Social media has become a channel through which journalists distribute their work, reach audiences and gain visibility. Informed by the frameworks of journalistic branding, the heuristic-systematic model, and hypertextual elements, the present study examines the extent to which the source factor (journalists’ branding on social media profiles) and message factors (communication styles and hypertextual elements) influence visibility (i.e. the popularity of the account and the number of favourites and retweets of the posts). We analysed the Twitter profiles of 98 health journalists from seven major media organizations in the US and conducted a manual content analysis of a representative sample of their public tweets (n = 3982) published during the Covid-19 pandemic. In contrast to expectations, branding contributed little to any indicators of visibility, and profiles with institutional branding had fewer followers. Both affective messages and rational messages received more likes and retweets than messages without these elements. Tweets containing images or news-related hyperlinks received more retweets, whereas the number of @mentions in a tweet was negatively related to visibility. Journalists from traditional media, those who tweeted more often, and those with more followers had higher levels of visibility.
AguinisHGottfredsonRKCulpepperSA (2013) Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management39(6): 1490–1528.
2.
BanjacSHanuschF (2020) A question of perspective: Exploring audiences’ views of journalistic boundaries. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 21 October 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820963795.
3.
BodeLHannaAYangJ, et al. (2015) Candidate networks, citizen clusters, and political expression. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659(1): 149–165.
4.
BossioDHoltonAE (2019) Burning out and turning off: Journalists’ disconnection strategies on social media. Journalism. Epub ahead of print 29 August 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1464884919872076.
5.
BrunsAMoeH (2014) Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In: WellerKBrunsABurgessJ, et al. (eds) Twitter and society. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp.15–28.
6.
BucherT (2012) Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society14(7): 1164–1180.
7.
CanterL (2013) The interactive spectrum. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies19(4): 472–495.
8.
ChaikenS (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39(5): 752–766.
9.
ChaikenSLibermanAEaglyAH (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: UlemanJSBarghJA (eds) Unintended thought. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp.212–252.
10.
ChangTKSouthwellBGLeeHM, et al. (2012) Jurisdictional protectionism in online news: American journalists and their perceptions of hyperlinks. New Media & Society14(4): 684–700.
11.
ChenSChaikenS (1999) The heuristic systematic model in its broader context. In: ChaikenSTropeY (eds) Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp.73–96.
12.
CurryALStroudNJ (2021) The effects of journalistic transparency on credibility assessments and engagement intentions. Journalism22(4): 901–918.
13.
De MaeyerJ (2012) The journalistic hyperlink: Prescriptive discourses about linking in online news. Journalism Practice6(5–6): 692–701.
14.
EngelmannIKlossANeubergerC, et al. (2019) Visibility through information sharing: The role of tweet authors and communication styles in retweeting political information on Twitter. Journal of International Communication13: 20.
15.
FriessDEildersC (2015) A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet7(3): 319–339.
16.
FinucaneMLAlhakamiASlovicP, et al. (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making13(1): 1–17.
17.
GorrellGBontchevaK (2016) Classifying Twitter favorites: Like, bookmark, or Thanks?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67(1): 17–25.
18.
HabermasJ (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
19.
HanuschFBrunsA (2017) Journalistic branding on Twitter: A representative study of Australian journalists’ profile descriptions. Digital Journalism5(1): 26–43.
20.
HedmanU (2016) When journalists tweet: Disclosure, participatory, and personal transparency. Social Media + Society2(1): 2056305115624528.
21.
HermidaA (2013) #Journalism: Reconfiguring journalism research about Twitter, one tweet at a time. Digital Journalism1(3): 295–313.
22.
HermidaALewisSCZamithR (2014) Sourcing the Arab spring: A case study of Andy Carvin’s sources on twitter during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 479–499.
23.
HolcombJGrossKMitchellA (2011) How Mainstream Media Outlets Use Twitter: Content Analysis Shows an Evolving Relationship. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
LasorsaD (2012) Transparency and other journalistic norms on Twitter. Journalism Studies13(3): 402–417.
27.
LewisSCZamithRCoddingtonM (2020) Online harassment and its implications for the journalist–audience relationship. Digital Journalism8(8): 1047–1067.
28.
LiuXLuJWangH (2017) When health information meets social media: Exploring virality on Sina Weibo. Health Communication32(10): 1252–1260.
29.
LiuZLiuLLiH (2012) Determinants of information retweeting in microblogging. Internet Research22(4): 443–466.
30.
LoughKMolyneuxLHoltonAE (2018) A clearer picture: Journalistic identity practices in words and images on Twitter. Journalism Practice12(10): 1277–1291.
31.
MarwickAEBoydD (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
32.
MassumiB (2002) Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33.
MeierFElsweilerDCWilsonML (2014) More than liking and bookmarking? Towards understanding twitter favouriting behaviour. In: Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, Ann Arbor, MI, 1-4 June 2014, pp.346–355.
34.
MolyneuxLHoltonA (2015) Branding (health) journalism: Perceptions, practices, and emerging norms. Digital Journalism3(2): 225–242.
35.
MolyneuxLHoltonALewisSC (2018) How journalists engage in branding on Twitter: Individual, organizational, and institutional levels. Information Communication & Society21(10): 1386–1401.
36.
NelsonJL (2021) Imagined Audiences: How Journalists Perceive and Pursue the Public. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
OlaussonU (2018) The celebrified journalist. Journalism Studies19(16): 2379–2399.
38.
OttovordemgentschenfeldeS (2017) ‘Organizational, professional, personal’: An exploratory study of political journalists and their hybrid brand on Twitter. Journalism18(1): 64–80.
39.
PapacharissiZA (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age, 1st edn. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
40.
ParkCSKayeBK (2019) Expanding visibility on Twitter: Author and message characteristics and retweeting. Social Media + Society5(2): 205630511983459.
41.
ParmeleeJH (2014) The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society16(3): 434–450.
QuandtT (2018) Dark participation. Media and Communication6(4): 36–48.
44.
RehmanNUWeilerASchollMH (2013) OLAPing social media. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining – ASONAM’13, Niagara, Ontario, Canada, 25-29 August 2013, pp.1139–1146.
45.
RudatABuderJ (2015) Making retweeting social: The influence of content and context information on sharing news in Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior46: 75–84.
46.
SchudsonM (2001) The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism2(2): 149–170.
47.
SmallTA (2011) What the hashtag?Information Communication & Society14(6): 872–895.
48.
SongJSongTMSeoD-C, et al. (2017) Social big data analysis of information spread and perceived infection risk during the 2015 middle east respiratory syndrome outbreak in South Korea. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking20(1): 22–29.
49.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2007) Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of public deliberation3(1): 1–35.
50.
StroobantJ (2019) Finding the news and mapping the links: A case study of hypertextuality in Dutch-language health news websites. Information Communication & Society22(14): 2138–2155.
51.
StroudNJScaccoJMCurryAL (2016) The presence and use of interactive features on news websites. Digital Journalism4(3): 339–358.
52.
TannerAH (2004) Agenda building, source selection, and health news at local television stations. Science Communication25(4): 350–363.
53.
ThomsonRItoNSudaH, et al. (2012) Trusting Tweets: The Fukushima Disaster and Information Source Credibility on Twitter. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Vancouver, Canada, April 2012.
54.
ThorsonE (2016) Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication33(3): 460–480.
55.
TreemJWLeonardiPM (2013) Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association36(1): 143–189.
56.
UsherNHolcombJLittmanJ (2018) Twitter makes it worse: Political journalists, gendered echo chambers, and the amplification of gender bias. The International Journal of press/politics23(3): 324–344.
57.
Van DijckJPoellTDe WaalM (2018) The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
58.
WaisbordS (2020) Trolling journalists and the risks of digital publicity. Journalism Practice. Epub ahead of print 29 September 2020. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2020.1827450.
59.
WaldRKhoshgoftaarTMNapolitanoA, et al. (2013) Predicting susceptibility to social bots on Twitter. In: 2013 IEEE 14th international conference on information reuse & integration (IRI), San Francisco, California, 14-16 August 2013, pp.6–13.
60.
WetherellM (2012) Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. Sage Publications.
61.
ZhangX (2018) Visualization, technologies, or the public? Exploring the articulation of data-driven journalism in the Twittersphere. Digital Journalism6(6): 737–758.
62.
ZhangXHoJCF (2020) Exploring the fragmentation of the representation of data-driven journalism in the Twittersphere: A network analytics approach. Social Science Computer Review. Epub ahead of print 21 February 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0894439320905522.
63.
ZhangXZhongZJ (2020) Extending media system dependency theory to informational media use and environmentalism: A cross-national study. Telematics and Informatics50(2020): 101378.
64.
ZhaoXZhanMM (2019) Appealing to the heart: How social media communication characteristics affect users’ liking behavior during the Manchester terrorist attack. Journal of International Communication13: 22.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
