Despite the popularity of the concept of hard and soft news, researchers regularly criticize the vague definitions and inconsistent conceptualizations. Following claims for standardization of concept in journalism research, this article aims to cross-validate the most recent understanding of the concept. We conducted a factorial survey with newspaper journalists to probe the question as to which of the theoretically assumed dimensions of the concept are referred to by journalists to distinguish hard from soft news. We find the dimensions “topic,” “relevance,” “framing,” and “opinion” to exert influence on journalists’ understanding of the concept.
AdamS.MaierM. (2010). Personalization of politics: A critical review and agenda for research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 34, 213-257.
2.
AtzmüllerC.SteinerP. M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology, 6, 128-138.
3.
AuspurgK.HinzT. (2014). Factorial survey experiments. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
4.
BaumM. A. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96, 91-109.
5.
BaumgartnerJ.MorrisJ. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34, 341-367.
6.
BergmannB. (2010). Sozialisationsprozesse bei der Arbeit [Socialization processes at the workplace]. In KleinbeckU.SchimdtK.-H. (Eds.), Enzykolpädie der Psychologie (pp. 287-323). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Verlag.
7.
BoczkowskiP. J. (2009). Rethinking hard and soft news production: From common ground to divergent paths. Journal of Communication, 59, 98-116.
8.
BoczkowskiP. J.PeerL. (2011). The choice gap: The divergent online news preferences of journalists and consumers. Journal of Communication, 61, 857-876. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01582.x
9.
BoukesM.BoomgaardenH. G. (2014). Soft news with hard consequences? Introducing a nuanced measure of soft versus hard news exposure and its relationship with political cynicism. Communication Research, 42, 701-731. doi:10.1177/0093650214537520
10.
BradleyM. M.LangP. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49-59. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
11.
BrekkenT.ThorbjørnsrudK.AalbergT. (2012). News substance: The relative importance of soft and de-contextualized news. In AalbergT.CurranJ. (Eds.), How media inform democracy: A comparative approach (pp. 64-78). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
12.
ChaffeeS. H. (1991). Communication concepts 1: Explication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
13.
CurrahA. (2009). What’s happening to our news: An investigation into the likely impact of the digital revolution on the economics of news publishing in the UK. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
14.
CurranJ.Salovaara-MoringI.CoenS.IyengarS. (2009). Crime, foreigners and hard news: A cross-national comparison of reporting and public perception. Journalism, 11, 3-19. doi:10.1177/1464884909350640
15.
DonsbachW.BüttnerK. (2005). Boulevardisierungstrend in deutschen Fernsehnachrichten [Tablodization of German TV-news]. Publizistik, 50, 21-38. doi:10.1007/s11616-005-0116-6
16.
EndersC. (2013). Centering predictors and contextual effects. In ScottM. A.SimonoffJ. S.MarxB. D. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of multilevel modeling (pp. 89-108). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
17.
EngelmannI. (2012). Alltagsrationalität im Journalismus: akteurs- und organisationsbezogene Einflussfaktoren der Nachrichtenauswahl [Day-to-day rationality in journalism: Person- and organization-related factors influencing the selection of news]. Konstanz, Germany: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
18.
EsserF.StrömbäckJ.de VreeseC. (2012). Reviewing key concepts in research on political news journalism: Conceptualizations, operationalizations, and propositions for future research. Journalism, 13, 139-143. doi:10.1177/1464884911427795
19.
FurrM. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. London, England: SAGE.
20.
GerringJ. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31, 357-393.
21.
GerringJ. (2015). Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HennP.DohleM.VoweG. (2013). “Politische Kommunikation”: Kern und Rand des Begriffsverständnisses in der Fachgemeinschaft [“Political communication”: Core and periphery of the community’s understanding of the concept]. Publizistik, 58, 367-387.
23.
HoechleD. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. Stata Journal, 7, 281-312.
24.
HooffackerG.MeierK. (2017). La Roches Einführung in den praktischen Journalismus: Mit genauer Beschreibung aller Ausbildungswege Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz [La Roche’s introduction to practical journalism: With an exact description of journalism education in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
25.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
Lehman-WilzigS. N.SeletzkyM. (2010). Hard news, soft news, “general” news: The necessity and utility of an intermediate classification. Journalism, 11, 37-56. doi:10.1177/1464884909350642
27.
MaginM.StarkB. (2015). Explaining national differences of tabloidisation between Germany and Austria. Journalism Studies, 16, 577-595. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2014.921398
28.
MottF. L. (1952). The news in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
MunckG. L.VerkuilenJ. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 5-34.
30.
ObermaierM.KochT.RiesmeyerC. (2018). Deep impact? How journalists perceive the influence of public relations on their news coverage and which variables determine this impact. Communication Research, 45, 1031-1053. doi:10.1177/0093650215617505
31.
Ortells BadenesS. (2015). Los nuevos actores de la información televisiva: ciudadanos y periodistas como protagonistas del infoentretenimiento [The new actors of television news: Citizens and journalists as infotainment main protagonists]. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 21, 491-508.
32.
OttoL.GloggerI.BoukesM. (2017). The softening of journalistic political communication: A comprehensive framework model of sensationalism, soft news, infotainment, and tabloidization. Communication Theory, 27, 136-155.
33.
PadruttC. (1967). Zur Nachrichtenvermittlung in der Schweiz [News coverage in Switzerland]. Gazette, 13, 105-115.
34.
PattersonT. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy-and what news outlets can do about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
PostS. (2015). Scientific objectivity in journalism? How journalists and academics define objectivity, assess its attainability, and rate its desirability. Journalism, 16, 730-749.
36.
PriorM. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149-171.
37.
PürerH. (2015). Medien in Deutschland: Presse, Rundfunk, Online [Media in Germany: Print, broadcasting, online]. Konstanz, Germany: UTB.
38.
RaabeJ. (2008). Kommunikation und soziale Praxis: Chancen einer praxistheoretischen Perspektive für Kommunikationstheorie und -forschung [Communication and social practice: Chances for a practice oriented perspective on communication theory and research]. In WinterC.HeppA.KrotzF. (Eds.), Theorien der Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft: grundlegende Diskussionen, Forschungsfelder und Theorieentwicklungen (pp. 363-382). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
39.
ReineckD.LilienthalV.SehlA.WeichertS. (2017). Das faktorielle Survey. Methodische Grundsätze, Anwendungen und Perspektiven einer innovativen Methode für die Kommunikationswissenschaft [Factorial survey. Methodology, usage, and perspective of an innovative method in communication science]. M&K Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 65, 101-116.
40.
ReinemannC.ScherrS. (2012). Was ist “hard,” was ist “soft”? Eine Analyse eines der erfolgreichsten Konzepte der Journalismusforschung [What is “hard,” what is “soft”? Analysis of one of the most successful concepts in journalism research]. In SpringerN.RaabeJ.HaasH.EichornW. (Eds.), Medien und Journalismus im 21. Jahrhundert: Herausforderungen für Kommunikationswissenschaft, Journalistenausbildung und Medienpraxis (pp. 489-506). Konstanz, Germany: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
41.
ReinemannC.StanyerJ.ScherrS.LegnanteG. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13, 221-239. doi:10.1177/1464884911427803
42.
RossiP. H.NockS. L. (1982). Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
43.
RussellI. W. (1954). Among the new words. American Speech, 29, 282-286. doi:10.2307/454303
44.
SchönbachK. (2000). Does tabloidization make German local newspapers successful? In SparksC.TullochJ. (Eds.), Tabloid tales: Global debates over media standards (pp. 63-74). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
45.
ScottD. K.GobetzR. H. (1992). Hard news/soft news content of the national broadcast networks, 1972–1987. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 69, 406-412.
46.
ShoemakerP. J.CohenA. A. (Eds.). (2012). News around the world: Content, practitioners, and the public. New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
SkovsgaardM. (2014). A tabloid mind? Professional values and organizational pressures as explanations of tabloid journalism. Media, Culture & Society, 36, 200-218. doi:10.1177/0163443713515740
48.
SteindlN.LauererC.HanitzschT. (2017). Journalismus in Deutschland [Journalism in Germany]. Publizistik, 62, 401-423. doi:10.1007/s11616-017-0378-9
49.
TuchmanG. (1973). Making news by doing work: Routinizing the unexpected. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 110-131.
50.
WallanderL. (2009). 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38, 505-520.
51.
WilkeJ. (2003). The history and culture of the newsroom in Germany. Journalism Studies, 4, 465-477.
