News decisions of social media editors shape the news supply on social media channels such as Facebook. This study assesses based on qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey of social media editors in two social-media-savvy European countries, Finland and Switzerland, how Facebook's News Feed algorithm, Facebook users, journalistic standards, and the news brand determine social media news making. Results show that social media editors evaluate the news factors emotions and surprise as more important for Facebook news than for online news. Social media editors accentuate emotional and surprising story elements in a post to comply with user preferences and the logic of the News Feed algorithm. Thus, news values and news editing have become more user engagement driven. Yet traditional journalistic standards and the news brand characteristics set boundaries to a heavy user engagement orientation. Social media editors estimate that their outlet's news supply on Facebook is higher for entertaining news and lower for foreign politics and economic news stories. But they strive for a "good mix" of news adhering to both the Facebook logic and professional journalistic standards.

News organizations in many Western democracies face decreasing trust amid fake news accusations. In this situation, news organizations risk losing their license to operate and need to defend their legitimacy. This study analyzes how The New York Times (NYT) discredits fake news accusations, which are prominently expressed by US President Trump. A critical discourse analysis of the NYT's news articles about fake news accusations in the first 70 days following President Trump's inauguration reveals four delegitimizing strategies. First, the accusations are taken as a "badge of honor" for professional journalism but are morally evaluated to damage journalism's role as the fourth estate in democracy. Second, using sarcasm, the articles criticize President Trump's capacity to govern and thus question his legitimacy. Third, reporting implies that fake news accusations aim at suppressing critical thinking as in authoritarian regimes. Fourth, accusations are described as irrational responses to professional reporting or proven to be factually wrong, when possible. Overall, reporting in the NYT portrays President Trump as an irresponsible leader risking the well-being of the country's citizens, its journalism, and its democracy, as well as journalism in foreign countries. AbstractNews organizations in many Western democracies face decreasing trust amid fake news accusations. In this situation, news organizations risk losing their license to operate and need to defend their legitimacy. This study analyzes how The New York Times discredits fake news accusations, which are prominently expressed by US President Trump. A critical discourse analysis of The New York Times' news articles about fake news accusations in the first 70 days following President Trump's inauguration reveals four delegitimizing strategies used. First, the accusations are taken as a "badge of honor" for professional journalism but are morally evaluated to damage journalism's role as the fourth estate in democracy. Second, using sarcasm, the articles criticize President Trump's capacity to govern and thus question his legitimacy. Third, reporting implies that fake news accusations aim at suppressing critical thinking as in authoritarian regimes. Fourth, accusations are described as irrational response to professional reporting or proven to be factually wrong, when possible. Overall, reporting in The Times portrays President Trump as an irresponsible leader risking the well-being of the country's citizens, its journalism, and its democracy, as well as journalism in foreign countries.

Recent work demonstrates that hostile emotions can contribute to a strong polarization of political discussion on social media. However, little is known regarding the extent to which media organizations and media systems trigger hostile emotions. We content-analyzed comments on Facebook pages from six news organizations ( N = 1,800) based in the United States and Germany. Our results indicate that German news organizations’ Facebook comments are more balanced, containing lower levels of hostile emotions. Such emotions are particularly prevalent in the polarized information environment of the United States—in both news posts and comments. Moreover, alternative right-wing media outlets in both countries provoke significantly higher levels of hostile emotions, thus limiting deliberative discussions. Our results demonstrate that the application of technology—such as the use of comment sections—has different implications depending on cultural and social contexts.

Online audience engagement, such as rating or sharing news, commenting or creating content, can enhance users’ loyalty toward online news brands. Yet recently, uncertainties have been discussed within journalism research and practice concerning the handling of online comment sections and potential negative influences – caused through comment reading – on news brands. From a brand management perspective, audience engagement and comment reading can affect a brand’s equity. This study investigates the value of audience engagement and comment reading for the customer-based brand equity of online news outlets. An online survey with n = 313 users of the digital native cohort revealed that comment reading is neither directly beneficial nor harmful for online news brands. However, for brands providing hard news comment reading seems more likely to have negative than positive relations with CBBE than for brands with other content. Sharing and liking news are associated with a stronger perceived brand quality, loyalty, and associations. User-generated content creation including commenting does not enhance customer-based brand equity. Overall, serious content proved to be a stronger driver of news brand value than any form of audience engagement.

Abstract:This study argues that revenue model incentives determine news content. The goal to make profits and the need to sell audiences to advertisers guide journalistsʹ selection and interpretation of newsworthy material and result in commercialised news. We compare the volume, tone, and the obtrusiveness of topics in all economic news stories for the evening TV news of the public broadcasters ARD and ZDF, the commercial broadcaster RTL, and the tabloid newspaper BILD from 2002 to 2010 in Germany (n = 26,467). Results indicate that news selection Results indicate that news selection is guided by revenue model incentives since economic news differs by volume and topic between public and commercial outlets. News interpretation, i.e., news tone, stronger varies across the media types TV and print. We conclude that advertising income dependency and observation of competitor behavior transmits to operative journalistic practices and decisions, which in turn determine journalistic outcome.

Explicit terror prevention versus vague civil liberty: How the UK broadcasting news (de)legitimatise online mass surveillance since Edward Snowden's revelationsLischka, Juliane A Abstract: Snowden's initial revelations aimed at establishing a public debate on online surveillance informed through the media. Media should serve the public's need for information and offer various viewpoints and sources to enhance public debates. This study assesses how online surveillance is justified or countered in British broadcast news since the 2013 Snowden revelations for five selected major events in news coverage ending with the Charlie Hebdo aftermath in Paris in early 2015. The critical discourse analysis shows that UK broadcasts cover justification and delegitimation arguments of online surveillance. Online surveillance legitimation combines rationalisation (terror prevention) and moral evaluation (public security) arguments, which are often expressed by governmental actors. The broadcast discourse tends to give governmental, pro-surveillance actors a voice by default. The detailedness of terror threat descriptions increases over time. In 2013, 'terrorist attacks' are rather factually mentioned. In 2015, several ways leading to a loss of lives through terror are explicitly stated, which strengthens the instrumental rationality legitimation arguments. Delegitimising arguments predominantly use moralising and mythopoetic arguments (civil liberties) that are expressed by Snowden himself or politicians, yet rarely by non-governmental organisations, and very rarely by citizens. It is harder for non-governmental actors to continuously interpret the broadcast discourse. Therefore, what exactly is at stake when online mass surveillance increases remains obscure in the news discourse. The surveillance discourse should be richer in order to give the audience a chance to understand the vague and less tangible contra-surveillance arguments better. Snowden's initial revelations aimed at establishing a public debate on online surveillance informed through the media. Media should serve the public's need for information and offer various viewpoints and sources to enhance public debates. This study assesses how online surveillance is justified or countered in British broadcast news since the 2013 Snowden revelations for five selected major events in news coverage ending with the Charlie Hebdo aftermath in Paris in early 2015. The critical discourse analysis shows that UK broadcasts cover justification and delegitimation arguments of online surveillance. Online surveillance legitimation combines rationalisation (terror prevention) and moral evaluation (public security) arguments, which are often expressed by governmental actors. The broadcast discourse tends to give governmental, pro-surveillance actors a voice by default. The detailedness of terror threat descriptions increases over time. In 2013, 'terrorist attacks' are rather factually mentioned. In 2015, several ways leading to a loss of lives through terror are explicitly stated, whic...

The negotiation of competing institutional logics is relevant for organisations active in multiinstitutional domains. News organisations are active in the domains of democracy and business, and, through digitisation, they are active in the digital technology domain. This article describes how journalism negotiates competing logics of these domains, i.e. professional, market, managerial, and technology (tech) logics. Analysing n = 744 individual NiemanLab Predictions for Journalism from 2014 to 2019, findings indicate that journalism aggregates and integrates competing logics in a fluid way, keeping synergies across logics and plurality of logics high. The field of journalism is shaped by the competition of four logics: While tech logics induce changes in professional, market, and managerial logics, professional logics remain the dominant moral compass for journalists.

This study aims to understand dynamic agenda-building and agenda-setting processes between real-world indicators, public expectations (PEs), and aggregated news on the general economy and unemployment for the four most popular general news outlets in Germany from 2002 to 2011: two public service, a commercial news show, and a tabloid newspaper. Vector autoregression models and Granger causality tests reveal that (1) news tone (NT) relates to real-world indicators; (2) PEs for the general economy and unemployment are partly set by the tone of news on the general economy, especially during recession times; and (3) PEs can forecast the future real-world economy. What Follows What?