When news about smoking reaches the public

(1)

When news about smoking

reaches the public

A critical discourse analysis of two Dutch newspapers in the case of a

lawsuit against the tobacco industry

Name M.M. van Eysden

Student number S3511782

Supervisor Dr. S.A. Eldridge II

Second reader Dr. A. Heinrich

Study program MA Media Studies, Dutch track Journalistiek

Date 5 October 2018

Words 22117 (bibliography and appendix excl.)

‘Justitia’ by O.C. van Eysden

The illustration shows the criminalised tobacco industry on the one side of the scale and the anti-‐smoking community on the other side.

(2)

ABSTRACT

In September 2016 Bénédicte Ficq filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry on behalf of two lung cancer patients, accusing them of wilfully designing tobacco in such a way that it becomes difficult to quit smoking. The case raised considerable debate, specifically around the domains of individual liberties and public health. Due to its relevance for health policy makers and for academics looking into normativity in journalism, it is worth investigating how audiences respond to news about this lawsuit. The theoretical framework builds on normativity and ethics, authority, audience engagement and discourse analysis theory. This research then performed a critical discourse analysis, looking at comments on news posts on Facebook about the lawsuit against the tobacco industry, posted in the period 2016-‐2018 by two Dutch newspapers, de Volkskrant and De Telegraaf. It specifically looked at the discourse types used to build arguments in comments and finally filtered out the following ideologies that underlie the comments: individual agency advocate, public health advocate,

oppositional, humorous and cultural. Future research could endeavour to learn more about

the prominence of these ideologies in society by quantifying this study or by extending it to other news media and social networking sites. In order to understand more about the way discourses unfold online and how these differ between newspapers, researchers could also look into the considerations of news media when they post news on social media. Finally researchers could also look into social media users’ considerations when commenting on social media news posts in order to understand more about the population that is being researched in these studies. This study showed that the public frequently falls back on the values of individual liberties and public health, emphasising the need for more research into these values.

KEYWORDS

Critical discourse analysis, risk information, audience engagement, audience behaviour, Facebook, journalism, normativity, smoking

(3)

LIST OF FIGURES

III: METHODOLOGY

TABLE 1. SEARCH NEWS POSTS ... 29

TABLE 2. NEWS POSTS SAMPLE ... 30

TABLE 3. CODING SHEET ... 32

IV: RESULTS FIGURE 1. BUTTONS ON FACEBOOK ... 39

FIGURE 2. REACTIONS ON FACEBOOK ... 40

FIGURE 3. QUANTITATIVE ENGAGEMENT DE VOLKSKRANT ... 41

FIGURE 4. QUANTITATIVE ENGAGEMENT DE TELEGRAAF ... 41

FIGURE 5. DISCOURSE TYPES IN ALL COMMENTS/REPLIES ... 42

FIGURE 6. POST 2 ... 51

FIGURE 7. POST 10 ... 52

FIGURE 8. POST 13 ... 53

FIGURE 9. POST 21 ... 54

TABLE 4. QUANTITATIVE ENGAGEMENT ... 40

TABLE 5. DISCOURSE TYPES OF HEADLINES ... 51

TABLE 6. AMOUNT OF POSTS PER QUARTER OF THE YEAR ... 55

TABLE 7. DISCOURSE TYPES IN FIRST POST VS LAST POST ... 56

EXAMPLE 1. SELF-‐DETERMINATION, COMMENT 4.4 ... 43

EXAMPLE 2. SELF-‐DETERMINATION, COMMENT 20.6 ... 43

EXAMPLE 3. CYNICAL CRITCIAL, COMMENT 7.7 ... 43

EXAMPLE 4. CYNICAL CRITICAL, COMMENT 14.3 ... 44

EXAMPLE 5. ANTI-‐TOBACCO MANUFACTURER, COMMENT 5.3 ... 44

(5)

EXAMPLE 7. OFF-‐TOPIC, COMMENT 20.11 ... 45

EXAMPLE 8. ANTI-‐SMOKING, COMMENT 9.5.4 ... 45

EXAMPLE 9. ANTI-‐SMOKING, COMMENT 14.2.4 ... 45

EXAMPLE 10. SARDONIC, COMMENT 16.2.3 ... 46

EXAMPLE 11. SCIENTIFIC, COMMENT 1.1.5 ... 46

EXAMPLE 12. SCIENTIFIC, COMMENT 2.1.1 ... 46

EXAMPLE 13. SCIENTIFIC, COMMENT 3.7 ... 47

EXAMPLE 14. COMICAL, COMMENT 21.3.3 ... 47

EXAMPLE 15. MATTER OF PRIORITIES, COMMENT 5.1 ... 48

EXAMPLE 16. MATTER OF PRIORITIES, COMMENT 7.1.2 ... 48

EXAMPLE 17. DEPENDENT, COMMENT 10.3.3 ... 48

EXAMPLE 18. DEPENDENT, COMMENT 4.4.3 ... 48

EXAMPLE 19. ANTI-‐GOVERNMENT, COMMENT 17.3 ... 49

EXAMPLE 20. UNCLEAR, COMMENT 1.3.1 ... 49

EXAMPLE 21. ZEITGEIST, COMMENT 20.3 ... 49

EXAMPLE 22. PHILOSOPHICAL, COMMENT 4.1 ... 50

EXAMPLE 23. PRO-‐SMOKING, COMMENT 20.8 ... 50

EXAMPLE 24. PRO-‐LAWSUIT, COMMENT 6.6 ... 50

EXAMPLE 25. COMMENT 19.4 ... 57 EXAMPLE 26. COMMENT 12.2 ... 57 EXAMPLE 27. COMMENT 12.3.4 ... 57 EXAMPLE 28. COMMENT 10.3 ... 58 EXAMPLE 29. COMMENT 10.3.1 ... 58 EXAMPLE 30. COMMENT 9.7 ... 58 EXAMPLE 31. COMMENT 10.3.2 ... 59 EXAMPLE 32. COMMENT 17.1 ... 59 EXAMPLE 33. COMMENT 17.1.1 ... 59 EXAMPLE 34. COMMENT 17.1.2 ... 59

(6)

EXAMPLE 35. COMMENT 17.1.3 ... 59 EXAMPLE 36. COMMENT 17.1.4 ... 59 EXAMPLE 37. COMMENT 17.1.5 ... 59 EXAMPLE 38. COMMENT 18.1.4 ... 60 EXAMPLE 39. COMMENT 7.1 ... 60 EXAMPLE 40. COMMENT 15.2 ... 61 EXAMPLE 41. COMMENT 19.2.3 ... 61 EXAMPLE 42. COMMENT 10.2 ... 61 V: DISCUSSION EXAMPLE 43. SCIENTIFIC, COMMENT 2.1.1 ... 62

EXAMPLE 44. SCIENTIFIC, COMMENT 3.7 ... 63

EXAMPLE 45. COMMENT 1.2.3 ... 65 EXAMPLE 46. COMMENT 4.1.4 ... 65 EXAMPLE 47. COMMENT 9.5.5 ... 66 EXAMPLE 48. COMMENT 3.1 ... 66 EXAMPLE 49. COMMENT 7.3 ... 67 EXAMPLE 50. COMMENT 17.3.1 ... 68 EXAMPLE 51. COMMENT 3.2.3 ... 68 EXAMPLE 52. COMMENT 3.3.1 ... 69 EXAMPLE 53. COMMENT 20.3 ... 69 EXAMPLE 54. COMMENT 6.1 ... 73 EXAMPLE 55. COMMENT 14.3.4 ... 73 FIGURE 10. THE IDEOLOGY FILTER ... 64

FIGURE 11. POST 15 ... 72

TABLE 6. AMOUNT OF POSTS PER QUARTER OF THE YEAR ... 70

(7)

APPENDIX

(8)

Interesting things have been happening in the world of public health in the Netherlands. In September 2016, Bénédicte Ficq, lawyer at ‘Ficq & Partners Advocaten’, filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry on behalf of two lung cancer patients (ANP, 2018a). Soon thereafter, several Dutch health organisations joined her case (NHG, 2018; NVK, 2018; Verslavingskunde Nederland, 2018). This lawsuit ties in with a broader discussion in society, which could be seen as a ‘crusade’ against smoking. Only recently the Dutch Higher Court in The Hague expanded the already existing ban on smoking in public spaces with an additional ban on designated smoking areas in the hospitality business (Paauwe, 2018).

This has led to a broader discussion, where one can ask where personal liberties end and public health begins and vice versa. Recent figures show that in 2017 21,7% of the Dutch population older than twelve smokes (CBS, 2018a). Hence, with these far-‐reaching measures against smoking, the government interferes to quite an extent with the self-‐determination of a significant part of the people. How do people react to that? Although research looked into the argumentation of media in coverage of smoking (Schulz, Hartung and Fiordelli, 2011), into “citizen support for a government’s smoking policies” (Chang, Jacobson and Zhang, 2013, p. 1153) and into the framing of smoking by news media (Fahy, Trench and Clancy, 2012; Kenterelidou, 2012), it has not yet looked into what the public does with news about smoking.

Knowing how members of a public react to news about smoking and knowing what they do with that news is relevant for several research fields. First of all, it contributes to the field of journalism studies and specifically work looking at normativity within journalism, which asks: what should journalism do, and what should journalism be, and how existing norms in the field of journalism (should) infuse the practice and its products (Steel, 2017). From this study, it becomes interesting to look at what people do with news around a specific public health discussion, and how that relates to journalistic norms and larger questions of normativity. At some point, those norms should be communicated to the public (Eldridge II and Steel, 2016). Thereafter, the public has the opportunity to respond to the framing of these norms through their engagement with news content. Preferably, from the perspective of journalism, they act on it in a way that supports the goals and visions of

(9)

journalism, primarily by taking news as informative knowledge, and acting on that knowledge. As Park argued, “news performs somewhat the same functions for the public that perception does for the individual man; that is to say, it does not so much inform as orient the public, giving each and all notice as to what is going on” (1940, p. 677). However, at this point we do not know yet what happens when the norms of journalism in the case of news about smoking reach the public, and in particular how this takes place in a digital context. This research looks into that.

From these findings, important understanding of the relationship between news and publics can also be explored for the field of health communication. There it is also relevant to know what happens when news about smoking reaches citizens. Does it strengthen the citizen’s support for anti-‐smoking laws or does it increase their need for personal liberty?

Using critical discourse analysis to examine how news about smoking is conveyed to publics, and how publics react to this news, this research therefore looks into how people engage with news coverage on smoking. It does so by specifically examining the case of the ‘Ficq’ lawsuit against the tobacco industry. It looks at people’s comments on Facebook posts about the aforementioned lawsuit by two Dutch newspapers, de Volkskrant and De Telegraaf. While most research on discourse take “snapshots” rather than investigating the discourse over time (Carvalho, 2008, p. 164), this thesis looks at one discourse ‘theme’ – the lawsuit against smoking – and the ways in which it was covered by the news over a period of two years. That allows the researcher to draw conclusions on the change of discourse over time.

The main research question is:

RQ: How do people engage with news coverage by de Volkskrant and De Telegraaf on

the lawsuit against the tobacco industry on Facebook?

Because the lawsuit has been regularly covered during the preceding years, conclusions can also be drawn on the possible change in discourses over time. Therefore, a sub-‐question that can be answered, is:

(10)

SQ1: How did audience engagement with posts by de Volkskrant and De Telegraaf on

Facebook change over time in the case of the lawsuit against the tobacco industry?

Secondly, since the research compares two newspapers, a quality newspaper and a tabloid-‐style newspaper, conclusions can also be drawn on the difference in discourse between these two newspapers. A second sub-‐question therefore is:

SQ2: How does audience engagement with posts on Facebook in the case of the

lawsuit against the tobacco industry differ between de Volkskrant and De Telegraaf?

The thesis starts off with a theoretical framework, which establishes the theoretical background that is needed in order to be able to contextualise the empirical study and findings later on in this thesis. The framework sets out by exploring research examining journalism’s normativity and journalism ethics, and specifically looking at these in relation to traditional and modern roles of journalists. The framework then turns to journalistic authority, its challenges and how these have been influenced by ongoing processes of digitalisation. Thirdly, it looks at audience behaviour and audience engagement, building upon a psychological theory, called RISP, risk information seeking and processing (Griffin, Dunwoody and Neuwirth, 1999). Finally, attention is given to the theories underlying critical discourse analysis, which are crucial to this thesis and its methods.

Chapter three, methodology, first explains more about the chosen method of this study. It then clarifies how the sample was obtained and what it looks like. Thirdly, it lays out the various categories of discourse types used in the research. Then the chapter turns to the limitations of the chosen study design. It concludes with the ethical considerations of the research design and a critical reflection of the researcher.

The results chapter first shortly shows the obtained metadata of the sample. It then examines the various discourse types that were found in the research, and it looks at engagement over time, comparing the results of the two newspapers. Finally, interesting patterns and unexpected results are addressed.

The discussions chapter starts off with a deeper analysis of the results, before incorporating the theoretical framework to contextualise them. The third section answers

(11)

the main research question and the two sub-‐questions. Finally further limitations are discussed.

The conclusion shortly summarises the research by reiterating the key points of each chapter and proposes directions for possible future research. Finally, it brings the results into larger perspective, explaining the relevance of this study for journalism, journalism studies and society.

(12)

II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study focuses on the ways audiences engage with news about a lawsuit against the tobacco industry on the social media platform Facebook. However, in order to explore this, there are several aspects to consider which contextualise the way in which information reaches the public and how they engage with it.

First of these, journalism has created its own norms and ideals over the years, guiding ideas of what journalism is and what journalism should be. These questions have been researched in studies of journalism normativity and journalism ethics. In addressing the main research question it is particularly interesting to look at the norms of journalism and how these norms emerge in news. To answer this question, it is necessary to dive into journalism’s normative claims and journalism ethics in general. This theoretical framework therefore firstly looks at traditional roles of journalists and how these have changed over the years. Then, the foundation of journalism ethics and its core discussions are explored and put into the context of the Dutch media landscape.

Secondly, journalistic authority is covered. The theoretical framework looks at current perspectives on journalistic authority and specifically looks at how journalistic authority takes place, and how it has changed, in a digital context. This includes asking: How has the digitalisation of news influenced the way audiences and journalists themselves value journalism and its authority? The framework then examines studies of audience behaviour and audience engagement with news. It partly builds on the RISP model, which was first proposed by Griffin, Dunwoody and Neuwirth, and helps to explain “the evaluative behaviors of the information user” (1999, p. S231).

Afterwards, the framework outlines the theories underlying critical discourse analysis in order to underpin the methodological considerations, which are further discussed in chapter three. Finally, the theoretical framework concludes with a section in which all of the topics above are tied to the case researched in this thesis: the lawsuit against the tobacco industry.

2.1 Normativity in journalistic roles and ethics of journalism

As mentioned before, journalists have defined throughout the years what it means to be a journalist and what the core values of the field of journalism are. Scholars in the field of

(13)

normativity and ethics have also been dealing with these questions for decades. After all, normativity and ethics lay the cornerstones of the journalism profession.

Ward defines ethics as: “the analysis, evaluation and promotion of what constitutes correct conduct and virtuous character in light of the best available principles” (2009, p. 295). Hence, ‘ethics’ is not something static. It changes under the influence of all sorts of developments, of which digitalisation is one (Ward, 2017). Ward therefore argues that journalism ethics needs to be re-‐evaluated in light of a digital context:

The last point, on social engagement, is further discussed in section 2.3. This section focuses on the fluidity of ‘ethics’. As can be concluded from Ward’s arguments above, ‘ethics’ is both time-‐dependent as well as culturally dependent. Therefore, we will look at normativity and ethics both through a temporal lens and through a cultural lens, asking: How did these notions change over time, and what is the Dutch context that should be taken into account?

Firstly, it is important to look at role perceptions, a field of work which predominantly builds upon previous work by Weaver and Wilhoit who outlined several traditional roles of journalism (1996). They proposed four different “clusters” which encompass the various roles journalists can have: ‘interpretive/investigative’, ‘disseminator’, ‘adversarial’, and ‘populist mobilizer’ (1996, p. 137). The interpretive role was, at the time, considered the most important by journalists and believed to be “an essential of journalistic life” (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996, p. 137). It emphasises the duty of critically “investigating government claims, analyzing and interpreting complex problems, and discussing public policies in a timely way” (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996, p. 137) and could therefore also be seen as the so often mentioned ‘watchdog’ role. According to the cross-‐national ‘Worlds of Journalism’ study this watchdog role is still regarded as vital to the role of a journalist (Hanitzsch et al,

The [old] mindset is unsuited for two reasons: (1) it views journalism ethics as primarily the careful observance of pre-‐ established, static principles for a (once) stable practice, not the more dynamic process of participating in an evolving discourse about (and reinvention of) principles in an unstable journalism environment; and (2) it favors untenable, dualistic formulations of key media principles, such as objectivity, constructing a ‘wall’ between fact and value, reporting and interpreting, reporting and social engagement.

(Ward 2017: 36)

(14)

2011, p. 280). Interestingly, this is globally agreed upon between journalists. There also exists broad global consensus on the need for “detachment and non-‐involvement” and the belief that “personal beliefs and convictions” should not find their way into journalistic reporting (Hanitzsch et al, 2011, p. 286).

The disseminator role focuses on providing information to the “widest possible audience” and to provide timely information (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996, p. 230). Especially the latter, timely reporting, is interesting when put into a more modern context. Where deadlines used to be set on a specific time of day in order to make it to the press on time, today’s journalism struggles with “continuous deadlines”, also resulting in news stories that are never ‘finished’, but can always be improved, updated or edited (Saltzis, 2012, p. 702). Earlier work by Saltzis and Dickinson shows how publishing a news story a second earlier than your competition, is of increasing importance to journalists and their newsrooms (2008, p. 224). One could say therefore, that, although the definition of the disseminator role has stayed the same, in modern times its meaning has changed and maybe with it, its importance may also have increased.

The adversarial role emphasises scepticism towards officials, such as business people and government spokesmen and has possibly also gained more relevance for Western journalism in recent times. Some argue for example, that in response to the misinformation coming from the Trump administration, journalists should act more as adversarial journalists than they do now (Skewes, 2018)12_{.
The
populist
mobilizer
role,
which
focuses
on
the} provision of entertainment, was long considered not to be an essential role for journalism, according to journalists themselves (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1996, p. 140). However, as developments in new technologies fuelled the emergence of new forms of journalism (Hanusch and Banjac, 2019, p. 29), the position of the traditional ‘populist mobilizer’ role as well as other journalistic roles, needed to be re-‐evaluated.

Hanitzsch and Vos did so accordingly, not only because traditional roles are often solely applicable to journalists “in the political context” (2018, p. 147) and that lifestyle journalism, among other forms, have been ignored. They also re-‐evaluate our understanding of roles because the old, traditional roles, like the ones Weaver and Wilhoit proposed, are

1_{In
practice,
this
may
already
be
visible
in
the
documentary
series:
‘The
Fourth
Estate’,
in
which
a
filmmaker
follows}

journalists from the New York Times in their work of reporting on the Trump administration.

2_{The
article
by
Skewes
(2018)
was
not
fully
accessible
to
the
researcher
apart
from
the
abstract,
which
contained
the}

(15)

centred in “(1) a profoundly Western framework oriented toward (2) the media’s contribution to democracy and citizenship” (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2018, p. 147). An example of this would be that “developing societies and transitional democracies” are relatively positive towards “supporting official policies” (Hanitzsch et al, 2011, p. 281). Paradoxically, these are the same countries, they argue, that have a relatively high level of ‘interventionism’ – promoting or advocating certain views – which is possibly due to the fact that these countries often go through various societal changes rapidly (Hanitzsch et al, 2011, p. 281). Hence, the traditional ‘adversarial’ role, proposed by Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) is not applicable to these kind of countries, or at least not prioritised among journalistic roles in these countries. Hanitzsch and Vos therefore proposed a new set of roles, which is more inclusive (2018, p. 147). They assign roles to two different ‘domains’: the ‘domain of political life’, within which they map 18 roles, and the ‘domain of everyday life’, within which they map 7 roles.

When journalists are working in the ‘political domain’, their audiences are equal to citizens, which means that it is the journalist’s task to provide enough information for the audiences in order for them to perform their role as a citizen well (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2018; Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2014). Such a performance prioritises, in some societies, “individual liberties and freedom, while other societies may prioritize collective needs and social harmony” (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2018, p. 152). Building on Mehra’s work (1989)3_{the
authors} find that the liberal view of prioritising “individual liberties and freedom” is especially shared amongst western democracies, while other, particularly non-‐western, societies may value social harmony or the common good the highest, leading to different tasks and responsibilities for journalists (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2018, p. 152).

This ties in with two of the four theories Ward explains in his categorisation of journalism ethics: ‘liberal theory’ and ‘community and care theory’ (2009, pp. 297-‐301). According to ‘liberal theory’, “journalists should constitute an independent press that informs citizens and acts as a watchdog on government and abuses of power” (Ward, 2009, p. 298). ‘Community and care theory’, however, stresses “the impact of journalism on communal values and caring relationships” (Ward, 2009, p. 300). This difference and the discussions raised by Hanitzsch and Vos may suggest a strong divide between Western and non-‐Western journalists. However, this needs to be brought into discussion with the findings

(16)

of the ‘Worlds of Journalism’ research, finding the profession globally agrees, “to stray away from influencing public opinion and advocating social change” (Hanitzsch et al, 2011, p. 280). Several factors could be at play here. One, is the timing – where each of these studies address these questions at different stages of journalistic development – and the other is culturally, where differences can change as cultures also shift, as noted above.

However, it is also important to note that surveys among journalists are not always full reflections of reality, as Hallin and Mancini found in their research, when the differences in how journalists work were larger than journalists’ answers in surveys suggested (2004, p. 303). This also does not take into consideration the finding highlighted earlier, that “developing societies and transitional democracies” often support official policies rather than criticise them (Hanitzsch et al, 2011, p. 281). The fact that media tend to adapt to the wants and needs of a public also needs to be taken into account, as Bekkers et al argue (2011, p. 210) drawing upon Baumgartner and Jones’ work4: Media often take up prevalent discussions in society, and can consequently “generate the snowball effect and thereby help open up a ‘policy window’” (Bekkers et al, 2011, p. 210). From this argument, the dynamics at play between the publics journalism serves and the ways these publics and their own activities factor into news coverage should be briefly noted. This dynamic underpins public interest claims on the one hand, but also the prominence of news that is ‘interesting to the public’ rising to the level of policy discussion, or at least prominent debate. To contextualise this within the examples explored in this thesis: a smoker getting lung cancer is unsurprising, and unlikely to garner news coverage, but a smoker suing the tobacco industry for lung cancer is. By picking up such a story, anti-‐smoking policies might become more newsworthy as well, and indirectly advocated by the media leading to the opening up of the ‘policy window’. In summary, even where and when journalists believe they should not advocate social change, they may do so in practice, by picking up certain opinions and views and leaving others in the shaping of the public discourse of information that comprises news.

2.1.1 The Dutch Context

As mentioned before, although there are various globally agreed upon norms and values in journalism, there also exist differences between cultures and countries (Hanitzsch

4_{Original
book
could
not
be
obtained.
Full
reference
is:
Baumgartner,
F.,
Jones,
B.
(1993).
Agendas
and
instabilities
in}

(17)

et al, 2011, pp. 286-‐287). What is considered ‘ethical’, therefore also differs between cultures.

Therefore, with the research question in mind, it is important to have a look at normativity and ethics in a Dutch context, as well as Dutch media culture and the roots of media In the Netherlands. Before the 1960s the Dutch population was strongly ‘pillarised’ (Dutch: ‘verzuild’), which while no longer formalised, has nevertheless continued to have a noticeable impact on Dutch media and Dutch culture (Semetko, 1998, p. 140). In the pre-‐ 1960s structure, pillarisation meant that every social group, Catholics, Protestants and socialists, had their own school, political party, newspaper and broadcasting company. As a Dutch Catholic, you would probably read de Volkskrant, listen to radio programmes of the KRO (English: Catholic Radio Broadcasting) and vote for the KVP (English: Catholic People’s Party). A Dutch socialist for that matter, would read Het Parool, listen to VARA (English: Association of Workers’ Radio Amateurs) and vote for the PvdA (English: Labour party).

This ‘pillarised’ background reflects a notion that democracy is supposed to support the social interests of individuals. In practice with regard to journalism, such a historic background often leads to a “politics-‐in-‐broadcasting system” (Hallin and Mancini, 2004, p. 54). Such a broadcasting system is typical for the North/Central European or Democratic Corporatist Model, to which not only the Netherlands belongs, but also geographically nearby countries such as Norway, Denmark and Germany. It is characterised by strong “political parallelism”, strong partisanship and a well-‐developed mass media press (Hallin and Mancini, 2003, p. 144; Van der Wurff and Schönbach, 2014, p. 125). The strong ‘political parallelism’ that used to characterise the Netherlands during the age of pillarisation, weakened over time, however. While newspapers still strongly supported their respective political parties during the national elections of 1956 and regarded their audience as “subjects”, decades later in the 2003 election campaign, coverage “showed clear signs of [a] media logic” at play, rather than a political one (Brants and Van Praag, 2006, p. 38). This included “performance-‐driven campaign communications”, a strong media orientation towards the public, and overall less policy-‐driven content addressed towards different political parties, and more “horse race reporting” focusing on polls, and in general a “journalistic dominance” (Brants and Van Praag, 2006, pp. 37-‐39).

Although the Netherlands is in many respects a liberal country, it also needs to be taken into account that the Netherlands has had a well-‐developed welfare state for over a

(18)

century. Starting off at the end of the 19th century, when there was minimal support for the poor, disabled and sick, after the second world war the welfare state developed into a “highly collective” and “highly solidaristic” system (Van Oorschot, 2006, pp. 57-‐59). However, over the past few decades, this system has become less and less collective and solidarity has subsided (Van Oorschot, 2006, p. 72). The “economic globalisation”, “ageing of the population” and integration of migrants are all major challenges that have affected the design and function of the welfare state (Van Oorschot, 2006, p. 73-‐74). This is important to note, because it also influences the way healthcare is organised and therefore affects the role a government plays in public health policy.

With regard to journalism ethics in the Netherlands, there is “a high degree of consensus on professional standards of conduct” (Hallin and Mancini, 2004, p. 145). Furthermore, Dutch culture places a high value on the freedom of the press, and has been doing so for centuries (Van der Wurff and Schönbach, 2014, p. 125). According to Van Dalen and Deuze, the free press and the free market are kept in balance by “[t]he recognition of a social responsibility of the press” (2006, p. 460). Tied to this, is the independency of Dutch media from other actors (Hallin and Mancini, 2004, p. 145), such as the government (Van Dalen and Deuze, 2006, p. 460). Simultaneously, however, Dutch media are also considered “docile”, for example by respecting a public person’s privacy, even if it may influence their public behaviour or performance (Vanacker, 2014, p. 68).

2.2 Authority

Having established key discussions of journalism’s normative foundations, and the ethical building blocks underlying the news that eventually pops up on a Facebook news feed of a consumer explored in this research, it is now necessary to have a closer look at authority. For this study, that includes examining the influence of the Internet and the online presence of news organisations on journalistic authority.

Firstly, what is journalistic authority? Carlson defines journalistic authority as “a contingent relationship in which certain actors come to possess a right to create legitimate discursive knowledge about events in the world for others” (2017, pp. 182-‐183). Over time academics and the work field of journalism have become concerned about this authority (Carlson, 2017, pp. 2-‐3). Not without reason, since news organisations have increasingly been losing audiences (Carlson, 2017, p. 181) and their audiences’ trust (Van der Wurff and Schönbach, 2014, p. 121; Carlson, 2017, p. 186). As De Haan and Bardoel conclude in their

(19)

discussion of the performances of journalistic authority, “the debate on media performance has gradually intensified over the years” (2011, p. 241).

As a consequence of this intensified debate, media have tried to reassert their journalistic authority “by introducing new instruments of accountability and responsiveness” (De Haan and Bardoel, 2011, p. 242). Building upon previous work of Von Krogh5, Von Krogh and Nord refer to ‘accountability’ as the duty news organisations have to always be able to be held accountable for their reporting (Von Krogh and Nord, 2010, p. 192). ‘Accountability’ is not unchangeable, but should be seen “as a fluid dynamic of interaction” (Plaisance, 2000, p. 258). ‘Responsiveness’ relates to the interaction between news organisations and its audiences and, broadly speaking, to the way news organisations respond to feedback or comments from their audiences (De Haan and Bardoel, 2011, p. 242). The two are closely related, but not interchangeable. As De Haan and Bardoel explain: “Where responsiveness is taking the issues of the public into account, public accountability means justifying media performance to the public” (2011, p. 232).

This is where the Internet comes in. The Internet plays a significant part in the increasing importance of accountability and responsiveness (De Haan and Bardoel, 2011, p. 241). Respondents in interviews referred to by De Haan and Bardoel were asked whether more accountability would help close the gap between the media and their audience and answered that the gap was a result of Internet use and individualisation rather than lack of journalistic credibility. They did, however, believe that responsiveness would help close the gap (2011, p. 241). That confirms Carlson’s idea, which, drawing upon Williams’ Problems of Knowledge6_{,
states
that
journalism’s
authority
is
reinforced
when
the
public
responds
to
the} news: “To accept knowledge from someone signals a “double endorsement” of the knowledge itself and the legitimacy of the one espousing knowledge” (2017, p. 17).

“Digital platforms”, including social media, facilitate the implementing of responsiveness by news organisations (Acharya, 2015, p. 91). On Facebook, for example, the availability of comment sections means, that journalists and their newsrooms stand in (relatively) direct contact with their public. However, they still do so with an intermediate factor: the social media platform. That means that the reputation of the platform also

5_{Original
book
could
not
be
obtained
by
the
researcher.
Full
reference
is:
T.
von
Krogh.
(Ed.)
(2008)
Media
accountability}

today… and tomorrow.

6_{Original
book
could
not
be
obtained
by
the
researcher.
Full
reference
is:
Williams,
M.

(2001).
Problems
of
Knowledge:
A}

(20)

influences journalistic authority. After all, audience members follow de Volkskrant or De Telegraaf on their Facebook pages, but simultaneously see content (like advertisements or other members’ posts) that are not under the direct influence of either of the two papers. Objects like an online article, but also carriers like Facebook, can either evoke authority or reduce it. As Usher recently put it in discussing these factors in digital spaces: “objects themselves have agency, as do people that incorporate these objects into their lives” (2018, p. 568).

Furthermore, the interactiveness of the platform invites users to participate, while different social media platforms also enable the news to be presented in various ways, hopefully reaching a wider public (Acharya, 2015, p. 91; Hille and Bakker, 2013, p. 666)7. Finally, changes in ‘timeliness’ have also influenced the discussions around journalistic authority. As explained previously in the section on role perceptions, the digitalisation of journalism has changed the definition of ‘timeliness’, resulting in a deadline that was due a minute ago, rather than having two deadlines a day to be able to go to the press on time (Saltzis, 2012). That means that gatekeeping has also changed, which results in a speeded up verification process and in “intense competition to break stories immediately, much more than to get the stories right through careful scrutiny” (Acharya, 2015, p. 87).

2.3 Audience behaviour

In earlier sections, we have looked at normativity and ethics through a temporal lens as well as situating this discussion within a Dutch context. It is now necessary to bring Ward’s concept on ethics and engagement back into discussion, which was introduced in section 2.1. In his argument of explaining why ethics has to be reassessed, Ward argues that there is no “‘wall’ between […] reporting and social engagement”, but rather, that the two concepts are co-‐dependent and intertwined (2017, p. 36). Information does not just go from A to B unchanged. Information arrives at the audience, who then does something with it: the audience engages with the information. This can be individual engagement, when news influences the way an individual thinks about or acts on a certain topic, but it can also be interpersonal engagement, where news is discussed between persons on platforms (Smit, Heinrich and Broersma, 2018). Having a virtual environment, like Facebook or Twitter, for

7_{Examples
are
the
‘True
or
False’
series
by
UK
paper
The
Guardian,
offering
news
to
followers
on
Instagram
in
a
fast
and}

interactive way, or the Dutch paper de Volkskrant, showing how reporters made an interactive online publication about the Noord-‐Zuidlijn on Instagram and in showing how they produced it, increase their accountability.

(21)

such interpersonal discussions, is considered quite valuable (Ksiazek, 2018. p. 665). Research even shows that the amount of time spent on social media by college students, positively predicts their news engagement (i.e. the sharing of news) (Ha et al, 2018, p. 735). When looking at news engagement in the form of comments, positive predictors are for example: ‘controversial topics’ and ‘elections’. Controversial topics also, unsurprisingly, generate more hostile comments (Ksiazek, 2018, pp. 665-‐666).

Thus, people engage with information, albeit differently person-‐by-‐person. This prompts the question: Why is it that some people engage with information in one way and others in another?

2.3.1 The risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model

The risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model offers some answers to this question. It was first proposed by Griffin, Dunwoody and Neuwirth (1999) and attempts to explain why and how people seek and use risk information. Its validity has been partially or wholly proven in studies on health risks (Lu, 2015, p. 765; Yang et al, 2010, pp. 432-‐434; Yang et al, 2011, p. 873), environmental risks (Griffin et al, 2004, pp. 51-‐52; Kahlor, 2007, p. 429; Kahlor et al, 2006, p. 184; Yang, Kahlor and Li, 2014, p. 953; Yang et al, 2014, pp. 316-‐319; Rickard et al, 2014, pp. 46-‐47), industrial risks (Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 230) and slightly adapted in studies of risk with pests in household environments (Schoelitsz, Poortvliet and Takken, 2017, p. 1490) and risk with regard to food safety (Soane et al, 2015, pp. 75-‐76). One study that looked at ‘perceived and objective environmental risk’ related to ‘race and place of residence’ found little confirmation of the RISP model, but observed that perceived risk was mainly dependent on participants’ media use (Watson et al, 2013, p. 149). The RISP model has thus been tested and proven in a wide variety of situations, though none of these focus on the environment of people scrolling down their news feed and encountering health risk information passively, and their subsequent engagement with such information. It is still included in this research, however, because it helps to explain the variety in ways people engage with news that touches upon the health risks of certain behaviour.

As Soane and colleagues clarify, this model places “information seeking and information processing together as the dependent variables in their model” (2015, p. 73). There are several direct and indirect factors that influence the way people seek and use risk

(22)

information, as the RISP model proposes (Griffin, Dunwoody and Neuwirth, 1999; Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 216).

2.3.1 Direct factors in the RISP model

Directly influencing people’s risk behaviour are factors such as “information insufficiency, relevant channel beliefs, and perceived information gathering capacity” (Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 216). Information insufficiency means that people feel like they should have more knowledge than they have, which makes them more likely to search for information than people who do not feel ‘information insufficient’ (Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 218). ‘Relevant channel beliefs’ refers to the channel that offers information to the person and their “trustworthiness and usefulness” (Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 219), especially interesting in light of the previous discussion of journalistic authority. As Slovic notes, no risk communication strategy is good enough when people do not trust the messenger (1999, p. 697). The final direct factor, ‘perceived information gathering capacity’ refers to “an individual’s perceived ability to perform the information seeking and processing steps necessary for the outcome he or she desires, especially when an outcome requires more cognitive effort and nonroutine gathering of information” (Griffin et al, 2008, p. 289).

2.3.2 Indirect factor in the RISP model

Indirect factors that influence the way people seek and use risk information are: “perceived hazard characteristics, informational subjective norms, affective responses, and various individual characteristics” (Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 216). ‘Perceived hazard characteristics’ refers to the way people perceive risks objectively (through facts and figures) or subjectively (through emotions and trust, for example) (Griffin et al, 2008, p. 291; Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 219). ‘Informational subjective norms’ means that people can feel pressure to gather more information from other people around them (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188; Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 219). ‘Affective responses’ translates to “the more worried or anxious people feel toward the risk issue, the more likely they are to seek information regarding the topic” (Ter Huurne, Griffin and Gutteling, 2009, p. 219). Finally, there are several individual characteristics, such as

When news about smoking reaches the public