News gap in a digital news environment: Calibrating editorial importance from user-rated news quality and identifying user characteristics that close the news gap

Abstract

While previous studies have found a clear gap between users’ news preferences and editors’ news choices, whether a similar user–editor gap exists when it comes to news quality evaluations remains an open question. We therefore conducted a nation-wide survey of 7810 South Korean users, collected online social indicators from a digital news platform, and asked users and editors to evaluate the quality of 1500 news articles and rank-order these articles’ editorial importance, respectively. Even after controlling for users’ news preferences and news genres, we found that users distinguished news articles quality in a manner comparable to that of editors. Our analysis also showed that users with higher issue involvement, issue knowledge, or ideological strength tended to rate news quality similar to editors. Moreover, we found that ideological strength served as an alternative cognitive schema for issue knowledge for individuals who lacked sufficient knowledge to assess news quality.

Keywords

Digital news digital news platform news editor news gap news quality news user online news

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arthur

(2006) What’s the 1% rule? The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2

Atkin

Burgoon

(1983) How journalists perceive the reading audience. Newspaper Research Journal 4(2): 51–63.

Avery

(2009) Videomalaise or virtuous circle? The influence of the news media on political trust. The International Journal of Press/Politics 14(4): 410–433.

Boczkowski

Mitchelstein

(2010) Is there a gap between the news choices of journalists and consumers? A relational and dynamic approach. The International Journal of Press/Politics 15(4): 420–440.

Boczkowski

Mitchelstein

(2015) The News Gap: When the Information Preferences of the Media and the Public Diverge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Boczkowski

Peer

(2011) The choice gap: the divergent online news preferences of journalists and consumers. Journal of Communication 61(5): 857–876.

Bogart

(2004) Reflections on content quality in newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal 25(1): 40–53.

Brandt

Evans

Crawford

(2015) The unthinking or confident extremist? Political extremists are more likely than moderates to reject experimenter-generated anchors. Psychological Science 26(2): 189–202.

Choi

Kim

(2017) Online news flow: Temporal/spatial exploitation and credibility. Journalism 18(9): 1184–1205.

10.

Choi

Shin

Kang

(2021) Predicting audience-rated news quality: Using survey, text mining, and neural network methods. Digital Journalism 9(1): 84–105.

11.

Costera Meijer

(2013) Valuable journalism: a search for quality from the vantage point of the user. Journalism 14(6): 754–770.

12.

Diddi

LaRose

(2006) Getting hooked on news: uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 50(2): 193–210.

13.

Domingo

(2008) Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: dealing with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(3): 680–704.

14.

Duffy

(2019) Out of the shadows: the editor as a defining characteristic of journalism. Journalism. Epub ahead of print 30 January. DOI: 10.1177/1464884919826818.

15.

Dvir-Gvirsman

(2015) Testing our quasi-statistical sense: news use, political knowledge, and false projection. Political Psychology 36(6): 729–747.

16.

Elff

(2015) Estimation techniques: ordinary least squares and maximum likelihood. In: Best

Wolf

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 7–30.

17.

Feeley

O’Mally

Covert

(2016) A content analysis of organ donation stories printed in US Newspapers: application of newsworthiness. Health Communication 31(4): 495–503.

18.

Ferrer-Conill

Tandoc

EC (2018) The audience-oriented editor: making sense of the audience in the newsroom. Digital Journalism 6(4): 436–453.

19.

Giomelakis

Sidiropoulos

Gilou

, et al. (2019) The utilization of web analytics in online Greek journalism. Journalism Studies 20(5): 609–630.

20.

Gladney

(1990) Newspaper excellence: how editors of small & large papers judge quality. Newspaper Research Journal 11(2): 58–72.

21.

Gladney

(1996) How editors and readers rank and rate the importance of eighteen traditional standards of newspaper excellence. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73(2): 319–331.

22.

Gladney

Shapiro

Castaldo

(2007) Online editors rate web news quality criteria. Newspaper Research Journal 28(1): 55–69.

23.

Hanusch

Tandoc

Jr (2019) Comments, analytics, and social media: the impact of audience feedback on journalists’ market orientation. Journalism 20(6): 695–713.

24.

Heinbach

Ziegele

Quiring

(2018) Sleeper effect from below: long-term effects of source credibility and user comments on the persuasiveness of news articles. New Media & Society 20(12): 4765–4786.

25.

Heise

Loosen

Reimer

, et al. (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.

26.

Jenkins

Nielsen

(2020) Proximity, public service, and popularity: a comparative study of how local journalists view quality news. Journalism Studies 21(2): 236–253.

27.

Johnson

(1963) Dimensions of judgment of science news stories. Journalism Quarterly 40: 315–322.

28.

Kim

(2015) Exploring the effects of source credibility and others’ comments on online news evaluation. Electronic News 9(3): 160–176.

29.

Korea Information Society Development Institute (2018, September 30) Demographics of commenters in digital news platforms and online discussion boards (translated by the author). KISDI Stat Report 18(18). Available at: http://www.kisdi.re.kr/kisdi/fp/kr/publication/selectResearch.do?cmd=fpSelectResearch&sMenuType=2&controlNoSer=43&controlNo=14406&langdiv=1

30.

Korea Press Foundation (2020) Media Users in Korea 2020. Seoul: Korea Press Foundation.

31.

Kovach

Rosenstiel

(2007) The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.

32.

Lanham

(2006) The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

33.

Lee

Lewis

Powers

(2014) Audience clicks and news placement: a study of time-lagged influence in online journalism. Communication Research 41(4): 505–530.

34.

Lee

Kim

(2016) Effects of infographics on news elaboration, acquisition, and evaluation: prior knowledge and issue involvement as moderators. New Media & Society 18(8): 1579–1598.

35.

Lee

(2009) News values, media coverage, and audience attention: an analysis of direct and mediated causal relationships. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86(1): 175–190.

36.

Lehman-Wilzig

Seletzky

(2010) Hard news, soft news, “general” news: the necessity and utility of an intermediate classification. Journalism 11(1): 37–56.

37.

Maier

(2010) Newspapers offer more news than do major online sites. Newspaper Research Journal 31(1): 6–19.

38.

Meier

(2019) Quality in journalism. In: Vos

Hanusch

(eds) The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–8.

39.

Molyneux

Coddington

(2020) Aggregation, clickbait and their effect on perceptions of journalistic credibility and quality. Journalism Practice 14(4): 429–446.

40.

North

(2016) The gender of “soft” and “hard” news: female journalists’ views on gendered story allocations. Journalism Studies 17(3): 356–373.

41.

O’Keefe

(2008) Elaboration likelihood model. In: Donsbach

(ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1475–1480.

42.

Petty

Cacioppo

(1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz

(ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 19. New York: Springer, pp. 124–205.

43.

Price

Zaller

(1993) Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly 57(2): 133–164.

44.

Sambrook

(2012) Delivering Trust: Impartiality and Objectivity in the Digital Age. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

45.

Shapiro

(2010) Evaluating journalism: towards an assessment framework for the practice of journalism. Journalism Practice 4(2): 143–162.

46.

Singer

(2010) Quality control: perceived effects of user-generated content on newsroom norms, values and routines. Journalism Practice 4(2): 127–142.

47.

Singer

(2011) Community service: editor pride and user preference on local newspaper websites. Journalism Practice 5(6): 623–642.

48.

Steele

(2008) Ethical values and quality control in the digital era. Niemanreports 62(4): 57–58.

49.

Tenenboim

Cohen

(2015) What prompts users to click and comment: a longitudinal study of online news. Journalism 16(2): 198–217.

50.

Thorson

(2008) Changing patterns of news consumption and participation: news recommendation engines. Information, Communication & Society 11(4): 473–489.

51.

Urban

Schweiger

(2014) News quality from the recipients’ perspective: investigating recipients’ ability to judge the normative quality of news. Journalism Studies 15(6): 821–840.

52.

Urrutia

Zalbidea

Camacho

, et al. (2019) Editors versus audiences facing news: is this discrepancy also repeated on social news networks? Journalism. Epub ahead of print 4 June. DOI: 10.1177/1464884919853740.

53.

Usher

(2013) Al Jazeera English online: understanding web metrics and news production when a quantified audience is not a commodified audience. Digital Journalism 1(3): 335–351.

54.

Van der Kaa

Krahmer

(2014). Journalist versus news consumer: the perceived credibility of machine written news. In: Proceedings of the computation+ journalism conference (Vol 24, p. 25). Columbia University, New York, October.

55.

Van der Wurff

Schoenbach

(2014) Civic and citizen demands of news media and journalists: what does the audience expect from good journalism? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3): 433–451.

56.

Waddell

(2018) What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media & Society 20(8): 3068–3083.

57.

Weaver

Wuensch

(2013) SPSS and SAS programs for comparing Pearson correlations and OLS regression coefficients. Behavior Research Methods 45(3): 880–895.

58.

Welbers

Van Atteveldt

Kleinnijenhuis

, et al. (2016) News selection criteria in the digital age: professional norms versus online audience metrics. Journalism 17(8): 1037–1053.

59.

Wendelin

Engelmann

Neubarth

(2017) User rankings and journalistic news selection: comparing news values and topics. Journalism Studies 18(2): 135–153.

60.

Wojcieszak

Baek

Carpini

MXD

(2010) Deliberative and participatory democracy? Ideological strength and the processes leading from deliberation to political engagement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 22(2): 154–180.

61.

You

Lee

, et al. (2013) Why read online news? The structural relationships among motivations, behaviors, and consumption in South Korea. Information, Communication & Society 16(10): 1574–1595.