„The Influence of Algorithmic vs Qualitative Audience Feedback on Journalists’ Work“, presentation at the 68th annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA) in Prague, 28 May 2018 (together with Folker Hanusch and Edson Tandoc, Jr.).

1. The influence of algorithmic vs qualitative
audience feedback on journalists’ work
Julius Reimer, Folker Hanusch, Edson Tandoc, Jr.
DGPuK Panel “Opening the Black Box: Investigating the Algorithmization of Journalism”
ICA 2018, 28 May 2018, Prague

2. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
The recent complication of journalists’ audience image
2
• Journalism has become ‘multichannel communication’ (Loosen et al. 2015; Neuberger et al.
2018 [ICA])
• à Proliferation of sources of information about the audience (Anderson 2011; Heise et al
2014; Loosen/Schmidt 2012):
Quantitative, ‘algorithmized’ Qualitative, ‘rich’
‘Traditional’
• Circulation and sales figures
• TV and radio ratings
• Quantitative market research
• …
• Audience mail
• Personal encounters with audience members
• Chats with colleagues
• Qualitative market research
• …
‘New’
• Website analytics: UVs, PIs, scroll depth, …
• Social media metrics: ‘followers’, clicks, likes,
shares/RTs, …
• …
• User comments on website
• User comments on social media platforms
• …

3. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018 3
• Journalists’ audience image co-determines their work (Heise et al. 2014; Loosen/Schmidt 2012)
• Scholars already looked at analytics or comments separately (e.g., Tandoc 2014), e.g.:
• Via metrics, journalists are becoming increasingly aware of users’ interests in
different topics (Lee et al. 2014)
+ Metrics show audiences‘ disproportionate interest in soft news (Tandoc/Thomas 2015;
Welbers et al. 2015)
àCostera-Meijer/Bijleveld (2016: 828) fear this could “lead to a trivialization of news,
which in turn may endanger our democratic society”.
• But: looking at only one info source seems far from newsroom reality
à Repertoire approach (Hasebrink/Domeyer 2012; Hasebrink/Hepp 2017; Hasebrink/Popp 2006; Loosen et
al. 2015) that looks at different sources of audience information simultaneously
The recent complication of journalists’ audience image

4. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
“Methodology”
4
Australia
Online survey among journalists
• May–July 2016
• n=358 (response rate: 13 %)
Germany
4 case studies at German newsrooms:
1. Daily newscast Tagesschau
2. Weekly political TV talk (anonymous)
3. Daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung
4. Weekly newspaper Der Freitag
• Feb 2012–Jan 2014
• In-depth interviews: ntotal=34
• Online surveys at newscast & daily: n=63
& 139 (response rates: 49 & 23 %)
CAUTION
• No comparative study
• Purpose: find questions, not answers
• Preliminary analyses
• No control for mediating factors

5. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
Journalists do use new algorithm-based and qualitative
sources to build their audience image
5
Only
• Journalists from German TV and print departments
turn to them to a lesser extent than their online
colleagues (What a surprise!)
• Still, about 2/3 of them use at least one of these
sources (What for?)
• Interviews suggest differences between German
newscast and daily can be explained by:
• Journalistic genre
• Media brand image
• Economic organisation and considerations
(cf. also Reimer/Loosen 2017)

6. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
… but ‘traditional’ sources seem to be just as important
6
Only
• Use of ‘traditional’ qualitative sources even more
common than that of new sources
• Qualitative audience (e-)mail most used source even
among online journalists
• Print journalists at German daily rather look at
qualitative user comments than at quantitative print
sales
à Primacy of qualitative info (‘traditional’ and ‘new’)?
• Not sure: e.g., ‘colleagues’ includes reports on
metrics in newsroom meetings
à Entanglement and mediation of audience info
• German journalists use 4–5 different sources on
average
à Calls for repertoire approach
• Surveys only measured (frequency of) use, not
relative importance or ‘impact size’

7. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
Comments and analytics inform different aspects of
audience image
7
Trend echoed by German
interviews:
• Algorithm-based analytics inform
assumptions about audience
interest in different topics
• Qualitative info from comments
informs ideas of audiences’
attitudes towards journalism and
covered issues
à Although user comments come
from unrepresentative minority of
audience (& journalists know!)
they seem to have
disproportionately strong
influence on certain facets of
journalists’ audience image
Webanalytics
Usercomments
Twitter

8. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
• Across all 4 German case studies interview data show that journalists struggle with
reconciling the ambivalent information from different sources about different
segments of their audience.
• They handle this complexity and ambiguity by developing a differentiated audience
image that is divided into subgroups along the ever-same lines:
• online vs. offline audience (incl. idea of how much they overlap)
• for online: website users vs. users of different social media platforms
• for each platform: passive vs. active vs. ‘hard core’ users
Complexity and ambiguity lead to differentiation
8

9. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
Different sources coincide with different audience images
9
Australia
• Exposure to user comments
negatively correlated with negative
perceptions:
• that the audience is gullible
• that audience comments are
usually of poor quality
• that user-generated content is
usually of poor quality
• No effect of use of Twitter or web
analytics
Germany
• Similar significant associations, but at
newscast only, e.g.:
• Use of source ‘colleagues’ <> less
agreement that user contributions’
quality is too low
• Use of source ‘social media’ <>
stronger agreement that user
contributions add additional facets to
the newsroom’s reporting

10. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
Different sources coincide with different audience images
10
Newcast
Social media
User comments
Website analytics
Audience mail …
‘Colleagues‘
Pers. encounters
Market research
TV ratings
Audience roles
Passive users
(Eye-)witnesses
Specialists, experts
Topic providers
Commenters
Discussion partners
Critics, feedback providers
Content distributors
Content producers
Co-decision-makers
Citizens, voters
People to be protected
Seekers of advice
Entertainment seekers
Addressees for ads
(‘eyeballs’)
Daily
Social media
User comments
Website analytics
Audience mail …
‘Colleagues‘
Pers. encounters
Market research
Print sales
Very preliminary analysis!
Pos. correl. Neg. correl.

11. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
Towards a repertoire-oriented approach
– and even more questions
11
• We found evidence that:
• Journalists use multitude of sources of audience info and develop differentiated and ambiguous
audience images
• Different sources influence different aspects of journalists’ audience image
• …
à A repertoire approach (Hasebrink/Hepp 2017) is much needed to research in-depth how journalists,
on the basis of different information sources, construct their perceptions of the audience and how
this affects their editorial decisions and reporting
For instance:
• Do other sources of audience info weaken a possible ‘trivializing’ effect of web analytics (cf. slide 1)?
Or does awareness that click rates do not mirror one-on-one audiences‘ interests, but are co-
determined by search and recommender algorithms?
• On what algorithms are social media and website metrics themselves based?
• What do print and TV journalists use comments and analytics for?
• How can we help journalists handle and make sense of all this ambiguous information about (cf.
Loosen et al. 2017)

12. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
References
12
Anderson, C. W. (2011). Between creative and quantified audiences: web metrics and changing patterns of newswork in local US
newsrooms. Journalism, 12(5), 550–566.
Costera Meijer, I., & Bijleveld, H. P. (2016). Valuable journalism. Measuring news quality from a user’s perspective. Journalism Studies,
17(7), 827–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1175963
Hasebrink, U., & Domeyer, H. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: a multimethod approach to
media use in converging media environments. Participations. Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 9(2), 757–783.
Hasebrink, U., & Hepp, A. (2017). How to research cross-media practices? Investigating media repertoires and media ensembles.
Convergence, 23(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517700384
Hasebrink, U., & Popp, J. (2006). Media repertoires as a result of selective media use. A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns
of exposure. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 31(3), 369–387.
https://doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN.2006.023
Heise, N., Loosen, W., Reimer, J., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2014). Including the audience. Comparing the attitudes and expectations of journalists
and users towards participation in German TV news journalism. Journalism Studies, 15(4), 411–430.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2013.831232
Lee, A. M., Lewis, S. C., & Powers, M. (2014). Audience clicks and news placement: a study of time-lagged influence in online journalism.
Communication Research, 41(4), 505–530.
Loosen, W., Häring, M., Kurtanović, Z., Merten, L., van Roessel, L., Reimer, J., & Maalej, W. (2017). Making sense of user comments:
identifying journalists’ requirements for a software framework. SC|M – Studies in Communication and Media, 6(4), 333–364.
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333

13. ► Reimer, Hanusch, Tandoc / 28 May 2018
References
13
Loosen, W., Neuberger, C., Langenohl, S., Nuernbergk, C., & Reimer, J. (2015, May). Which for what? Uses of social media in the view of
journalists and audience members. Presented at the 65th annual conference of the International Communication Association
(ICA), San Juan.
Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). (Re-)Discovering the audience. The relationship between journalism and audience in networked
digital media. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 867–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.665467
Neuberger, C., Nuernbergk, C., & Langenohl, S. (2018, May). Journalism as multichannel communication: a newsroom survey on the
multiple uses of social media. Presented at the 68th annual conference of the International Communication Assorciation (ICA),
Prag.
Reimer, J., & Loosen, W. (2017, March). Public disturbance. Irritations of the Journalism-audience relationship through participation, and
factors influencing news outlets’ abilities to adapt. Presented at the ECREA Journalism Studies Section conference “Changing
Audiences – Changing Journalism,” Odense.
Tandoc, E. C. (2014). Journalism is twerking? How web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping. New Media & Society, 16(4),
559–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814530541
Tandoc, E. C., & Thomas, R. J. (2015). The ethics of web analytics. Implications of using audience metrics in news construction. Digital
Journalism, 3(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.909122
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915595474

14. Thank you!
Julius Reimer, Folker Hanusch, Edson Tandoc, Jr.
DGPuK Panel “Opening the Black Box: Investigating the Algorithmization of Journalism”
ICA 2018, 28 May 2018, Prague