“Types of media outlets”, often referred to as “media type” or “medium type”, is a variable that is widely used for content analyses of news media. The variable indicates which media outlets share certain characteristics. Grouping media outlets to media types ultimately helps reveal patterns and implications beyond the individual case of a specific outlet.
Field of application/Theoretical foundation:
The variable can be used for content analyses of print, broadcast or online media. It takes the form of a formal variable, with an underlying theoretical construct. As such, it provides important context information of the analyzed content. It is sometimes also labelled as “format” in research (cf. https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2638; also Schwaiger & Vogler, 2023).
Classifying media outlets into distinct types serves one important diagnostic goal of content analyses, i.e., explaining how structures related to media outlets affect the actual content. For example, Boukes et al. (2022) compared quality versus popular news media and public versus commercial broadcasting newscasts because they expect the “organizational structure, commercial pressure, and motivations” to differ among these types and affect which stories are given more prominence based on news factors. Löb et al. (2024) compared daily newspapers and online websites “as representatives for top-down news production and […] political blogs as a representative for bottom-up news production”, because the former are expected to adhere more to professional standards and ethical principles, resulting in fewer elements of incivility (outrage) in news content. In another large-scale manual content analysis of political news, Reinemann et al. (2017, p. 147) concluded that “medium type explains the extent to which more hard news or less hard news is published”: public service television and broadsheet papers offer more hard news than commercial television and tabloids. In the same analysis, the authors also follow a prognostic goal, which addresses implications for media use and reception. Outlets were selected based on their membership in certain types, as the authors assume that media types differ in their importance for different segments of society (e.g., reach, trust) (Hopmann et al., 2017). Finally, selecting outlets as representatives of media types helps answer the question how media “perform” based on normative criteria and which role they play in media systems (Magin et al., 2023; Freudenthaler & Wessler, 2023).
Treating a media outlet not as an individual, “special” case but as a representative of a broader media type therefore helps reveal more general patterns. Hence, the variable is also useful in international comparative research, where types of media outlets can guide researchers’ sample selection of functional equivalents across countries (Hopmann et al., 2017).
While the variable “media type” can be considered a formal variable which does not require complex interpretation by human coders (or is not even part of the coding as such but only used later to aggregate media outlets), researchers should treat this variable very carefully. In particular, they should pay close attention to its underlying theoretical construct and justify the classification criteria. As becomes clear, not all studies working with media types fulfill these demands, let alone define the term “media types”, which limits their theoretical contribution.
References/combination with other methods of data collection:
While the name of a media outlet is usually provided by databases or easily identifiable by human coders, media type is not necessarily. Sometimes, common databases like the international database Lexis-Nexis or the Swiss database Swissdox Essentials categorize available outlets into types but their classification scheme does not necessarily match theoretical constructs researchers are interested in.
In any case, the variable “type of media outlet” makes an ex ante categorization of media content possible. A combination with automated content analyses or any other manually coded variables is possible.
Example studies
Media types are groups of media outlets which share certain characteristics (Udris et al., 2020). However, there is no standard operationalization of media types in the literature, and it is unclear which of the many characteristics are the most important ones to make for a media type. Classification criteria can refer to a socio-geographical space (e.g., regional or national newspapers: Umbricht & Esser, 2016), publication schedule (e.g., dailies or weeklies: Umbricht & Esser, 2016), a channel, medium or platform (e.g., TV or radio news: Strömbäck & van Aelst, 2010, media outlets on TikTok: Vázquez-Herrero et al., 2023), sometimes connected with the legacy or history of an outlet (e.g., “digital native”: Vázquez-Herrero et al., 2023, or “digital-only”: Benson et al., 2018), a business model (e.g., cost-free newspaper or subscription newspaper: fög, 2023; “mass market” websites or “upmarket” websites: Hopmann, 2017), ownership and regulation structures (e.g., public or private TV news: Strömbäck & van Aelst, 2010; outlets owned by a company traded on the stock market or by a privately held company: Benson et al., 2018), the relation to political actors and/or political leaning (e.g., newspapers “left of center” or “right of center”: Hopmann et al., 2017; “mainstream” or “alternative media”: Reinemann et al., 2024). Often, researchers use a combination of classification criteria (e.g., regional private TV news: fög, 2023 or Seethaler, 2015). Sometimes, researchers even compare different criteria and use them as factors to test which of those have an impact on the content – for instance whether differences within the group of newspapers are larger than between newspapers and TV news (Strömbäck & van Aelst, 2010).
Codebook example: Oehmer et al. (2020)
Medium
Operationalization
Studies
Cross-media
Öffentliches Radio (Public broadcaster: radio)
Öffentliches Fernsehen (Public broadcaster: TV)
SRG-SSR Online (öffentlich) (Public broadcaster: online)
Privatfernsehen (Private TV)
Abonnementszeitungen (Subscription newspapers)
Abonnementszeitungen-Online (Subscription newspapers online)
Sonntagszeitungen/Magazine (Sunday papers / magazines)
Online Pure (Online pure player)
Pendlerzeitungen (Commuter papers)
Pendlerzeitungen-Online (Commuter papers online)
Boulevardzeitungen (Tabloid papers)
Boulevardzeitungen-Online (Tabloid papers online)
fög (2023)
Cross-media
Kauftageszeitungen (Paid-for daily papers)
Gratistageszeitungen (Cost-free daily papers)
Überregionale öffentlich-rechtliche Radiosender (Supra-regional radio programs by the public broadcaster)
Überregionaler Privatradiosender (Supra-regional radio programs by private broadcasters)
Regionale öffentlich-rechtliche Radiosender (Regional radio programs by the public broadcaster)
Regionale Privatradiosender (Regional radio programs by private broadcasters)
Überregionale öffentlich-rechtliche Fernsehsender (Supra-regional TV programs by the public broadcaster)
Überregionale Privatfernsehsender (Supra-regional TV programs by private broadcasters)
Branchenspezifische Online-Anbieter (Online news providers from the media industry)
Branchenfremder Anbieter (Online news providers from outside the media industry)
Seethaler (2015)
Cross-media
Abonnement-Online (Subscription newspapers online)
Boulevard/ Pendler-Online (Tabloid papers / Commuter papers online)
Sonntagszeitungen/ Magazine (Sunday papers / magazines)
Öffentlicher Rundfunk (Public service broadcaster)
Eisenegger et al. (2020)Codebook: Oehmer et al. (2020)
Cross-media
Stock market traded
Stock market traded with dominant shareholder
Privately held
Civil Society
Public
(Both “legacy” outlets (TV, radio, print) and “digital-only” outlets were selected.)
Benson et al. (2018)
Cross-media
Mainstream news outlets:
Broadsheet daily national newspapers (online editions)
Tabloid newspaper (online edition)
News magazines (online editions)
Regional newspapers (both print and online)
Web provider
National TV newscasts
Most-watched TV special (during the pandemic)
Alternative news outlets:
(two outlets selected based on reach data)
Reinemann et al. (2024)
Cross-media
Newspapers:
Upmarket (left of center)
Upmarket (right of center)
Mass-market
Television, news bulletin:
Public
Commercial
Websites:
Upmarket
Hopmann et al. (2017)
TV & Print
“Media types”:
Commercial TV news
Public service TV news
Tabloid newspaper
Quality newspaper
“Media channels”:
TV news
Newspapers
Strömbäck & van Aelst (2010)
Print
National
Regional
Weekly
(Tabloids were explicitly excluded.)
Umbricht & Esser (2016)
TikTok(news organizations)
Digital Native
Press
TV channel
TV programme
Radio & Television
Vázquez-Herrero et al. (2022)
References:
Benson, R., Neff, T., & Hessérus, M. (2018). Media ownership and public service news: how strong are institutional logics? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(3), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218782740
Boukes, M., Jones, N. P., & Vliegenthart, R. (2022). Newsworthiness and story prominence: How the presence of news factors relates to upfront position and length of news stories. Journalism, 23(1), 98-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919899313
Eisenegger, M., Oehmer, F., Udris, L., & Vogler, D. (2020). Die Qualität der Medienberichterstattung zur Corona-Pandemie. In fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft / Universität Zürich (Ed.), Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien 2020. Schweiz – Suisse – Svizzera (pp. 29–50). Schwabe. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-192622
fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft / Universität Zürich (Ed.). (2023). Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien 2023. Schwabe. https://doi.org/10.24894/978-3-7965-4894-9
Freudenthaler, R., & Wessler, H. (2022). Mapping Emerging and Legacy Outlets Online by Their Democratic Functions—Agonistic, Deliberative, or Corrosive? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(2), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211015077
Hopmann, D. N., & et al. (2017). How we did it: approach and methods. In de Vreese, Claes H., F. Esser, & D. N. Hopmann (Eds.), Comparing political journalism (pp. 10–21). Routledge.
Löb, C., Rinke, E. M., Weinmann, C., & Wessler, H. (2024). Unpacking the Determinants of Outrage and Recognition in Public Discourse: Insights Across Socio-Cultural Divides, Political Systems, and Media Types. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 29(1), 273-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221084206
Magin, M., Stark, B., Jandura, O., Udris, L., Riedl, A., Klein, M., Eisenegger, M., Kösters, R., & Hofstetter Furrer, B. (2023). Seeing the Whole Picture. Towards a Multi-perspective Approach to News Content Diversity based on Liberal and Deliberative Models of Democracy. Journalism Studies, 24(5), 669–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2178248
Oehmer, F., Eisenegger, M., Udris, L. & Vogler, D. (2020). Codebuch zur Studie «Die Qualität der Medienberichterstattung zur Corona-Pandemie». https://zenodo.org/record/3958929#.X24FDu1CQuU
Reinemann, C., Maurer, M., Kruschinski, S., & Jost, P. (2024). The Quality of COVID-19 Coverage: Investigating Relevance and Viewpoint Diversity in German Mainstream and Alternative Media. Journalism Studies, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2326642
Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., & Scherr, S. (2017). Hard and soft news. In de Vreese, Claes H., F. Esser, & D. N. Hopmann (Eds.), Comparing political journalism (pp. 131–149). Routledge.
Schwaiger, L., & Vogler, D. (2023). Formats and Genres: Collecting formal variables during content analysis. In F. Oehmer-Pedrazzi, S. H. Kessler, E. Humprecht, K. Sommer, & L. Castro (Eds.), Standardisierte Inhaltsanalyse in der Kommunikationswissenschaft – Standardized Content Analysis in Communication Research (pp. 59–66). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Seethaler, J. (2015). Qualität des tagesaktuellen Informationsangebots in den österreichischen Medien. Eine crossmediale Untersuchung: Im Auftrag der Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH (RTR) und der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Schriftenreihe der Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH No. 1). https://www.rtr.at/medien/aktuelles/publikationen/Band1-2015.pdf
Strömbäck, J., & van Aelst, P. (2010). Exploring some antecedents of the media’s framing of election news: a comparison of Swedish and Belgian election news. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161209351004
Udris, L., Eisenegger, M., Vogler, D., Schneider, J., & Häuptli, A. (2020). Mapping and Explaining Media Quality: Insights from Switzerland’s Multilingual Media System. Media and Communication, 8(3), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i3.3140
Umbricht, A., & Esser, F. (2016). The push to popularize politics. Journalism Studies, 17(1), 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.963369
Vázquez-Herrero, J., Negreira-Rey, M.-C., & López-García, X. (2022). Let’s dance the news! How the news media are adapting to the logic of TikTok. Journalism, 23(8), 1717–1735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920969092
