................................................... 2 1.2. Effects of the “filter bubble” ................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Algorithmic decision making on platforms ............................................................................. 5 1.4. Research questions .................................................................................................................. 6 1.5. Structure of thesis .................................................................................................................... 7 2. Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Public sphere as a ground frame .............................................................................................. 9 2.2. Critique of Habermas’ model ................................................................................................ 11 2.3. Model of algorithmic accountability ..................................................................................... 12 2.4. Framework of algorithmic transparency ............................................................................... 14 2.5. Frames of accountability ....................................................................................................... 15 2.6. Political frame ....................................................................................................................... 18 2.7. Market frame ......................................................................................................................... 19 2.8. Public responsibility frame .................................................................................................... 20 2.9. Professional responsibility..................................................................................................... 21 2.10. Journalistic codes of conduct in the Netherlands and Germany ........................................ 22 2.10.1. The Dutch press code .................................................................................................... 23 2.10.2. The German press code ................................................................................................. 24 2.10.3. Comparison of the codes ............................................................................................... 25 2.11. Digital platforms in a deliberative democracy .................................................................. 25 2.12. Journalistic credibility in digital media ............................................................................. 27 2.13. Challenges of a platform press .......................................................................................... 28 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 29 3.1. Qualitative Approach ............................................................................................................ 29 3.2. Research design ..................................................................................................................... 29 3.3. Sampling ................................................................................................................................ 30 3.4. Interviewed experts ............................................................................................................... 31 3.5. Operationalization ................................................................................................................. 33 3.6. Data collection ....................................................................................................................... 39 3.7. Data analysis .......................................................................................................................... 40 4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 42 4.1. Digital public sphere on privatized platforms ....................................................................... 42 4.1.1. Effects of platform gatekeeping on public opinion ....................................................... 44 4.1.2. The role of platforms in the context of media content providers .................................. 46 4.2. Media accountability on platforms ........................................................................................ 48 4.2.1. Algorithmic transparency .............................................................................................. 50 4.2.2. Public responsibility ...................................................................................................... 50 4.2.3. Professional responsibility ............................................................................................. 53 4.2.3.1. Journalistic codes of conduct ................................................................................. 54 4.2.3.2. Digital press council .............................................................................................. 55 4.2.4. Accountability in a political frame ................................................................................ 56 4.2.5. Accountability in a market frame .................................................................................. 57 4.3. Citizen journalism vs. professional journalism ..................................................................... 59 4.3.1. User generated-content on platforms ............................................................................. 60 4.3.2. Media literacy ................................................................................................................ 61 5. Discussion and conclusion ............................................................................................................ 63 5.1. Sub-question 1: Policies regarding media companies ........................................................... 64 5.2. Sub-question 2: Policies regarding governmental institutions .............................................. 65 5.3. Sub-question 3: Policies regarding public institutions .......................................................... 66 5.4. Theoretical implications .......................................................................................................