1. The document summarizes findings from a case study of audience participation at the "Tagesschau", Germany's most popular evening newscast. 2. It finds that while journalists and audiences largely agree on democratic functions of journalism, there are some inconsistencies around participatory aspects. 3. Journalists perceive audience motivations for participation as more "self-centered" while active audiences rate knowledge exchange higher.

1. Public participation in the news
Expectations and practices of audience inclusion at the “Tagessschau”
Wiebke Loosen, Jan-HinrikSchmidt
Julius Reimer, NeleHeise
@jpub20team
Hans-Bredow-Institute for Media Research
#ecc12 – Istanbul – October 27th, 2012

2. Outline
1. Audience participation as inclusion: The #jpub20-Project
2. Selected findings from the „Tagesschau“ case study
3. Conclusion
2 of 14

3. Journalism-audience-relation as inclusion
• “Audience” is constitutive for journalism – not only practically, but also
normatively: journalism should enable ‘the public’ to participate in public life
• Under mass-media conditions, the audience played a subordinate role in
everyday newsroom routines
• Under social-media conditions, audience activities become more visible for
journalists (e.g. user generated content, user feedback), thus contributing to
shifting/blurring boundaries (2)
• But: How to assess the relationship between journalism and audience
theoretically and empirically?
• Approach of “jpub20”-Project: conceptualizing relationship as “inclusion” (2)
• Six case studies of different newsrooms (TV/Online and Print/Online) in Germany
• Combination of methods:
– in‐depth interviews with editorial staff and viewers/readers/users
– standardized online surveys among full editorial departments and users of online platforms
– content analysis of selected broadcasts/issues/articles and users discussions
(1) e.g. Bruns 2005, 2008; Robinson 2010; Lewis 2012 3 of 14
(2) Loosen/Schmidt 2012

4. Heuristic model of audience inclusion in journalism
Journalism Audience
Inclusion Performance Inclusion Performance
Features of audience participation Participatorypractices
Work processes/routines InclusionLevel Degreeofcollective orientation
Journalistic products/output
Inclusion Expectations Inclusion Expectations
Journalisticroleperception
Motivations forparticipation
Images of theaudience Inclusion Distance Assessment ofaudience
Strategicrationales contributions
Source: Loosen/Schmidt 2012: 874
4 of 14

5. Case Study
– Focus today: case study of “Tagesschau”
– On air since 1953; produced by ARD (Public
Service Broadcaster)
– up to 23 newscasts a day
– most popular evening newscast in Germany
(on avg. 10 Mio viewers; 33% market share)
In-depth interviews Standardized survey
Journalists n=10 n=63
(from chief editor to ‚multi-media- (out of 130 people in
assistants‘ *= community manager+) editorial staff)
Audience n=6 n=4.686
(varying degrees of engagement) (random sample of
tagesschau.de users;
nth-visitor method)
5 of 14

6. Participative platforms / channels
Discussion
tagesschau.de YouTube Twitter Blog Meta Facebook G+
boards
1996 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012
2004
6 of 14

7. Findings 1/2: Journalistic role-conceptions/
expectations of the audience
Journalists:
The following question addresses your
understanding of the journalistic
profession, i.e. which goals to fulfill in
your professional work.
What are your personal goals in your
profession?
Audience [all users]:
We now want to know what you
consider to be important tasks for
journalists of the Tagesschau (on TV as
well as online).
Tagesschau journalists should…
n=60-63 / 4570-4636; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 7 of 14
6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

8. Findings 1/2: Journalistic role-conceptions/
expectations of the audience
• inform as objective and precise as possible
5 • explain and convey complex issues
• criticise problems and grievances
• point to interesting topics and further inf.
• inform audience as fast as possible
• show new trends and highlight new ideas
4
• control politics, business and society
Image among audience
• give the audience topics to talk about
• give audience opportunity to express
opinion on topics of public interest
• get into conversation about current events
3
• share positive ideals
• Encourage/moderate discu. among audience
• present my own ideas to audience
• concentrate on news that is interesting to an
audience as wide as possible
2
• Build/maintain relationship to audience
• provide people with opportunity to publish
their own content
• provide useful information for the audience
and act as advisor / guidance
1 • provide entertainment and relaxation
1 2 3 4 5 • provide audience with opportunity to
maintain ties among themselves
Journalistic Self-Image
n=60-63 / 4570-4636; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 8 of 14
6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

9. Findings 2/2: (Perceived) Reasons for participation (meta)
Journalists:
Viewers/users who comment (e.g.
reacting to a newscast or a story) or
participate in a different way will have
certain goals in mind. We have listed
some possible explanation; what do you
think: how important are the following
reasons for people who participate in
Tagesschau/ tagesschau.de?
Audience [only active users]:
Now please tell us about your reasons
for [participatory practice].
Depending on actual
answers, [participatory practice] read:
- Sending (E-)Mail to the editors
- Commenting on meta.tagesschau.de
- Commenting on Tagesschau blog
- Commenting on Tagesschau FB page
n=57-59 / 382-390; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant”/”Disagree completely” 9 of 14
to 5 = ”very important” / “agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

10. Findings 2/2: (Perceived) Reasons for participation (meta)
5 • To state my/their opinion publicly
• To propose a topic that is important
to me/them
• To expand my/their own knowledge
by interacting with journalists and
4 other viewers/users
Dis-/agreement audience
• To share knowledge and experiences
• To leave the passive viewer’s role
• To point out errors in news stories
3 • To support and advocate a certain
concern, event or group
• To fulfill my/their civic obligations
• To assist the journalists in their work
• To feel included in a community
2 • For self-expression and self-display
• To vent anger and frustration
• To find help with a problem
• Out of boredom
1 • To build relationship with editors
1 2 3 4 5
Dis-/agreement journalists
n=57-59 / 382-390; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant”/”Disagree completely” 10 of 14
to 5 = ”very important” / “agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

11. Conclusion
• Digital networked media have brought shifts in routines and expectations regarding
audience inclusion into journalism
• Case study on “Tagesschau” has shown that …
• … by and large, professional self image and assessment by audience is congruent
• democratic functions of journalism are not disputed at/for the “Tagesschau”
• some incongruencies regarding participatory aspects of journalistic self image
• … motivations for user participation are viewed differently
• aspect of „stating opinion publicly“ is acknowledged by both
• but notable incongruence: journalists assume „self-centered“ motivations for
participation, while active audience rates knowledge exchange higher
• Open question: How to go „beyond providing a public space“, how to make value of
user feedback for democratic discourse more visible?
• Future research
• „participatory divide“: Differences within “Tagesschau” audience?
• Comparing “Tagesschau” with other media/types of journalism
11 of 14

12. Thank you!
Wiebke Loosen, Jan-Hinrik Schmidt
Hans-Bredow-Institut
Warburgstr. 8-10, 20354 Hamburg
{w.loosen;j.schmidt}@hans-bredow-institut.de
www.hans-bredow-institut.de
jpub20.hans-bredow-institut.de
@jpub20team
12 of 14