There is never a shortage of fascinating studies in the field of digital news and social media. This year, we’re highlighting 10 of the most compelling academic articles and reports published in 2017, which tackle important topics like venture-backed startups, artificial intelligence, personal branding, and propagation misinformation. We spoke with a small group of academics to choose the ones we think you’ll want to know about – and remember, this is just a sample. Many thanks to everyone who contributed their suggestions. on Twitter.
This article was first published by Niéman Laboratory.
————————————————
“Paying for online information: a comparative analysis of six countries”: From the University of Oxford, published in Digital journalism. By Richard Fletcher And Rasmus Kleis Nielsen.
This study offers both good and bad news for publishers struggling to understand their compensation models. Researchers used data collected through surveys in six countries, including the United States, to determine who is paying for the news and who is willing to pay in the future. The good news: Among those who don’t pay for online news now, younger Americans are more willing to pay in the future, perhaps because they often already pay for other forms of digital media. The bad news: No more than 2% of respondents in any country said they would be “very likely” to pay for news in the future.
“Use of news on social media platforms 2017”: From the Pew Research Center. By Elisa Shearer And Jeffrey Gottfried.
Throughout the year, the Pew Research Center publishes survey-based reports examining journalism and news organizations. This report offers important insights into the role social media plays in the dissemination and access of information. Some key takeaways: Nearly 70% of American adults say they receive news through social media. Meanwhile, growing numbers of seniors, people of color and adults without a bachelor’s degree say they are turning to social media sites for information. Minority adults are much more likely than white adults to get information from social media: 74% said they did so in 2017, compared to 64% in 2016. Interestingly, only 5% of Adults who visit Snapchat for news also often receive news in newspapers. .
“News startups financed by venture capital and the field of journalism: challenges, changes and consistencies”: From George Washington University, published in Digital journalism. By Nikki Usher.
How do venture capital-funded news startups compare to traditional media? This article examines 18 startups, including BuzzFeed, GeekWire and Vox, to understand how this growing area of digital media is changing the landscape of journalism. Usher interviewed executives, founders, and others to learn how and why these companies came to be, as well as details about their editorial visions, technology visions, and money-making plans. The study also explores the rise of algorithms in predicting user behavior, creating scalable products, and the new roles of journalists within an organization where reporters and technical staff are equal.
This article provides a behind-the-scenes look at how Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter collaborated on political campaigns during the 2016 U.S. election season. The paper focuses on their role during the 2016 Democratic National Convention and providing of in-depth advisory services to candidates, including Donald Trump, during the campaign. The researchers found that these tech companies “increasingly are the center of policy knowledge and expertise” in digital and data campaigns. At the same time, representatives from each firm stated that “the growth of their work in electoral politics was driven by the desire to earn direct revenue from their services and products, for candidates to give their services and platforms greater public visibility.” and establish relationships with legislators.”
Media innovators continue to find new ways to integrate artificial intelligence into the newsroom, going well beyond using crime statistics and structured data from sports games to generate stories. Although many journalists have spoken out about this trend, most do not have direct experience using this technology. For this study, researchers held workshops with a small group of journalists to show them how to use software to create data-driven news content. After gaining practical experience, the journalists were questioned about the potentials and limitations of the technology.
Unsurprisingly, journalists received a lot of criticism – for example, there were concerns that automation would make fact-checking information less likely. Some journalists have seen benefits, including saving time and reducing human errors. For many, however, “the experience of creating information in this way was difficult, irritating, and did not utilize their innate abilities.”
What issues are journalists and technologists discovering when thinking about AI in newsrooms? This report summarizes an in-depth three-hour discussion among journalists and technologists who gathered last summer for an event hosted by Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism and the Brown Institute for Media Innovation. Among the important takeaways: A gap in knowledge and communication between the technologists who create AI and the journalists who use it could “lead to journalistic malpractice.” Media must provide clear explanations to the public about how AI is used to research and report stories. In addition, there needs to be “a concerted and ongoing effort to combat hidden biases in AI, often unacknowledged but still present, since the tools are programmed by humans.”
In this report, researchers examine the composition and behavior of right-wing and left-wing media to explain how Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton received different media coverage. The report covers a lot of ground in 142 pages, packed with bar charts, network maps, and other data visualizations. It even includes a case study on media coverage of the Clinton Foundation. The researchers found that although mainstream media gave mostly negative coverage to both presidential candidates, Trump clearly dominated media coverage and had the opportunity to shape the election agenda.
According to the report, right-wing media “succeeded in pushing the Clinton Foundation to the forefront of the public agenda, precisely when Clinton should have experienced (and did achieve) her biggest rebound in the polls: immediately after the Democratic Convention. Researchers also found that while fake news was a problem, it played a relatively minor role in the 2016 presidential election. “Disinformation and propaganda emanating from dedicated partisan sites on both sides of the aisle political division played a much larger role in the election,” the researchers wrote.
Newsrooms are urging journalists to use social media to promote their work, interact with their sources and develop their professional brand. How does this affect what journalists on Twitter and Facebook do when they are off duty? This study is one of several studies published in 2017 that examine the impact of social media on journalists’ identities. This one is important because it lays the foundations for the others. The authors surveyed 41 U.S. newspaper journalists and editors to explore the challenges they face in integrating their personal and professional identities on social media. They found that journalists “feel compelled to claim their industry, develop a presence as experts in their profession and area of coverage, and act at all times as representatives of the news organization . This leaves little room for sharing aspects of personal identity such as family, faith or friendship online.
Journalism actually contributes to the democratic process and this study provides quantitative evidence. In an experiment involving 48 mostly small media outlets, researchers demonstrated that reporting on a certain political topic prompts audience members to take a stand and express their views on the topic more often than they do. would have done so if a press article had not been published. Researchers looked at website page views and social media posts to assess impact. Their experiment, according to the researchers, “increased discussions in each major policy area by approximately 62.7% (compared to single-day volume), representing 13,166 additional messages during the treatment week.” .
This latest annual report from the Reuters Institute provides a global overview of digital news consumption, based on a survey of more than 70,000 people in 36 countries, including the United States. There is a lot of interesting information to be gleaned from this 136-page report, which examines issues such as information avoidance, access, distrust, polarization and sharing. It may (or may not) be surprising that the United States ranks 7th in information avoidance, behind Greece, Turkey, Poland, Croatia, Chile, and Malaysia. Thirty-eight percent of Americans said they avoid the news “often” or “sometimes.”
Worldwide, the number of shares and comments on news via social media has decreased or stayed about the same over the past two years. An exception is the United States, which has seen a slight increase in both habits. Another interesting point to remember: some countries are much more likely to pay for information. In Norway, 15% of respondents said they had made ongoing payments for digital information in the past year, compared to 8% in the United States, 6% in Japan, 4% in Canada, 3% in the United Kingdom. United and 2% in the United States. Czech Republic.
Interested in the best digital media articles from previous years? Please see our research summaries of 2015 And 2014.
