Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study details the influence of hyperpartisan media actors in comparison to regional and national news media competitors by gauging audience engagement in relation to news on Facebook in Norway. Adopting the perspective of news use as a way of understanding such engagement, the study finds that followers of hyperpartisan Facebook Pages are more active than those following mainstream media Pages. The study also looks closer into what kinds of news are engaged with to higher degrees than others, building on these results in suggesting opportunities for future research into news production and consumption on Facebook.

Keywords

interactivity Communication Technology (CTEC)Mass Communication and Society (MC & S)newspaper and online news social media Norway descriptive statistics basic inferential statistics one way ANOVA log data analysis journalism studies Internet and technology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Almgren

S. M.

Olsson

(2016). Commenting, sharing and tweeting news: Measuring online news participation. Nordicom Review, 37(2), 1-15.

Anderson

C. W.

(2011). Between creative and quantified audiences: Web metrics and changing patterns of newswork in local U.S. newsrooms. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 12, 550-566.

Bennett

W. L.

Segerberg

(2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 739-768.

Bergström

Wadbring

(2015). Beneficial yet crappy: Journalists and audiences on obstacles and opportunities in reader comments. European Journal of Communication, 30, 137-151.

Bird

S. E.

(1998). News we can use: An audience perspective on the tabloidisation of news in the United States. Javnost—The Public, 5(3), 33-49.

Braun

Gillespie

(2011). Hosting the public discourse, hosting the public. Journalism Practice, 5, 383-398.

Bruns

(2010). From reader to writer: Citizen journalism as news produsage. In Hunsinger

Klastrup

Allen

(Eds.), Internet research handbook (pp. 119-134). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Bruns

(2018). Gatewatching and news curation: Journalism, social media, and the public sphere. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Chadwick

Vaccari

O’Loughlin

(2018). Do tabloids poison the well of social media? Explaining democratically dysfunctional news sharing. New Media & Society, 20, 4255-4274. doi:10.1177/1461444818769689

10.

Chung

D. S.

(2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 658-679.

11.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Deuze

Bruns

Neuberger

(2007). Preparing for an age of participatory news. Journalism Practice, 1, 322-338.

13.

Domingo

Quandt

Heinonen

Paulussen

Singer

J. B.

Vujnovic

(2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond. Journalism Practice, 2, 326-342.

14.

Esser

(1999). “Tabloidization” of news—A comparative analysis of Anglo-American and German press journalism. European Journal of Communication, 14, 291-324.

15.

Field

(2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (And sex, drugs and rock ‛n’ roll). London, England: SAGE.

16.

Fletcher

Cornia

Graves

Nielsen

R. K.

(2018). Measuring the reach of “fake news” and online disinformation in Europe (Fact sheets). Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

17.

Foot

K. A.

Schneider

S. M.

(2006). Web campaigning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

18.

Gans

H. J.

(1980). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

19.

García-Perdomo

Salaverría

Kilgo

D. K.

Harlow

(2017). To share or not to share. Journalism Studies, 19, 1180-1201.

20.

Graham

Broersma

Hazelhoff

van’t Haar

(2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 692-716.

21.

Hermida

Thurman

(2008). A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 2, 343-356.

22.

Ihlebaek

K. A.

Krumsvik

A. H.

(2015). Editorial power and public participation in online newspapers. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 16, 470-487.

23.

Ipsos/MMI. (2018). Ipsos SoMe-tracker Q3’18. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/nb-no/ipsos-some-tracker-q318

24.

Kalogeropoulos

Negredo

Picone

Nielsen

R. K.

(2017). Who shares and comments on news? A cross-national comparative analysis of online and social media participation. Social Media + Society, 3(4), 1-12. doi:10.1177/2056305117735754

25.

Kalsnes

(2016). The power of likes: Social media logic and political communication. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo.

26.

Kalsnes

Larsson

A. O.

(2018). Understanding news sharing across social media. Journalism Studies, 19, 1669-1688.

27.

Klinger

Svensson

(2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17, 1241-1257.

28.

Krumsvik

A. H.

(2017). Redefining user involvement in digital news media. Journalism Practice, 12, 19-31.

29.

Kümpel

A. S.

Karnowski

Keyling

(2015). News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1-14.

30.

Larsson

A. O.

(2012). Understanding nonuse of interactivity in online newspapers: Insights from structuration theory. The Information Society, 28, 253-263.

31.

Lee

A. M.

Lewis

S. C.

Powers

(2012). Audience clicks and news placement: A study of time-lagged influence in online journalism. Communication Research, 41, 505-530.

32.

Lilleker

D. G.

Koc-Michalska

Schweitzer

E. J.

Jacunski

Jackson

Vedel

(2011). Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26, 195-213.

33.

Lindebø

(2018, March 16). Nå skal Resett, HRS og Radikal Portal holdes utenfor PFU [Resett, HRS and Radikal Portal to be kept out of the Norwegian press ethics board]. Journalisten. Retrieved from https://journalisten.no/2018/03/na-skal-resett-holdes-utenfor-pfu

34.

Lorentzen

D. G.

Nolin

(2017). Approaching completeness: Capturing a hashtagged Twitter conversation and its follow-on conversation. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 277-286.

35.

Mahrt

Scharkow

(2013). The value of big data in digital media research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 20-33.

36.

Marwick

boyd

(2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17, 139-158.

37.

McManus

(1995). A market-based model of news production. Communication Theory, 5, 301-338.

38.

MediaNorway. (2018). 2017 readership statistics for Norwegian online newspapers. Retrieved from http://www.medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/253

39.

Montells

(2017). What is Facebook EdgeRank or how Facebook algorithm works. Retrieved from https://metricool.com/what-is-facebook-edgerank-or-how-facebook-algorithm-works/

40.

Nahon

Hemsley

(2013). Going viral. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

41.

Nielsen

R. K.

Ganter

S. A.

(2018). Dealing with digital intermediaries: A case study of the relations between publishers and platforms. New Media & Society, 20, 1600-1617.

42.

Nightingale

(2011). The handbook of media audiences. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

43.

Pallant

(2001). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (Version 10 and 11). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

44.

Papacharissi

(2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4, 9-27.

45.

Picone

(2016). Grasping the digital news user. Digital Journalism, 4, 125-141.

46.

Picone

(2017). Conceptualizing media users across media. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23, 378-390.

47.

Powers

(2011). “In forms that are familiar and yet-to-be invented”: American journalism and the discourse of technologically specific work. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36, 24-43.

48.

Rieder

(2013, May 2-4). Studying Facebook via data extraction: The Netvizz application. Paper Presented at the WebSci’ 13 Conference, Paris, France.

49.

Rieder

Abdulla

Poell

Woltering

Zack

(2015). Data critique and analytical opportunities for very large Facebook pages: Lessons learned from exploring “we are all Khaled said.” Big Data & Society, 2(2), 1-22.

50.

Rosen

(2006). The people formerly known as the audience. Retrieved from http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html

51.

Singer

J. B.

Domingo

Heinonen

Hermida

Paulussen

Quandt

. . . Vujnovic

(2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

52.

Sjøvaag

Stavelin

Karlsson

Kammer

(2018). The hyperlinked Scandinavian news ecology: The unequal terms forged by the structural properties of digitalisation. Digital Journalism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/21670811.2018.1454335

53.

Skogerbø

Krumsvik

A. H.

(2015). Newspapers, Facebook and Twitter: Intermedial agenda setting in local election campaigns. Journalism Practice, 9, 350-366.

54.

Tandoc

E. C.

(2014). Journalism is twerking? How web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping. New Media & Society, 16, 559-575.

55.

Tandoc

E. C.

Lim

Z. W.

Ling

(2017). Defining “fake news.” Digital Journalism, 6, 137-153.

56.

Trilling

Tolochko

Burscher

(2017). From newsworthiness to shareworthiness: How to predict news sharing based on article characteristics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94, 38-60.

57.

Tuchman

(1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York, NY: Free Press.

58.

Vaage

O. F.

(2018). Norsk mediebarometer 2017 [Norwegian Media Barometer 2017]. Oslo: Statistics Norway.

59.

van Dijck

Poell

. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1, 2-14.

60.

H. T.

(2014). The online audience as gatekeeper: The influence of reader metrics on news editorial selection. Journalism, 15, 1094-1110.

61.

Webster

J. G.

Ksiazek

T. B.

(2012). The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62, 39-56.

62.

Welbers

van Atteveldt

Kleinnijenhuis

Ruigrok

Schaper

(2016). News selection criteria in the digital age: Professional norms versus online audience metrics. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 17, 1037-1053.

63.

Zamith

(2016). On metrics-driven homepages. Journalism Studies, 19, 1116-1137.

64.

Zelizer

(1995). Journalism’s “last” stand: Wirephoto and the discourse of resistance. Journal of Communication, 45, 78-92.

65.

Zhang

Wells

Wang

Rohe

(2018). Attention and amplification in the hybrid media system: The composition and activity of Donald Trump’s Twitter following during the 2016 presidential election. New Media & Society, 20, 3161-3182. doi:10.1177/1461444817744390

News Use as Amplification: Norwegian National,Regional,and Hyperpartisan Media on Facebook

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References