A content analysis of scientific news coverage in Dutch newspapers was conducted and supplemented with interviews with ten news editors and science journalists. In a total of ninety-six editions of the newspapers, we found 624 reports about scientific research. The content analysis focuses on the actual reporting of background and methodological aspects of the research covered. Contrary to expectations, quality papers and science sections in general did not supply more or better information on these aspects. The interviews revealed that reporting on scientific research means avoidance of complex information, even in the science section. Since most social-scientific research is reported in the news part of the paper, it generally lacks a critical approach to conceptual and statistical formulations.

Commercially motivated junk news–i.e. money-driven, highly shareable clickbait with low journalistic production standards–constitutes a vast and largely unexplored news media ecosystem. Using publicly available Facebook data, we compared the reach of junk news on Facebook pages in the Netherlands to the reach of Dutch mainstream news on Facebook. During the period 2013–2017 the total number of user interactions with junk news significantly exceeded that with mainstream news. Over 5 Million of the 10 Million Dutch Facebook users have interacted with a junk news post at least once. Junk news Facebook pages also had a significantly stronger increase in the number of user interactions over time than mainstream news. Since the beginning of 2016 the average number of user interactions per junk news post has consistently exceeded the average number of user interactions per mainstream news post.

Journalists differ in the degree to which they have adopted the Internet professionally. While earlier studies were predominantly descriptive, this study explains why journalists differ in the amount (time spent on the Internet) and nature (diversity of Internet applications) of their use of the Internet. Based on a random sample of members of the Dutch Association of Journalists, results indicate that the digital divide in terms of demographic characteristics is absent. The perceived functionality of the Internet as a professional tool is the most important explanatory factor for the use of the Internet. Surprisingly, professional attitudes towards journalistic quality are not reflected in journalists' use of the Internet.

As shown through an inventory of the procedures used in diverse forms Keywords: content analysis, communication science, audience centered approaches, interpretive content analysis, logic, newspapers' portrayalsContent analysis is a research method closely related to communication science. Especially the development of audience-centered approaches in communication science, stressing amongst others the 'meaning-making', i. e., the interpretive, capacity of media users, has generated numerous research questions that call for interpretive research methods (Anderson, 1987;Altheide, 1987;Jankowski and Wester, 1991;Lindlof, 1995;Renckstorf and Wester, 2001). As a result we see Ϫ apart from the application of widely accepted forms of quantifying content analysis Ϫ a growing number of studies using various forms of qualitative content analysis. For example, empirical studies on the problem of newspapers' image forming and newspapers' construction of national identity (e. g.,

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Sensationalism in front page photographs: Content analysis of Dutch popular and quality newspapers Sensationalism in front page photographs: Content analysis of Dutch popular and quality newspapers Sensation in the news has been a longtime cause for social and scientific debate. Sensational news is thought to substitute ‘serious’ information needed for serious citizen deliberation. A trend towards more sensationalist news has been described for television. This study analyses quality and popular newspaper photographs in terms of sensationalist content and form. Quantitative content analysis of the five major newspapers in the Netherlands shows that a slight majority of newspaper photographs shows sensational content (i.e. dramatic events such as violence, disasters, or crime). A minority of the photographs has sensational format features (e.g., emotions, close-ups, personalization). In eight out of eleven variables, popular newspapers contain more sensational photographs than quality newspapers. However, in some instances differences in sensationalism within the two groups are greater than differences between the groups.