2004
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2665-9085
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9085

Abstract

Abstract

To disseminate their stories efficiently via social media, news organizations make decisions that resemble traditional editorial decisions. However, the decisions for social media may deviate from traditional ones because they are often made outside the newsroom and guided by audience metrics. This study focuses on as quasi-gatekeeping on Twitter – conditioning a link sharing decision about news content. It illustrates how selective link sharing resembles and deviates from gatekeeping for the publication of news stories. Using a computational data collection method and a machine learning technique called Structural Topic Model (STM), this study shows that selective link sharing generates a different topic distribution between news websites and Twitter and thus significantly revokes the specialty of news organizations. This finding implies that emergent logic, which governs news organizations’ decisions for social media, can undermine the provision of diverse news.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2019.1.003.PAK
2019-10-01
2021-09-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/26659085/1/1/03_CCR2019.1_PAK.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2019.1.003.PAK&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Anderson, S. P., & De Palma, A.(2012). Competition for attention in the information (overload) age. The RAND Journal of Economics, 43(1), 1–25. doi:10.1111/j.1756‑2171.2011.00155.x
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, S. P., & De Palma, A.(2013). Shouting to be heard in advertising. Management Science, 59(7), 1545–1556. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1682
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrews, C., Fichet, E., Ding, Y., Spiro, E. S., & Starbird, K.(2016). Keeping up with the tweet-dashians: The impact of ‘official’ accounts on online rumoring. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 452–465. doi:10.1145/2818048.2819986
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Armstrong, C. L., & Gao, F.(2010). Now tweet this how news organizations use twitter. Electronic News, 4(4), 218–235. doi:10.1177/1931243110389457
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barthel, M. (2018, June). State of the news media - data and trends about key sectors in the U.S. news media industry. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/newspapers/
  6. Barzilai-Nahon, K.(2008). Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1493–1512. doi:10.1002/asi.20857
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berger, G.(2009). How the internet impacts on international news: Exploring paradoxes of the most global medium in a time of hyperlocalism. International Communication Gazette, 71(5), 355–371. doi:10.1177/1748048509104977
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L.(2012). What makes online content viral?Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bischof, J., & Airoldi, E. M.(2012). Summarizing topical content with word frequency and exclusivity. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-12), 201–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blei, D., & Lafferty, J.(2006). Correlated topic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 18, 147–154. doi:10.1214/07‑AOAS114
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Blei, D. M.(2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77–84. doi:10.1109/MSP.2010.938079
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I.(2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J.(2015). Breaking the filter bubble: Democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4), 249–265. doi:10.1007/s10676‑015‑9380‑y
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown, P. (2018, April 18, April). Facebook struggles to promote ‘meaningful interactions’ for local publishers, data shows. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/facebook-local-news.php
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bruns, A.(2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. Peter Lang.
  16. Chang, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., Boyd-Graber, J. L., & Blei, D. M.(2009). Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 288–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chan-Olmsted, S., Rim, H., & Zerba, A.(2013). Mobile news adoption among young adults examining the roles of perceptions, news consumption, and media usage. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(1), 126–147. doi:10.1177/1077699012468742
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chan-Olmsted, S. M., & Park, J. S.(2000). From on-air to online world: Examining the content and structures of broadcast TV stations’ web sites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 321–339. doi:10.1177/107769900007700207
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cleary, J., al Nashmi, E., Bloom, T., & North, M.(2015). Valuing twitter: Organizational and individual representations at CNN international. Digital Journalism, 3(6), 908–924. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.990255
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Diakopoulos, N.(2017). Computational journalism and the emergence of news platforms. In B.Franklin & S. A.Eldridge II (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies (pp. 176–184). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Diakopoulos, N., & Zubiaga, A.(2014). Newsworthiness and network gatekeeping on twitter: The role of social deviance. Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dimitrova, D. V., Connolly-Ahern, C., Williams, A. P., Kaid, L. L., & Reid, A.(2003). Hyperlinking as gatekeeping: Online newspaper coverage of the execution of an American terrorist. Journalism Studies, 4(3), 401–414. doi:10.1080/14616700306488
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Elizabeth, J. (2017, November 14, November). Social media teams today: A summary of what we learned. Retrieved from American Press Institute:https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/ strategy-studies/social-media-teams-today/
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Evans, D. S.(2003). The antitrust economics of multi-sided platform markets. Yale Journal on Regulation, 20, 325–381.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Faris, R., Roberts, H., Etling, B., Bourassa, N., Zuckerman, E., & Benkler, Y.(2017). Partisanship, propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 us presidential election. Retrieved from Berkman Klein Center: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33759251/2017-08_electionReport_0.pdf
  26. García-Perdomo, V., Salaverría, R., Kilgo, D. K., & Harlow, S.(2018). To share or not to share: The influence of news values and topics on popular social media content in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina. Journalism Studies, 19(8), 1180–1201. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1265896
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M., & Stone, D. F.(2015). Media bias in the marketplace: Theory. In S. P.Anderson, J.Waldfogel, & D.Stromberg, Handbook of Media Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 623-645). North-Holland. doi:10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑63685‑0.00014‑0
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gottfried, J. (2014, November). Facebook and twitter as political forums: Two different dynamics. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/12/ facebook-and-twitter-as-political-forums-two-different-dynamics/
  29. Greer, C. F., & Ferguson, D. A.(2011). Using twitter for promotion and branding: A content analysis of local television twitter sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(2), 198–214. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.570824
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hermida, A.(2010). Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297–308. doi:10.1080/17512781003640703
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hong, S.(2012). Online news on twitter: Newspapers’ social media adoption and their online readership. Information Economics and Policy, 24(1), 69–74. doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2012.01.004
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jackson, N. (2018, December). More transparency around newsroom decisions. Retrieved from Nieman Lab: www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/ more-transparency-around-newsroom-decisions/
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kalsnes, B., & Larsson, A. O.(2018). Understanding news sharing across social media: Detailing distribution on Facebook and Twitter. Journalism Studies, 19(11), 1669–1688. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1297686
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim, S. E.(2018). Media bias against foreign firms as a veiled trade barrier: Evidence from Chinese newspapers. American Political Science Review, 112(4), 954–970. doi:10.1017/S0003055418000242
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... JonathanL. Zittrain(2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. doi:10.1126/science.aao2998
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewis, S. C.(2012). The tension between professional control and open participation: Journalism and its boundaries. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 836–866. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.674150
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lewis, S. C., & Westlund, O.(2015). Big data and journalism: Epistemology, expertise, economics, and ethics. Digital journalism, 3(3), 447–466. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.976418
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lischka, J. A.(2014). Different revenue incentives, different content? comparing economic news before and during the financial crisis in German public and commercial news outlets over time. European Journal of Communication, 29(5), 549–566. doi:10.1177/0267323114538851
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lowrey, W., & Kim, E.(2016). Hyperlocal news coverage: A population ecology perspective. Mass Communication and Society, 19(6), 694–714. doi:10.1080/15205436.2016.1201687
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Maier, S.(2010). All the news fit to post? comparing news content on the web to newspapers, television, and radio. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(3-4), 548–562. doi:10.1177/107769901008700307
    [Google Scholar]
  41. McDonald, P., & Charlesworth, S.(2013). Framing sexual harassment through media representations. In Women’s studies international forum (Vol. 37, pp. 95–103). doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2012.11.003
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Meraz, S.(2011). Using time series analysis to measure intermedia agenda-setting influence in traditional media and political blog networks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(1), 176–194. doi:10.1177/107769901108800110
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z.(2016). Networked framing and gatekeeping. In TWitschge, C. W.Anderson, D.Domingo & A.Hermida II (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Digital Journalism (pp. 950-112). Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Meyer, K. M., & Tang, T.(2015). #socialjournalism: Local news media on twitter. International Journal on Media Management, 17(4), 241–257. doi:10.1080/14241277.2015.1107569
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mimno, D., Wallach, H. M., Talley, E., Leenders, M., & McCallum, A.(2011). Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 262–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Newman, D., Lau, J. H., Grieser, K., & Baldwin, T.(2010). Automatic evaluation of topic coherence. Human language technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 100–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Newman, N.(2011). Mainstream media and the distribution of news in the age of social discovery. Retrieved from Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/Mainstream%20media%20and%20the%20distribution%20of%20news%20in%20the%20age%20of%20social%20discovery.pdf
  48. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D., & Nielsen, R. K.(2018). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Retrieved from Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/digital-news-report-2018.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Palser, B.(2009). Hitting the tweet spot: news outlets should use twitter to reach elusive and valuable audiences. American Journalism Review, 31(2), 54–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rashidian, N., Brown, P., Hansen, E., Bell, E., Albright, J., & Hartstone, A.(2018). Friend and foe: The platform press at the heart of journalism. Retrieved from Tow Center for Digital Journalism: https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/the-platform-press-at-the-heart-of-journalism.php
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Airoldi, E. M.(2016). A model of text for experimentation in the social sciences. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(515), 988–1003. doi:10.1080/01621459.2016.1141684
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D.(2016). Navigating the local modes of big data. Computational Social Science, 51.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Airoldi, E. M.(2013). The structural topic model and applied social science. Advances in neural information processing systems workshop on topic models: Computation, application, and evaluation. 1-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Roston, M. (2015, January 22, January). Don’t try too hard to please twitter — and other lessons from the new york times’ social media desk. Retrieved from Nieman Lab: www.niemanlab.org/2015/01/dont-try-too-hard-to-please-twitter-and-other-lessons-from-the-new-york-times-social-media-desk/
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rowan, D. (2014, January 2, Jan). How buzzfeed mastered social sharing to become a media giant for a new era. Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.co.uk/article/buzzfeed
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schwemmer, C., & Ziewiecki, S.(2018). Social media sellout: The increasing role of product promotion on Youtube. Social Media+ Society, 4(3), 1-20. doi:10.1177/2056305118786720
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T.(2009). Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge.
  58. Sjøvaag, H., & Stavelin, E.(2012). Web media and the quantitative content analysis: Methodological challenges in measuring online news content. Convergence, 18(2), 215–229. doi:10.1177/1354856511429641
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Stempel III, G. H.(1985). Gatekeeping: The mix of topics and the selection of stories. Journalism Quarterly, 62(4), 791–815. doi:10.1177/107769908506200412
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L.(2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media—sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217–248. doi:10.2753/MIS0742‑1222290408
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Strauß, N.(2018). Financial journalism in today’s high-frequency news and information era. Journalism, 274-291. doi:10.1177/1464884917753556
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Tandoc Jr, E. C.(2014). Journalism is twerking? how web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping. New Media & Society, 16(4), 559–575. doi:10.1177/1461444814530541
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tandoc Jr, E. C.(2017). Journalistic autonomy and web analytics. In B.Franklin & S. A.Eldridge II (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies (pp. 293–301). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Tandoc Jr, E. C., & Vos, T. P.(2016). The journalist is marketing the news: Social media in the gatekeeping process. Journalism Practice, 10(8), 950–966. doi:10.1080/17512786.2015.1087811
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Thorson, K., & Wells, C.(2015). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309–328. doi:10.1111/comt.12087
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., & Amazeen, M. A.(2017). The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society, 2028–2049. doi:10.1177/1461444817712086
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Welbers, K., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2018a). Presenting news on social media: Media logic in the communication style of newspapers on Facebook. Digital Journalism, 1–18. doi:10.1080/21670811.2018.1493939
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Welbers, K., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2018b). Social media gatekeeping: An analysis of the gatekeeping influence of newspapers’ public Facebook pages. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4728–4747. doi:10.1177/1461444818784302
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Welbers, K., Van Atteveldt, W., Kleinnijenhuis, J., Ruigrok, N., & Schaper, J.(2016). News selection criteria in the digital age: Professional norms versus online audience metrics. Journalism, 17(8), 1037–1053. doi:10.1177/1464884915595474
    [Google Scholar]
  70. White, D. M.(1950). The “gate keeper”: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Bulletin, 27(4), 383–390. doi:10.1177/107769905002700403
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Yankelovich, D.(1991). Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse Syracuse University Press.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2019.1.003.PAK
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2019.1.003.PAK
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): gatekeeping; selective link sharing; Structural Topic Model
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error