Journalism in the 21st Century_LBSilva_FINAL

J M C I n d e p e n d e n t S t u d y / S M P A 3 1 9 6 • D r . K e r r i c H a r v e y • D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 4

Journalism in the 21st Century Lauren Silva This research seeks to explore the degree to which technology may be changing the face of journalism and the media. Journalism has become more accessible to the masses via social media and other personalized media technology, a situation that has many benefits. However, a serious question arises about whether the integrity of journalism is being compromised by individualization. As people increasingly get news via social media instead of original news sources, a sort of news unbundling occurs. This research investigates whether this combination leads to an echo-‐chamber effect for politically-‐slanted news, as well as for the types of news people elect to follow. This research also takes a look at the benefits of the more available news, as well as the downfalls of a lower-‐quality media.

www.21century-‐news.com

08 Fall

Lauren Silva -‐ 2 – George Washington University 2014

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 About the Project ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Research Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Research Process ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Funding .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Publicity ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Experiments ........................................................................................................................... 6 News Consumption Survey .................................................................................................................................................... 6 About ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Preliminary Survey Test Run ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Survey Text .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Promotion & Distribution .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Results .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

The Initial Facebook Experiment (Spring 2014) ...................................................................................................... 17 Background Information ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Experimental Procedure ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 Experimental Notes ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Results .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Problems with the Experiment .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 23 Social Media & Blogs .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 The Personalized Web .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Possible Solutions ................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Further Research .................................................................................................................. 32 The “My Facebook” Experiment ........................................................................................................................................ 32

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ 34

Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 35


Introduction

About the Project

The Internet has become an extremely important means of monitoring the government and its officials. If the job of journalists is to hold accountable those who we elect to govern our country by investigating them, the job of the Internet is to bring this information to the public. As the Internet has challenged traditional forms of journalism, many scholars have argued that this new form of accessible media has benefited our democracy. I disagree. This paper will argue that while the media has become a more level playing field for the everyday man or woman since the advent of the Internet, it has also experienced a decrease in its overall quality, which is ultimately hindering American politics.

This research project sought to explore the degree to which technology is changing the face of journalism and the media. Journalism has become more accessible to the masses via social media and other personalized media technology, a situation that has many benefits. However, a serious question arises about whether the integrity of journalism is being compromised by individualization. I have investigated the multitude of benefits of the more available news, as well as the downfalls of a lower-‐quality media.

The ultimate objective of this research is to identify changes in news media consumption patterns based on news delivery becoming individualized through social media profiling.

Objectives

§ Identify changes in news and media consumption patterns.

§ Expose the effects of social media on the electorate.

§ Propose a solution to the so-‐called “dying" news industry.

Research Methods

§ Experimental research on social media news displays.

§ Investigative research on state of news media industry.

§ News consumer behavioral research via survey.


Research Process

The first step to this investigation was to focus on the way that the Internet and other technologies have contributed to a shifting journalism landscape. In order to do so, I read a variety of books on the news industry and its recent and forecasted changes.

After gathering patterns, the next step in the research project was conducting an experiment on social media to learn more about social media news distribution patterns and algorithms. I began with the belief that social media networks that help spread the news, such as Facebook or Twitter, have begun to cater news stories to individual users’ interests, ultimately limiting the scope of information seen by users. By exploring the way in which social media helps to disseminate news, I was able to better understand the way in which the Internet contributes to today’s news culture.

The experiment portion of this research also included a survey that was used to deduce patterns among news consumers. After developing this survey, I went through an extensive approval process with GW’s Institutional Review Board. Upon receiving departmental approval from the School of Media and Public Affairs, the survey was sent to the IRB and, after several months of back-‐and-‐forth, received human research approval.

The final stage in the research project was to combine the data I collected and then use that information to work towards a proposed solution to the issue of compromised journalistic integrity and an uninformed electorate.

Project Funding

Two Undergraduate Research Enhancement Funds (UREF) grants were awarded through the George Washington University Columbian College of Arts & Sciences to assist in the costs associated with this research. The grants totaled about $1,700. These funds were used to acquire research tools, obtain a membership to the Newseum in Washington, D.C., and purchase a website domain to electronically present the findings: 21century-‐news.com.


Publicity

As the project came together, it was publicized in GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs e-‐newsletter, as well as on their student spotlight blog: https://smpa.gwu.edu/lauren-‐silvas-‐research-‐media-‐consumerism.


Experiments

The largest component of my research lies in the experiments I created to answer my two most pressing questions:

(1) Does Web personalization exist on social media, particularly Facebook? (2) Is social media, in fact, becoming a main news source for Americans?

News Consumption Survey

About

The News Consumption Survey was aimed to better understand the effects that social media has on news consumption and political views. While the Initial Facebook Experiment (described below) was intended to show that news personalization on social media exists, this survey is intended to show why that matters. This survey attempted to answer the question: Are people missing news because of the source (social media)? My hypothesis was that if social media news circulation continues to prevail, then the electorate will be ill informed of important political issues.

The sample size was relatively large for an undergraduate student study of this type in order to minimize sampling error (n=313). For individual participants, benefits included the opportunity to reflect upon and thus better understand their own habits and patterns of news retrieval and consumption within a non-‐judgmental review context. On the societal level, this survey was helpful to be able to track possible long-‐term changes in how members of a representative democracy obtain the type of information that permits them to make informed choices regarding self-‐governance and social issues.

The online survey, hosted by QuestionPro.com, was distributed to 131 participants reached organically in a purposive sample and 182 paid respondents selected randomly by QuestionPro.com. The purposive sample was developed using a reserve snowball design initiated by Silva by recruiting a small and appropriate core group of respondents who will be asked to pass a link to the survey to other potential participants. This process ensured


confidentiality and privacy for candidates for inclusion in the sample, since the researchers never gain access to their private contact information (unless it was self-‐divulged). In addition, a paid ad on Facebook and a Google Ad were purchased to solicit participants.

The data was collected from QuestionPro.com. The data was downloaded into Excel, where Pivot Tables and charts were created and used to help sort through the responses. All possible identifying responses were eliminated at the point of download, ensuring anonymity for all participants. Political inclinations were be determined and compared to social media usage and news consumption habits.

Above is a copy of the screen survey participants would see before entering the survey. The survey was active October 4-‐12, 2014.

The survey, which included 30 questions, was broken into four topical sections:

§ Respondent demographics § Political awareness and involvement § Social media usage § News consumption habits.

Preliminary Survey Test Run

The preliminary survey was sent on February 27, 2014 to 18 people and generated 16 responses (resulting in a 89% completion rate). After competition of the survey, the researcher had the chance to interview each respondent and receive feedback.


From these discussions, changes were made to the survey questions and answer choices in order to correct for the possibility that the researchers overlooked potentially popular response choices. Feedback:

§ “None” needed to be added as an answer choice for questions about social media usage and news sources

§ Reddit and Buzzfeed should be included as social media sources § Too many issues included in the issue ranking questions § Political affiliation answer choices were not exhaustive enough § Many of the similarly worded questions appeared to be repeats

After the initial preliminary survey was completed, the collected data was permanently and irrevocably erased from existence both on the researcher’s computer and from the QuestionPro account.

The survey was updated to reflect the issues that were raised in the post-‐survey interviews from a test run group.

Survey Text

Which category below includes your age? 1. Under 18 2. 18-‐30 3. 31-‐45 4. 46-‐60 5. Over 60 Please select your gender. 1. Male 2. Female Which of the following categories best describes your employment status? STUDENTS: If you are a student and are employed, please select student. 1. Employed, Full Time (40+ hours/week) 2. Employed, Part Time (1-‐39 hours/week) 3. Unemployed 4. Retired 5. Student How would you describe your race? 1. White 2. Black or African-‐American 3. Native American 4. Hispanic 5. Asian 6. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

7. Middle Eastern 8. Multiple Races 9. I prefer not to answer 10. Other ___________________ Which Social Media sites do you use frequently (at least once a week)? Please check all that apply. 1. Facebook 2. Twitter 3. Instagram 4. Pinterest 5. LinkedIn 6. Reddit 7. Tumblr 8. Vine 9. FourSquare 10. YouTube 11. StumbleUpon 12. MySpace 13. Personal Blogs 14. None 15. Other ___________________ Are you registered to vote? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know


Did you vote in the 2012 presidential election? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 4. I was not 18+ at the time of the last election. Did you vote in the 2010 midterm election? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 4. I was not 18+ at the time of the last election. How would you rate your awareness of political figures? 1. Unaware 2. I know who the President is. 3. I know who my state representatives are. 4. I know who many state representatives are. 5. I know who most political figures are. How would you rate your awareness of political issues? 1. Unaware 2. Somewhat aware 3. Aware 4. Very aware How would you describe your political activism? 1. Inactive 2. Somewhat active 3. Active 4. Very active How would you describe your political views? 1. Die-‐hard Liberal 2. Liberal 3. Center-‐left 4. Moderate 5. Fiscally Conservative, socially Liberal 6. Center-‐right 7. Conservative 8. Die-‐hard Conservative 9. No preference Where do you currently get your news? Please check all that apply. 1. Television 2. Radio 3. Newspaper -‐ hard copy 4. Newspaper -‐ online 5. Magazines -‐ hard copy 6. Magazines -‐ online 7. Internet blog (i.e. Buzzfeed)

8. Internet news site (i.e. Huffington Post, Vox) 9. Social Media 10. Mobile News Alerts 11. Other Which forms of Social Media do you get your news from? Please check all that apply. 1. Facebook 2. Twitter 3. Instagram 4. Pinterest 5. LinkedIn 6. Reddit 7. Tumblr 8. Vine 9. FourSquare 10. YouTube 11. StumbleUpon 12. MySpace 13. Personal Blogs 14. I do not get any news from social media. 15. Other ___________________ How often do you get news in any form? 1. Never 2. 1 -‐ 2 times per week 3. 3 -‐ 5 times per week 4. Once a day 5. More than once a day The last news article I read was: 1. In a Newspaper (paper or digital publication) 2. On a traditional news organization’s website (i.e. CNN.com, msnbc.com) 3. On a Internet news site (i.e. Huffington Post, Vox, Daily Beast) 4. On an Internet blog (i.e. Buzzfeed) 5. I do not remember 6. Other ___________________ I most frequently get the news... 1. By reading news websites 2. While on Social Media 3. While on Internet blogs 4. By searching for news stories in a search engine 5. From mobile alerts 6. Other The last type of news I read was: 1. Political -‐ Local 2. Political -‐ State 3. Political -‐ Federal 4. Entertainment/Celebrity News/Arts/Culture


5. Science/Technology 6. World Headlines 7. Business/Finance 8. Sports 9. Other ___________________ What types of news do you consume frequently? Please check all that apply. 1. Political -‐ Local 2. Political -‐ State 3. Political -‐ Federal 4. Entertainment/Celebrity News/Arts/Culture 5. Science/Technology 6. World Headlines 7. Business/Finance 8. Sports 9. Other ___________________ Which major television news networks do you watch (on TV or online)? Please check all that apply. 1. ABC 2. Al Jazeera 3. BBC 4. CBS 5. CNN 6. FOX 7. MSNBC 8. NBC 9. I do not watch any of these networks. 10. Other ___________________ Which major news publications do you read (in print or online)? Please check all that apply. 1. New York Times 2. Washington Post 3. USA Today 4. Wall Street Journal 5. LA Times 6. Huffington Post 7. Newsweek 8. TIME 9. Reader’s Digest 10. The New Yorker 11. I do not read any of these publications. 12. Other Do you ever learn of news from Buzzfeed? 1. Yes 2. No

Do you ever learn of news from Reddit? 1. Yes 2. No Which Social Media do you use to find political information? Please check all that apply. 1. Facebook 2. Twitter 3. Instagram 4. Pinterest 5. LinkedIn 6. Reddit 7. Tumblr 8. Vine 9. FourSquare 10. YouTube 11. StumbleUpon 12. MySpace 13. Personal Blogs 14. I do not use any Social Media to find political information. 15. Other ___________________ Please drag and rank the following in order of USEFULNESS for political news (starting with the most useful): • Television • Radio • Newspaper -‐ hard copy • Newspaper -‐ online • Magazines -‐ hard copy • Magazines -‐ online • Internet blog (i.e. Buzzfeed) • Internet news site (i.e. Huffington Post) • Social Media Which Social Media do you find most useful as a source of political news? Please check all that apply. 1. Facebook 2. Twitter 3. Instagram 4. Pinterest 5. LinkedIn 6. Reddit 7. Tumblr 8. Vine 9. FourSquare 10. YouTube 11. StumbleUpon 12. MySpace 13. Personal Blogs 14. Other _________________________


Please drag and rank the following in order of ACCESSIBILITY to political news. In other words, where is it easiest to find political news (starting with the most accessible): • Television • Radio • Newspaper -‐ hard copy • Newspaper -‐ online • Magazines -‐ hard copy • Magazines -‐ online • Internet blog (i.e. Buzzfeed) • Internet news site (i.e. Huffington Post) • Social Media On which Social Media do you find political news most prevalent? Please check all that apply. 1. Facebook 2. Twitter 3. Instagram 4. Pinterest 5. LinkedIn 6. Reddit 7. Tumblr 8. Vine 9. FourSquare 10. YouTube 11. StumbleUpon 12. MySpace 13. Personal Blogs 14. Other _________________________

Please rank the following political issues in order of importance TO YOU (1 being the most important): • Education • Climate Change • Abortion • War on Drugs • Foreign Policy • Same-‐sex Marriage • Immigration • Gun Control • Healthcare • Drones Please rank the following political issues in order of importance IN THE MEDIA (1 being the most important): • Education • Climate Change • Abortion • War on Drugs • Foreign Policy • Same-‐sex Marriage • Immigration • Gun Control • Healthcare • Drones

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ END OF SURVEY -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐

Promotion & Distribution

FACEBOOK

Before the survey went live, a Facebook page was created to promote the study and to be used as a marketing tool once the survey began to recruit respondents. Before the survey began on October 4, the page had 41 likes. This number grew to 65 by the end of the survey, as respondents were directed to the Facebook page at the conclusion of the survey.


Throughout the week, there was a post scheduled for each day directing followers to take the survey. Additionally, a $50 paid Facebook ad campaign ran throughout the duration of the questionnaire. This was paid for by an ad credit received complementary with the purchase of the study’s web domain.

Over the course of the entire Facebook ad campaign, the sponsored ad reached the newsfeeds of 16,344 people and generated 107 clicks to the survey.

EMAIL

In order to disseminate the link to a wide range of people, a personalized email was sent to close friends and family of the primary researcher. The email was sent to family, friends, and coworkers, with a sentence asking them to forward the link onto their friends, family, and coworkers. This was done to create a snowball effect in the distribution of the survey. This email distribution method was also used with the intention of avoiding social media and websites acting as the sole method of distribution. If that had been the case, there could have been a bias towards younger respondents who frequent social media sites.


GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY – SCHOOL OF MEDIA & PUBLIC AFFAIRS NEWSLETTER

On the day that the survey went live online, a link was also sent out via GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs weekly email newsletter. This newsletter is sent to current SMPA students, alumni, professors, and other members of the SMPA community.

The link to the survey was sent out in the SMPA e-‐newsletter on October 5, 2014. The newsletter included a brief description of the research project, however carefully avoided stating the intentions of the project or beliefs of the researchers, as to

avoid any respondent bias.

GOOGLE ADWORDS

A $100 GoogleWords ad campaign throughout the duration of the survey. This was paid for by an ad credit received complementary with the purchase of the study’s web domain.

The ad campaign was set up by choosing relevant keywords that would be used to help Google decide on which searches to send out the advertisement. The keywords generated a total of 66,844 impressions1 and 171 clicks to the survey link.

1 Impressions indicate how often the ad appeared on a search results page or website on the Google Network.


The words above were used to target Google searches on which the Google Ad displaying the survey link would appear.

Results

RESPONDENTS

At the conclusion of the asking period on October 12, the survey had been viewed 1,668 times and started 484 times. There were a total of 313 survey responses – 131 organic responses and 182 paid responses (at $4 each), representing a completion rate of 66%. The average survey response time was 9 minutes.


KEY DATA POINTS § 50% of people who described themselves as "Unaware" of political issues report

consuming news via social media. This sub-‐group (“Unaware”) also reported the least amount of diversity in news sources.

§ Of people who reported being "Very Aware" of political issues, 52% consume via print newspaper, while only 14% of people who reported being “Unaware” of political issues consume news via print newspaper.

§ Students are the highest consumers of news via Facebook (37%) and Twitter (53%).

§ The majority of respondents do not learn of news from Buzzfeed or Reddit. 38% of respondents reported learning news from Buzzfeed, while only 15% reported learning news from Reddit.

§ 35% of all respondents reported reading legacy brand The New York Times, while 27% of all respondents reported reading new media brand The Huffington Post.


§ The largest source of news among all respondents is television, followed by online news sites and online newspapers. Social media ranked 4th highest as a news source.

§ 48% of 18-‐30 year olds report most frequently getting the news from social media, while that number shrinks to 23% for 30-‐45 year olds, 8% for 46-‐60 year olds, and 3% for 60+ year olds.


RAFFLE WINNER

At the conclusion of the survey, the email addresses were immediately removed from the data responses and put into randompicker.com. The winner was selected and notified via email. The $50 Visa gift card has been mailed to him.

The Initial Facebook Experiment (Spring 2014)

In early 2014, Facebook introduced a new feature called “Trending,” which allows users to view hot topics trending on the social network. While this feature claimed to provide insight to popular trends, it came to my attention that the Trending column actually varied among users. Eli Pariser presented the idea that The Filter Bubble allowed Facebook to cater toward each user’s individual interests (2011).

In order to test whether this so-‐called Filter Bubble was influencing the Trending column, an experiment was performed that attempted to trick the system and answer the question: Is news distributed on Facebook based on users’ likes and interests?

The experiment was testing the researcher’s hypothesis: If Facebook news dissemination continues to prevail, then the electorate will be ill informed and easily manipulated.


Background Information

§ Problem: Social media is growing as a news source, but these platforms are based highly on users’ likes and interests.

§ Question: Is news distributed on Facebook based on users’ likes and interests?

§ Theory: People miss important news due to the personalized nature of social media news, therefore leaving an uninformed electorate.

§ Hypothesis: If Facebook news dissemination continues to prevail, then the electorate will be ill informed and easily manipulated.

§ Concepts:

(a) The idea of news on Facebook; (b) The types of news on Facebook; (c) How Facebook news is disseminated (is it geared towards users’ interests?)

§ Variables:

(a) Number of news articles appearing in News Feed [quantitative]; (b) Percentage of each category of “Trending” topics (i.e. Entertainment, Politics,

Sports, etc.) [quantitative]; (c) Percentage of each type of bias article in Timeline and “Trending” (quantitative)

§ OTHER: Compare nytimes.com “Times Minute” headlines to Facebook “Trending” topics -‐ How much overlap exists? (Both display three headlines.)

§ What to measure: Facebook news patterns; differences from traditional news formats

§ How to measure: Empirical data -‐ gathered by Facebook experiment and collected data

§ Measurement Instrument: Coding sheets (for news categories and news bias)

Data Collection

§ Control Group: Enter no likes

§ Experimental Groups:

(a) Choose “Conservative” likes (b) Choose “Liberal” likes


CODING SHEET (A) -‐ NEWS CATEGORIES Each article will be categorized by a locality AND topic within the following categories:

(a) WORLD NEWS (b) U.S. NEWS (c) LOCAL NEWS (1) POLITICS (2) BUSINESS (3) OPINION (4) SPORTS (5) SCIENCE (6) ARTS/CULTURE/FASHION (7) OTHER

CODING SHEET (B) -‐ BIAS Each article will fall under ONE of the following categories:

§ LIBERAL -‐ “MSNBC” § CONSERVATIVE -‐ “Fox” § MODERATE -‐ “CNN” § NO CLEAR AFFILIATION -‐ “balanced”

Experimental Procedure

§ Erase web history/cookies. Do not visit any particularly left-‐ or right-‐leaning websites or social media pages. Create a new Facebook profile. Do not enter any interests, likes, etc. Do not add any friends.

§ Track Trending articles and posts in News Feed for three days. Assign and record categories and political bias to all news articles. Also monitor “Times Minute” on nytimes.com and record topics at the same time. Repeat three times a day -‐ morning, lunch, night.

§ Wait 2 days. Erase web history/cookies. In this time, create a web history of Conservative topics (i.e. NRA, Pro-‐life, etc.)

§ Create a second Facebook profile. Make location that of a typically “red” state (Texas). Join Conservative groups and add Conservative interests. Follow Conservative political figures and news organizations.

§ Track Trending articles and posts in News Feed for three days. Assign and record categories and political bias to all news articles. Also monitor “Times Minute” on


nytimes.com and record topics at the same time. Repeat three times a day -‐ morning, lunch, night.

§ Erase web history/cookies. Wait two more days. In this time, create a web history of Liberal topics (i.e. Pro-‐Choice, Healthcare)

§ Create a third Facebook profile. Make location that of a typically “blue” state (Massachusetts). Join Liberal groups and add Liberal interests. Follow Liberal political figures and news organizations.

§ Track Trending articles and posts in News Feed for three days. Assign and record categories and political bias to all news articles. Also monitor “Times Minute” on nytimes.com and record topics at the same time. Repeat three times a day -‐ morning, lunch, night.

Experimental Notes

During the execution of this experiment the TimesMinute feature was temporarily disabled, so CNN Trends were used to track daily news stories from a news organization.

A sample of the notes kept to track "Trending" versus "CNN Trends" on 3/18/14 at 12:45 pm.

Results

The results of this initial experiment yielded little information as to whether or not demographic or political background actually influenced the Trending stories appearing in the upper-‐right corner of the Facebook News Feed.

This experiment showed something that, while important, was inconsequential for the initial purposes of this study. In comparing the Facebook Trending with the top ten CNN


Trends during the experiment, the researcher found that the news trending on Facebook was much more often “soft news,” while the CNN Trends tended to be more substantial.

Throughout the experiment, this was true. For example, see the image below which captured the trending stories on Facebook on the morning of March 22, 2014. At this particular time, the stories on CNN Trends included world and national politics, while those on Facebook were all sports and entertainment.

On March 22, 2014 at 9:00 AM, the stories shown below were trending on Facebook. Meanwhile, CNN Trends included

information about the Malaysia Airlines search, Michelle Obama’s trip to China, updates about rockets launched by North Korea, and a Federal Judge’s ruling on a gay marriage law in Michigan.

Problems with the Experiment

While completing this experiment, several problems with the test were noted. As a result of these problems, detailed below, a new experiment was devised to determine whether or not the researcher’s original belief that online personalization is negatively impacting news dissemination was valid.


One of the major problems with the experiment was that despite previous knowledge that the trending column does, in fact, differ among Facebook users (due to empirical evidence witnessed on friends’ computers), the experiment was not proving this to be the case because it was poorly designed. Each fabricated Facebook identity was observed individually over the course of two weeks, but not concurrently. In order to prove that Trending columns were different, the different identities would need to be tracked simultaneously.

On top of that major flaw, the results were also skewed by the fact that the experiment was being conducted on the researcher’s personal computer, which has cookies, in addition to demographical and geographical data ingrained into its memory. In order to get an effective look at the effect of Web personalization on Facebook news, the experiment would need to be done by looking at multiple accounts on multiple computers.

Lastly, as the experiment came to a close, it became increasingly hard to prove, using the results of this experiment, whether or not the electorate was, in fact, ill informed or easily manipulated as a result of Facebook news.


Conclusions

Social Media & Blogs

One of the main concerns on the Internet is news on social media and blogs. I would argue that news disseminated via social media channels is beneficial, as it is more accessible to the masses and becomes more widely spread; however, this is only true when the news comes from trustworthy and reputable news organizations. In addition, social media is a valuable form of creating a dialog among members of the public to fuel an exchange of ideas based on politics and current events. As John Stuart Mill argued in his book On Liberty, dialog is not only beneficial to democracy, but also necessary to allow for a functional government; and therefore, social media helps achieve this sort of democratization of politics.

Social media seems as though it would be an extremely beneficial tool in fostering conversations and helping to inform the public; however, a recent survey by the Pew Research Center explored social media and personal reactions to the story of NSA Contractor Edward Snowden and his surveillance leaks to further understand what was initially referred to by Elisabeth Noelle-‐Neumann as “the Spiral of Silence.”

In this study, the Pew Center investigated social media reactions to the story of NSA Contractor Edward Snowden and his surveillance leaks. The 2013 study included a survey of 1,801 adults. What the survey found was that people were overwhelmingly less willing to discuss the Snowden-‐NSA story over Facebook and Twitter (42%) than they were in person (86%). Furthermore, people were more willing to share their views on NSA surveillance if they thought that their audience would agree with them.2

According to the Center’s report, the findings indicated:

“In the Snowden case, social media did not provide new forums for those who might otherwise remain silent to express their opinions and debate issues…[and] even holding other factors such as age constant, social media users are less likely than others to say they would join a discussion about the Snowden-‐NSA revelations” (Hampton et al.).

The findings of this report are cause for concern. The hope that social media would allow political issues to surface as important topics and serve as a platform for open dialogues in which to discuss is simply not fulfilled. What is even more concerning is that this so-‐called

2 Pew Research Center, “Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’.”


spiral of silence, which is exacerbated by the large audiences that social media platforms create, deters many people from even discussing topical issues.

In order to take advantage of the social aspect of social media, the Los Angeles Times implemented “sharelines” in its web stories. These sharelines appear at the top of a story, below the byline but above the text, as tweet-‐ready summations of the story to follow. These effectively prompt readers to share various parts of a story deemed important by the L.A. Times on Twitter or Facebook by pre-‐writing content, including a link to the original story, to be easily shared by readers. Additionally, throughout the story other components, including highlighted quotations (or “pull quotes” for the design-‐savvy) are also made sharable for the readers.

The implications of such a move are double-‐sided. On the one hand, these sharelines a are positive effort to foster online discussions and relay the news to the public by driving traffic to the L.A. Times website. On the other hand, by adding these sharelines, the L.A. Times is essentially deciding what the important elements in a story are, and these might be the only parts of the story that is seen by social media users. By selecting key points to highlight and making the sharing process so easy, the social media news gatherer will lose out on important facts that would take more than 140 characters to explain, thus remaining only superficially informed.

Additionally, by creating these sharelines and pushing the need for their news audience to share the stories they read with their social networks, the L.A. Times is essentially declaring that the buzz-‐worthiness of a piece is a characteristic paramount to the actual content within an article.

However, this might be acceptable if the buzzy-‐worthy element of news was leading to more critical and analytical discourse on important topics via social media, or even just more interaction with the news on an individual and personal level. Unfortunately though, social media is not generating more news engagement. According to another Pew Center report, users who seek out news directly from news organizations' websites spend an


average of 4 minutes and 36 seconds on the respective site and click around to an average of 24.8 pages within the site. Meanwhile, Facebook users who arrive to a news site from a link shared on the social network spend only 1:41 and average just 4.2 webpages.3

This startling data further reflects the idea that social media is not actually fostering discussions or better informing the public of the news. Rather, it is catering to the ever-‐shrinking attention span of social network users. As virality becomes an important factor in news shares, social media enhances the need for shock value in news stories. Moreover, this data proves that social media facilitates the unbundling of news because social network users who click onto stories spend substantially less time on news sites and view fewer stories.

The Pew Research Center also conducted research to gauge the extent to which social media reflects public opinion. The Twitter reactions to gun control reform in the days following the 2012 Newton school shooting were compared to a public opinion survey conducted by Pew in the same period. By doing so, the center was able to show that Twitter opinions were more polarized.

The results of this study show that social media conversations tend to sensationalize popular topics, although they are not necessary indicative of future policy changes due to the fact that they do not accurately reflect actual public opinion. This occurs because, as the

3 Pew Research Center, “Social, Search and Direct.”


study explained, social media users tend to avoid posting contentious comments online when they believe their opinion differs from the opinions of their ‘friends’ or followers. In the voting booth, however, people are exceedingly more likely to vote based on their opinions, regardless of their friends’ thoughts because of the secret ballot system in place in America. It is for this reason that social media is such a weak barometer of public opinion and an even poorer indicator of the issues people want and, more importantly, need to see in the news.

Given all the research pointing to the flaws in using of social media as a news transmitter, Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg’s stance on social media news is troubling. Justin Lafferty, editor of InsideFacebook.com said in an interview in the Washington Post4:

"Mark Zuckerberg wants News Feed to be like a newspaper. The top stories are curated based on relevancy and the user’s connection to that page or friend.”

In the same Washington Post article, Greg Marra, a product manager on News Feed at Facebook was quoted saying:

“News Feed is made by you. It tries to show the most interesting things possible for you, it’s a very personalized system. We try to let users take control…We learn based on what you’ve done in the past and we try to quickly learn about the things that you’re interested in.”

As Facebook and other social media platforms personalize content to appeal to their users, the news that increasingly appears on these platforms is becoming trapped in a sort of filter bubble (See “The Personalized Web”) exacerbated by an echochamber. This means that people are surrounding themselves on social media with friends, connections, groups, and pages that tend to agree with their own beliefs and views. This, coupled with the computer-‐generated filtering done by Facebook and other online sites, leads to a highly biased or skewed perception of the news.

In a New York Times article5 discussing recent findings by the National Bureau of Economic Research6 on social media’s effect on partisanship, technology reporter Claire Cain Miller wrote:

“Social scientists have discovered that even though the Internet has vastly expanded the range of publications people can read and the ease with which they can find them, most still tend to read a variety of centrist viewpoints. But getting news on social networks like Twitter, versus publications’ own websites,

4 Washington Post, “What Facebook doesn’t show you.” 5 New York Times, “Social Media Deepens Partisan Divides. But Not Always.” 6 National Bureau of Economic Research, “Homophily, Group Size, and the Diffusion of Political Information in Social Networks.”


can be different. People see information only from people they choose to follow, the content is user-‐generated, and information travels quickly.”

This is especially trouble because according to a 2014 survey of U.S. adults, 50% of respondents who described themselves as “unaware” of political issues got their news via social media, while only 14% reported receiving their news in a newspaper.7 This suggests that because people only see self-‐selected content, they are not exposed to as many issues and ideas. This presents a problem because, as stated previously, the filter bubble further skews those issues and ideas.

The graphic above, from The Whip, shows the most shared sites on Facebook from September 2014. The Huffington Post was shared nearly 10 million times, while legacy brand The New York Times was shared only 2.5 million times.

In a New York Times article on Buzzfeed’s shifting media strategy8, Miller wrote:

7 Lauren Silva, “News Consumption Habits.” 8 New York Times, “Why Buzzfeed is Trying to Shift its Strategy.”


“While many people now find their news on Facebook, it’s easy to forget that very recently they found it on Google, and will surely find it somewhere else in the not-‐too-‐distant future. The danger for media companies, then, is to focus too much on the way stories are delivered and too little on what the pieces say. Buzzfeed has been clear about its strategy: Publish items that people want to share on social media.”

A problem arises when the Internet, specifically social media, becomes a breeding ground for subpar news sources. This is often the case with newer news sites that emphasize content virality over quality. Sites like The Huffington Post and Buzzfeed (two of the top shared websites in September 2014 according to the Independent Journal Review) are focused primarily on generating content that readers will share to their social networks.

Furthermore, in an apparent exercise of free speech, non-‐traditional news media attempt to join the conversation and increase democratization by presenting information to the public. In this case, the problem is that many people are now turning to online outlets as their primary or even sole source of news, despite the fact that the quality and integrity of these "journalists" is not held to the same standard as writers and reporters for traditional and professional news organizations. Hindman writes:

“The Web seems to have empowered a huge corps of individuals who function both as citizen-‐journalists and political commentators. Collectively, the weekly readership of the top dozen political blogs rivals that of Time, Newsweek, or the New York Times” (Hindman 4).

The Personalized Web

The media used to act as gatekeepers, but the Internet removed that human responsibility allowing everyone, in theory, access to political information. Unfortunately, as Eli Pariser explains in his book The Filter Bubble, in actuality, everyone is not given equal access. The Internet uses patterns and algorithms to decide what to ‘feed’ users and, oftentimes, leaves them with an ‘unhealthy diet’ of personalized content lacking in widespread opinions. As a shift from personal gatekeepers to algorithmic gatekeepers occurs, Pariser argues that these nonhuman gatekeepers are not endowed with the same ethics and values as their human predecessors. He goes on to argue that as algorithms become the world’s the curators and gatekeepers, we must ensure that they do not only provide us with relevant or desired


information, but also information that is important, uncomfortable, challenging, or from points of view other than our own.

As this new form of personalized web emerges, access to pertinent and important information becomes increasingly difficult to reach. With websites, such as Google or Facebook, implementing these personalization strategies, the populous will suffer from a lack of information; that is, while they may still be receiving news, they very well could remain unexposed to information that may make them feel challenged or uncomfortable. As John Stuart Mill, along with many other media scholars have proposed, discussion and challenge are essential parts of an effective democracy. Without the challenge and exposure to multiple points of view, how is anyone supposed to have an informed opinion on any topic? If Pariser’s so-‐called filter bubble truly exists, as I am in the process of studying, America should be very afraid for the very bedrock of democracy is being challenged.

Shown above are two "Trending" columns both taken at 3:15 pm on 4/30/14 by two different users. Both were taken by college students at the George Washington University in Washington DC, but one (left) was taken by a female, 21, originally

from Sarasota, Florida and the other (right) was taken by a male, 20, originally from Nashville, TN.


Democracy is, by definition, a system of government ruled by the people for the people. America prides itself on being the first democracy in the world. In actuality, America is a democratic republic, meaning that the citizens of our nation elect leaders (“by the people”) who then represent our interest in government (“for the people”). Theoretically, every member of the electorate would educate themselves properly by exposing themselves to information about all of the candidates and their political positions in order to best determine the best representative for this nation. With the Internet, this task should become easier for anyone to accomplish; however, the filter bubble is making it even harder.

In the past, if someone wanted to learn about the candidates he or she would pick up the morning newspaper or watch the six o’clock news. In today’s omnipresent news culture, information from both the left and the right should be more accessible. As Pariser explains, however, liberals are denied conservative information, and vice versa.

So, how is democracy to function if the electorate cannot educate themselves even if they want to? In a “now” world, where news sources are lucky to capture the audience’s attention for more than 140 characters, they are certainly facing unlikely odds if news readers have to actively work against the filter bubble to find information that may not fit their typical reading or viewing habits.

If these personalization techniques continue to be used, we must implement a strategy for ensuring that all information is given equal opportunity to be seen. It is no secret that many news organizations are slanted either to the left or the right, but this could actually work as a lubricant for democracy if they are all given equal access to reach audiences. While personalization may be beneficial social or consumer circumstances, political and media outlets must not be lumped in with the rest of the web if our democracy is to survive the digital age.

Possible Solutions

In order to maintain a democratic system, while also maintaining an educated public, I would argue that devising a system of accreditation for journalists and news organizations would allow the media to return to its multifaceted job as a watchdog, gate-‐keeper, and informant to the public. The system would not be a form of censorship or restriction over the media. It would be an attempt at professionalizing the journalism industry and would allow the media help the country return to the founding principle of the country: democracy.


In order for democracy to work, it needs to be facilitated by an informed citizenry and educated public. In his “Burglar Alarm Standard” theory, Zaller argues that the news should cater to the least-‐informed members of the citizenry through infotainment because currently traditional news organizations, like NPR and the New York Times, cater to educated, upper-‐class people. While Zaller misses the mark on the means by which the less-‐informed members of the public should be included in news information, he is correct on the fact that the majority of people are not upper-‐class, educated people; but they still have a right and responsibility to be a part of the electorate in their own nation. In order to fill this gap of informed news, bloggers and other forms of new media have emerged on the Internet.

The accreditation system would work to ensure that the public receives the best news possible. The accreditation process would work similar to the legal or medical professions. Journalists and news organizations applying for accreditation would have to take a test, similar to the Bar or Medical Boards Exam, which would cover basic journalistic principles: bias, ethics, journalistic integrity, etc. Anyone could apply for this accreditation, which would give these journalists access (via press passes, etc.). While the practice of journalism would not be limited to those who were accredited, those journalists and news organizations with official accreditation would be viewed as more reliable and esteemed.

This system would contribute to a better-‐democratized system of politics and media in today’s digital world. As the technological landscape changes, and with it the face of American politics, it is important for our democracy that the media keeps up. History has shown that professionalization of various industries has led to their continued stability and success (Waisbord), so it is time for journalism to unequivocally join this group of professions in order to ensure the long-‐term success of journalism in the age of the Internet and ultimately the long-‐term success of America’s democracy.


Further Research

The “My Facebook” Experiment

At the conclusion of the initial Facebook experiment, it became questionable as to whether or not the new Facebook identities created for the experiment were actually acting as new people. It appeared possible that my physical computer and location, despite my efforts to camouflage my identity, influenced the algorithms used by Facebook to filter news into the “Trending” column. The Internet outsmarted me.

A new Facebook experiment could test how personalization influenced Facebook’s Trending feature. If these columns are, in fact, personalized to each user’s individual interests, then I would argue that the combination of the electorate’s increased dependency on social media (Facebook) for news, in conjunction with Facebook’s provision of personalized news creates a lethal combination for American democracy.

Facebook describes “Trending” as a column that shows the popular topics and hashtags being talked about on Facebook. If these are truly representative of the trends on Facebook, they will not differ among users. A new Facebook experiment would seek to reveal that “Trending” does vary based on user background and, therefore, is ultimately contributing to the downfall of American democracy.

EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL

Ten participants would be chosen who will be instructed to capture computer screenshots (not mobile) of the stories appearing in their Trending column on Facebook for seven consecutive days. They would be asked to capture screenshots three times a day. Participation would be voluntary and nonrandom, reflecting various unique geographical locations.


At the onset of the test, each participant would complete a biographical and demographical survey that would help me to create a basic profile of each participant. The profiling would include age, gender, race, political affiliations, top frequented websites, and Facebook profile likes.

As the experiment continues, I would collect the three screenshots from each participant daily and compile a database. Using a coding sheet, each story appearing in “Trending” would be assigned a News Category and Bias.

At the end of the collection period, participants would complete a post-‐experiment survey in which they would be asked about the trends and news stories they saw (and could recall) from the past week.

The data would then be analyzed and conclusions would be drawn using this data.


Acknowledgments

Foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my research advisor and mentor, Dr. Kerric Harvey. The idea for this research project spawned from many of the ideas discussed in Dr. Harvey’s Changing Media Technology course which always challenged me to challenge conventional ideas about the media and the technologies used to disseminate it. Over the past year, Dr. Harvey has been an incredible mentor in this research process. She has pushed me to ask big questions and dive deep into my research, while supporting me and helping me navigate the world of academic research.

I would like to thank Frank Sesno, Kim Gross, Michael Shanahan, and Tiffany Trawick for their departmental support in getting approvals and easing the research process for Dr. Harvey and myself.

Special mentions to the GW Columbian College of Arts and Sciences and GW’s Office of Human Research. To CCAS, thank you for the financial assistance via research grant money in this project. To OHR, thank you for the quick and constant support in the research approval process.

Last, a huge thank you to the entire staff at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs for their support throughout my time as a student there, their invaluable lessons, and their constant challenges to rethink the way I view the media.


Works Cited

§ Bennett, W. Lance. "The Burglar Alarm That Just Keeps Ringing: A Response to Zaller." Political Communication 20.2 (2003): 131-‐38. Print.

§ Benton, Joshua. "The New L.A. Times Redesign Would like to Write That Tweet for You, Thank You Very Much." Nieman Lab. Nieman Foundation, 5 May 2014. Web. 12 Sept. 2014. <http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/05/the-‐new-‐l-‐a-‐times-‐redesign-‐would-‐like-‐to-‐write-‐that-‐tweet-‐for-‐you-‐thank-‐you-‐very-‐much/>.

§ Carr, Nicholas G. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Print.

§ Halberstam, Yosh, and Brian Knight. "Homophily, Group Size, and the Diffusion of Political Information in Social Networks: Evidence from Twitter." NBER. National Bureau of Economic Research, Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://papers.nber.org/tmp/20128-‐w20681.pdf>.

§ Hampton, Keith, Lee Rainie, Weixu Lu, Maria Dwyer, Inyoung Shin, and Kristen Purcell. "Social Media and the 'Spiral of Silence'" Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center, 26 Aug. 2014. Web. 3 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-‐media-‐and-‐the-‐spiral-‐of-‐silence/>.

§ Herrera, Tim. "What Facebook Doesn’t Show You." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 19 Aug. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-‐intersect/wp/2014/08/18/what-‐facebook-‐doesnt-‐show-‐you/>.

§ Hindman, Matthew Scott. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2009. Print.

§ Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York UP, 2006. Print.

§ Matsa, Katerina, and Amy Mitchell. "8 Key Takeaways about Social Media and News." Pew Research Centers Journalism Project RSS. Pew Research Center, 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/8-‐key-‐takeaways-‐about-‐social-‐media-‐and-‐news/>.

§ McChesney, Robert Waterman, and John Nichols. The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution That Will Begin the World Again. Philadelphia, PA: Nation, 2010. Print.


§ Mill, John Stuart, and Elizabeth Rapaport. On Liberty. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1978. Print.

§ Miller, Claire Cain. "Social Media Deepens Partisan Divides. But Not Always." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/upshot/social-‐media-‐deepens-‐partisan-‐divides-‐but-‐not-‐always.html?smid=tw-‐nytimes&_r=0&referrer&abt=0002&abg=0>.

§ Miller, Claire Cain. "Why BuzzFeed Is Trying to Shift Its Strategy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Aug. 2014. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/upshot/why-‐buzzfeed-‐is-‐trying-‐to-‐shift-‐its-‐strategy.html?referrer=&abt=0002&abg=0>.

§ Mitchell, Amy, Mark Jurkowitz, and Kenneth Olmstead. "Social, Search and Direct." Pew Research Centers Journalism Project RSS. Pew Research Center, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Sept. 2014. <http://www.journalism.org/2014/3/13/social-‐search-‐direct/>.

§ Pariser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York, NY: Penguin /Penguin, 2012. Print.

§ Somaiya, Ravi. "How Facebook Is Changing the Way Its Users Consume Journalism." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/business/media/how-‐facebook-‐is-‐changing-‐the-‐way-‐its-‐users-‐consume-‐journalism.html?_r=1>.

§ "The Biggest Facebook Publishers of September 2014." The Whip. N.p., 7 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. <http://blog.newswhip.com/index.php/2014/10/biggest-‐facebook-‐publishers-‐september-‐2014>.

§ Waisbord, Silvio R. Reinventing Professionalism: Journalism and News in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Polity, 2013. Print.

§ Zaller, John. "A New Standard of News Quality: Burglar Alarms for the Monitorial Citizen." Political Communication 20.2 (2003): 109-‐30. Web.

Documents

Journalism in the 21st Century_LBSilva_FINAL