Public journalism 2.0 - Participants Not Spectator;
Is citizen journalism prevailing over traditional media as a trustworthy source of news?
MASTER THESIS
Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam Master Political Communication (MSc)
Elisabeth Neofytou Student ID: 10841938 Supervisor: Judith Möller 24.June 2016
This research investigates trust placed in news sources, both in regards to citizen journalism sources and professional journalism sources. This study significantly contributes to the broad field of communication science, more specifically it fills the research gap in regards to the consumer side of citizen journalism. An experimental study was employed to investigated the level of trust placed in news sources; citizen journalism compared to professional journalism. Moreover, political knowledge and credibility was added to the model and the influence of these variables were further assessed. A total of 131 respondents partook in this study, and was randomly assigned to three of the following conditions: The Guardian (Professional Journalism), Anonymous (Citizen Journalism) and no source (Control). The findings revealed a small significant difference between the groups in regards to professional sources. Professional journalism sourced content yielded higher
trustworthiness for respondents exposed to citizen journalism. Furthermore, no significant relationships were found when assessing political knowledge and credibility in relations to trust. However, credibility proved to be a significant predictor for trust, meaning that the more credible a source appears, the more trustworthy it is.
Introduction
An informed citizenry is crucial for a democracy, and journalism has long existed to serve as a disseminator of political and societal news. Nevertheless, professional journalism as represented by the mainstream press, has long been undergoing changes enhanced by online news service (Domingo, 2008). Moreover there has been an increase in recognition of citizen journalism (Kaufhold, Valenzuela and de Zuniga, 2010). The primary role of
professional journalism is to mobilizing information, trigger debates in the public sphere, reflect upon political issues, produce a knowledgeable citizenry and motivate political participation. A growing number of citizens are now participating this cycle (Nah and Chung, 2012).
Many scholars have buckled with the idea that citizen journalism is here to stay, and is therefore a phenomenon that needs to be studied and explored. Some research has been devoted to the implications related to user generated content in regards to traditional media, as well as the contributions. Mostly, research has been devoted to understand the user
(production) side of citizen journalism and not necessarily the consuming side of it.
Citizen Journalism is, from a normative perspective, contributing to society by giving insight into topics that concern us all, pooling multiple perspectives, allowing the audience to become more involved in the news dissemination, as support, fact checking and disproving news stories written by the main stream media (Allan, 2013). However, there are conflicting views on what and how citizen journalism contributes the world of news. There has been, to my knowledge, little research dedicated to examine whether citizen journalism is as prevalent as a source of information gathering and news consumption as one is led to believe. Research show that citizen journalism plays an important role in news production, as a source, but that is still within the frame of the mass media. Furthermore, some scholars argue that citizen
Comment [MJ1]: This sentence was
getting too long. Check throughout for long sentences and try to break them up.
journalism cannot be considered useful to the public sphere beyond its connection to professional journalism (Lotan et al., 2011). This research is of scientific relevance as it provides a first glance on the contributions of citizen journalism outside the medias frame, as an independent source rather than a tool for professional journalist. It is important to stress how under-researched this topic is, which is why this study is of valuable contribution to the pool of research on citizen journalism.
Citizen journalism has made its mark on current events, creating new and exciting venues for communication. However, this also makes it increasingly difficult for people to deal with the flow of information that is presented to society. Views and opinion from different groups in society, has a new and larger reach as means of social media and so on, which may very well have greater consequences than in the past. This is why it is important to understand how the public relate to citizen journalism and digital communications. Therefore, the question of trust in the alternative voices –and channels, other than the traditional and established ones, is important factor to consider. There has not been an extensive body of research in assessing the contribution of citizen journalism, and particularly not from an audience point of view. This study will examine whether information obtained through citizen journalism sources, when assessed as an independent news source, is deemed trustworthy and credible to a greater extent than traditional media. This is important to study to better
understand the mechanism of citizen journalism, and how this effects the public and society as a whole. Therefore, this research is of social relevance as it represents an added value to the the very scarce body of research dedicated to the consumer side of this relationship.
Furthermore, political knowledge is a prerequisite for processing political information and political news, and make rational decisions in society i.e. elections. However, previous research has mostly explored professional and citizen journalism and their role for political knowledge and participation. More specifically when comparing one to the other, as means of
fostering greater political knowledge and participation. (Kaufhold et al., 2010; Kaufhold et al., 2015). There has not been, to my knowledge, any research dedicated to explore the mediating affect of political knowledge in regards to trust and credibility placed in news, and one could assume that the more knowledgeable the more critical one is in regards to news sources, in regards to credibility and trustworthiness (Johnsen et al., 2007). This paper will therefore be the first of its kind to specifically examine trust placed in the media, considering both the type of news source, influenced by political knowledge, and the perceived credibility of the news content. To allow for comparison between the subjects on the basis of the effects of the treatment, an experimental design was employed to answer the overarching research question:
“Does the use of citizen journalism cites among news consumers promote a greater level of trust in source compared to traditional media, taking political knowledge and content
credibility into account?”
In order to examine the overarching research question, this paper will take an explanatory form, and address factors that may explain, as well as influence, the outcome variable, trust placed in news source. Furthermore, the role of political knowledge and credibility is examined and given a mediating role. Credibility of news content is assumed to also have a moderating effect on political knowledge and trust in news source, hence is further elaborated. The theoretical framework gives an overview of todays media landscape and how citizen journalism have come about, as well as explain what this phenomenon is. Followed by explaining the concept trust, and the factors influencing trust in regards to media outlets and the press. Furthermore, explore political knowledge and credibility, and how this may influence trust placed in news source. As research within this field is scarce, research questions are posed rather then hypothesizes, to further explore if there are any casual
relationships between the variables.
Theoretical framework
Old Vs. New Media“Convergence” is a term coined for rapid developments in media technology, markets, production, content, and reception. The term generally refers to the integration of formerly definite media technologies, and now, aspects that goes beyond technology itself, e.g. a participatory public (Quandt and Singer,2009) Developments in computer technology and communication networks are generally the reason for these changes, which not only affect people’s social life, but also the economy, politics, science, and the arts. Public
communication, as a whole, has been experiencing an intense shift. The once steady system of mainstream mass media is now facing, not only competition from within the industry, but from alternative news sources, citizen journalism included (Quandt and Singer, 2009).
The Internet has undergone major changes from what was first made available to anyone with the knowledge and equipment to deploy it, and until today. The Internet has after its conception evolved from the static Web 1.0 to today's interactive Web 2.0. (Bremnes, 2013). The latter term came into use in the mid-2000s to describe a web in which the audience is no longer passive recipients of information, but participants whom comment, create and publish content. It is this development that has led the thoughts and theories of the virtual public sphere, where anyone can participate in the public debate on equal footing with everyone else (Bremnes, 2013). Rettberg (2008) argues that the emergence of e.g. blogs are part of a fundamental shift in how we communicate; “Just a few decades ago, our media culture was dominated by a small number of media producers who distributed their publications and broadcasts to large, relatively passive audiences. Today, newspapers and television stations have to adapt to a new reality, where ordinary people create media and
share their creations online” (Rettberg, 2008, p.31).
News audience on the Internet is thus confronted with more options as Web 1.0 has evolved into Web 2.0. Traditional news channels are not alone in offering news stories and the audience are now in a position where they can decide where and from whom they want to get their news from. However, even though the options are there, it doesn’t necessarily mean the audience take advantage of it. According to Pew Research, 66 % still get their news from traditional mass media, whilst 44% get their news online, and amongst those, 37 % are news contributors, disseminators. Furthermore, most of the audience overlap and consume news from multiple platforms (Rainie, 2011).
Although the Internet has been hailed as a global arena where everyone can participate in diversity, where everyone gets their voices heard, there are some conflicting views. Curran and Witschge (2010) argues that blogs, for instance, are not assessed as a news source, as they found that people are not using it as a source of news nor for obtaining political information, but rather for entertainment information. However, even though Curran and Witschge (2010) deemed blogging a whiff of a moment thing, there are blogs that have survived the time of day, and become very influential. The Huffington Post, for example, started as a blog in 2005, and is now said to have almost attained news site status, with over 20 million monthly visitors (Lyon, 2010). They are now playing a part in setting the news agenda. Hoem and Schwebs (2010) argues that "Important public debates are increasingly recognized outside the
traditional media and traditional organizations and parties, and these discussions are likely to take place on blogs and in social networking groups (Hoem and Schwebs, 2010, p.171).
Regardless of whether the Internet has made it possible for anyone to reach out to the masses or not, there are some conflicting opinions in regards to the developments. One of the most pronounced critics is former media entrepreneur Andrew Keen. Keen (2007) believes that while allowing anyone to publish, expert knowledge is being undermined and society as a
whole are being faced with sources like online encyclopedia Wikipedia, that are not accurate. He also criticized the blogosphere for lack of requirements for objectivity and fact checks. What Keen touches upon is the importance of the publics’ critical attitudes towards the information they find online, particularly information coming from alternative channels, where there are no editors or fact checkers.
In the trenches on the opposite side of the battlefield we find Gant, whom denies the allegations from Keen (2007); that objectivity and knowledge are scarce in the blogosphere. Gant (2007) argues that we are all journalists now, and that citizen journalists in several cases are as knowledgeable as professional journalists - and often more. Grant (2007) argues that “numerous serious bloggers demonstrate high levels of commitment to balance and are intellectual honesty, in some cases more so than many mainstream journalists” (Gant, 2007, p.172)
There is no doubt that the emergence of blogs, and ultimately, also Twitter and other citizen journalism publications, has given the public access to news and information from other channels than the traditional media. However, Hoem and Schwebs (2010) argues that this, by means of digital technology, does not necessarily mean a strengthening of democracy: "That one speaks does not mean one is heard, and certainly not that one obtains political influence (Hoem and Schwebs, 2010, p. 167). However, it is not just being heard that is important. The public sphere, according to Habermas et al. (1974), is dependent upon everyone being heard, and that participants largely trust on another. Both of these
requirements must be met for the public sphere to actually function (Habermas, Lennox and Lennox, 1974). If everyone is not heard, there is no proper public, nor if everyone is heard, but not trusted. There is no point in getting the word out, if nobody trusts you or believes what you say, hence trust is a key concept to give attention to (Hoem and Schwebs, 2010).
Citizen Journalism
A term that is often used in conjunction with alternative news sources and alternative journalism is so-called "citizen journalism" or “participatory journalism” (from here onwards referred to as citizen journalism). Luke Goode (2009) argues that there are no clear nor limited definition of the term, but that it refers to several online activities where "ordinary" people perform journalistic activities. However, citizen journalism is not inextricably linked to the Internet, nor is it a new phenomenon.
Citizen Journalism, defined by Stuart Allan (2013) is “a type of first person reportage in which ordinary individuals temporarily adopt the role of a journalist in order to participate in news making, often spontaneously during a time of crisis, accident, tragedy or disaster, when they happen to be present on the scene” (Stuart Allan, 2013, p.9). This definition encompasses an all-round, thorough, explanation of what citizen journalism is, and touches upon the relevance in regards to news making and civic perspectives, which is why this study embrace this definition, going forward.
Citizen journalism occurs in many different fashions, it can be pictures, audiovisual, a blog, a social media update, or in a more conventional form such as editorial cites such as the AntiMedia.com. People are, globally, reporting on subjects that are prevalent in their own societies, as well personal matters of importance. Topics vary from terrorist attacks, breach of human rights and political governance, to celebrity gossip and daily life activities, and misconducts of the press. It takes the form based on civic voices and whistleblowers, and bring recognition and importance to issues mass media would typically overlook (Allan, 2013).
A vast amount of people has turned to the web for news. Research show that, in 2007, thirty-seven percent reported that they had gone online for news, which was an increase of ten percent from two years’ prior. An increasing amount of news is now generated by citizen
journalists, there were approximately 1,500 of citizen journalism Web sites in 2007, and one can assume this number has increased since then (Rainie, 2012). Research show that people now tend to acknowledge citizen journalism as individual sources, and as a different
journalistic tool, in regards to new news perspectives (Blaggaard, 2013) However, one could wonder why that is? Is it because of a decline in trust in professional journalism (Edelman’s Trust Barometer, 2011) or has there been an increase in trust in citizen journalism? It is important to understand how this effect the audience, as well as the role of the audience in this respect, and this study is contributing to filling this research gap.
Trust
Trust in mainstream media is corroding. A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that credibility in all leading news media has decreased in recent years (Johnson and
Wiedenbeck, 2009). Concurrently, news online has advanced and increased.
Trust is a very subjective thing. However, when talking about trust in connection with the news and journalism, then objectivity is an important concept. Journalists should be objective, as this will ensure the reader, viewer or listener, that the message that is being put forward is reliable. A journalistic piece is objective when it contains true statements, it is not misleading, it contains substantial allegations and it is thorough. The Code of Ethics, fact checkers and editors, are put in place to help ensure objectivity (Carpenter, 2008)
It is important to emphasize, however, that trust is not a matter of "either or". It's not that a matter of hundred percent trust in a source, or no trust at all. Trust can be described liquid or incremental, as it is possible to rely entirely on a piece of information, but it is also possible to doubt that information (Aime and Lioy, 2005). The doubt one have, does not necessarily mean that the source is written off completely, but the degree of confidence is lowered.
Furthermore, Understanding the press’ role in society is an important prerequisite to understand something about trust, or distrust, placed in the news media and the emergence of citizen journalism (Johnson and Wiedenbeck, 2009).
Journalism has its origin in ideas about full press freedom and public education (McQuail, 2010) and has traditionally legitimized its profession by referring to its social responsibilities. One can argue that the press has, according to normative theory at least, three important tasks; 1. Information responsibility, which implies that they are obliged to inform the public about matters that affect the society they live in, 2. Uphold critical and
investigative journalism, and act as a watchdog (Starkman, 2014), 3. Serve as an arena for public debate (McQuail, 2010). The idealized societal role justifies in many ways the news medias position in society. The press serves three masters: Market position (The Press want), Economics (The Press has to) (McManus, 1995), and Democracy (The Press should) (McQuail, 2010).
The press has over the past decades been experiencing financial pressure, plus a fierce competitive market (Beam, Weaver and Brownlee, 2009) and what was formally known as investigative reporting has given way for access reporting. Investigative reporting, or
accountability reporting as some call it, was and still is, the corner function of journalism. It is the great agenda setter, public-trust and value creator, that explains complex problems to the society (Starkman, 2014). Even so, the bred and butter of todays media landscape is
categorized as access reporting, a type of reporting that is marginal, cost efficient, and fairly quick and affordable to make. Access reporting has a tendency of promoting elite views and interests, and report on what the powerful says, not what they do, and not from an objective point of view (Starkman, 2014). In line with this and the “rush to satisfy the audience” with entertainment news, there is confusion around the press’ roll (Curran, 2002).
As means of chasing profit and readership, the public is seen as consumers rather than citizens (Schudson and Andersen, 2009) and the press we see today, has deviated from the informer role and taken on the role as entertainer. The medias’ aim is to attract the public's attention because they will be subject to advertisers' attention, wanting the public's attention (Rasmussen, 2003). This type of market-driven journalism, report what sells, is often related to celebrities and scandals, soft news. “News, that before was rejected as unfair, half true, nonsensical, irrelevant and private, is accepted if it is fascinating [...]. Truth has given way for attention and profit value” (Rasmussen, 2003, p.146). This is problematic as it does not promote valuable debates, conversations about society matters. Substantive debates are drowning in scandals and nonsense news. They press have potential to extract, and emphasize on, (single) cases from a grassroots level, representing defects in the systems the government is responsible for, and thus force a reaction by the population, which will lead to a reaction by the authorities. By succumbing to financial pressure and the report what sells tone, the press deprives the people the ability of societal influence. The press has the ability foster public participation, however, this by being accountable and honest. If they deviate from this, the level confidence and trust amongst the public will deteriorate (Pettersen, 2012).
It seems as citizen journalism has taken the role as the investigator that allocate truthful information, in this respect. Citizen journalism is, for most people, most aligned with whistleblower Bradly Manner, WikiLeaks and the works of Julian Assange who fought – and still is - for a more open and transparent society. The shared perceptions amongst WikiLeaks supporters, and Assange himself, is that mass media is deliberately keeping the people passive by allowing a debate within a very narrow section of a specific spectrum, and can therefore not be trusted to have the publics best interest at heart (Allan, 2013). One can assume that Assange is not alone in sharing this opinion, which further fosters confusion as for the role of the press.
James Curran (2002) shares this opinion, and has raised some concerns in regards to the unclear mixture of messages that the press provides: "Even the so-called 'news media' allocate only a small part of their content to public affairs - and a tiny amount two disclosure of official wrong doing. In effect, the liberal orthodoxy defines the main democratic purpose and organizational principle of the media in terms of what they do not do most of the time" (Curran, 2002, p.219).
Research show that trust in professional journalism has been declining gradually post WikiLeaks, as it by then became apparent that the press was more predisposed to influence from the powerful, than one would first assume (Benkler, 2011). The press is an essential force in government, so central that it has been described as a vital part of democracy itself, the fourth estate, the fourth branch of government (Crichton et al., n.d). Their primary function is monitoring other branches of government, and keep power in check and deliver socially beneficial, and objective, services to society (Raaum, 2003). Trust is weakened when the press is failing to not honor their responsibilities, (Allan, 2001).
A study by media researcher and associate professor Elisabeth Staksrud and colleagues (2014), from the Department of Media and Communication Science at the University of Oslo, discovered that “one of three within the Norwegian population, has little or no confidence in how the media focuses on their role in society”, “two out of five lacks confidence that the media is free and independent from owners and advertisers”, “one in five do not trust the media to be free and independent of the state”, and that “one in three lacks confidence that the media highlights the issues from several sides” (Staksrud et al., 2014, p. 65-77). This is somewhat remarkable, as Norway is, according to Hallin and Mancini (2004), one of the countries with the highest level of professionalism (Brüggemann et al., 2014). One could therefore also assume that this is representative for other countries as well, which is disturbing.
One can argue that citizen journalism have made people rethink the press’ role, specifically in regards to its traditional definition as a top-down profession (Bardoel and Deuze, 2001; Burns, 2010), and it does not seem unreasonable to assume that the press’ economic aspect may be the origin of some of the public's skepticism, and why some turn to citizen journalism sourced content. Furthermore, citizen journalism has been described by some as “Gate watching the Gatekeepers”, as citizen journalists provide a counterpart for traditional media, as well offer the public an insight into some of the “misconducts” of the press itself, in the sense of skewed and biased information (Burns, 2005).
According to the theories presented, there is an assumption that professional journalism represents a greater level of distrust in source, than citizen journalism.
Consequently, the first research question posed in this study is, “Do people who are exposed to citizen journalism sourced content place a higher level of trust in citizen journalism sources than respondents exposed to professional journalism sourced content (traditional media)? (RQ1a).
One can draw parallels between open news, open sourced content, and citizen journalism. Open news unequivocally invites further user contributions in support of a constant, redundant, and evolutionary development process (Burns, 2010). Even though they too are biased, they are obviously biased and therefore perceived as honest, by some (Foster, 2001). However, it is not given that the general public trust citizen journalism, as means of distrusting the professional press, as there is a lack of institutional credibility and many are suspicious of news content offered by ordinary citizens (Burns, 2010). On can therefore question, “In the case of professional journalism, are respondents exposed to professional journalism sourced content more likely to place higher level of trust in traditional media and professional journalism than respondents exposed to citizen journalism sourced content” (RQ1b)
Credibility
The press should, according to their ideology regarding societal responsibilities, critically scrutinize the powerful, but we must not forget that the press itself is a powerful player. This is why moral principles and ethical codes, standards and regulations are in place, to assure the citizens that they can trust that the press manages this powerful position in a prudent manner. Journalism autonomy is important to justify the power of the press and role they have in society, and it is important to preserve professional autonomy and integrity (Bjerke, 2009). Integrity is connected to the press’ credibility, which is a sub-phenomenon of trust (Nah and Chung, 2012), meaning if the press obtains integrity, they are also deemed credible, hence trustworthy.
Melican and Dixon (2008) rated the perceived credibility of different media, amongst 432 people, and discovered that traditional non-online news media were seen as more credible than online news media. This was the case even though the researchers included the websites of traditional media, e.g. Los Angeles Times and it’s latimes.com - among the online news media. The result suggests that the public trust to a lesser extent information from the Internet compared with traditional media. In general, traditional print news media ranks as the most trustworthy, followed by radio, television and finally non-traditional online as least trustworthy.
Melican and Dixon (2008) conclude that: “there are significant differences in perceived credibility between different forms of traditional media and Internet news, that is not connected to established media” (Melican and Dixon,2008 p. 162). According to the survey, the public trust traditional media considerably more than alternative media. It is worth mentioning that it is not apparent what they mean by "non-traditional online news media," but there is reason to believe that this term is wide-ranging and includes everything that can be perceived as news media unrelated to the traditional media, hence citizen journalism.
Other studies, however, has concluded that the public perceives online news as more credible than the traditional ones. In a study from 2002, a group of researchers concluded that online news was rated highest in terms of credibility. The problem with this study is that it is not explained what is meant by "online news." It may be news from anywhere on the Internet - even if it is reasonable to assume that traditional media online counterparts are
overrepresented (Abdulla et al., 2004). On the other hand, a study from 2009, discovered that the public relied more on traditional media than online media, although respondents felt that online newspapers were more credible than newspapers (Johnson and Kaye, 2004).
An important point in the debate on which medium audiences’ trust the most, is what the various studies and articles mean by the term "credibility" and “trust”. For this study, the term is linked to honesty, believability, trustworthiness, and accurateness as means of credibility and trust.
Credibility – however you define it - is not an inherent characteristic of a media message. Credibility is a relative size, and what is true or objective for some, may be false and virtually propaganda for others. This depends partly on the opinions a given recipient has of a message and the sender of that message (Næss, 2012), nevertheless, “Does credibility of news content have a mediating effect on level of trust placed in a news source, including both citizen journalism sourced content and professional journalism sourced content”? (RQ2)
Political Knowledge
Political knowledge plays an important role in a functioning democracy. An informed constituency preferably allows its citizenries to reflect their self-interests and protect these interests, with regards to their policy preferences (Moy et al., 2015). Political knowledge boosts political discussions which further motivate people to follow public affairs. Political knowledge is through means of a cognitive process, which mirrors an intellectual capacity
achieved through political learning, where participations relets to action (Junn, 1991; Moy et al., 2005). On of the most coherent discoveries in the communication works is that news media use is positively associated with higher political knowledge (Kaufhold et al., 2010). Not only do people with higher level of political knowledge follow the news to a greater extent, they are also more critical towards their choice in news sources (Johnson and Kaye, 2010). One can only assume that this is due to a higher level of political sophistication and knowledge.
Political knowledge constitutes what people, citizens, know about their government and their function, specifically knowledge regarding their leaders (Brooks, Carpini and Keeter, 1997; Moy et al., 2015). Political knowledge can further be refined as knowledge about institutions or organizations and knowledge about current events (Moy et al., 2015). The public gets most of their political information via the media, and media use improves learning. Research shows that traditional media, print media primarily, is found to be the most efficient, followed by television (Becker and Dunwoody, 1982; Clarke and Fredin, 1978; Robinson and Davis, 1990; Robinson and Levy, 1986,1996; Moy et al., 2015). However, recent studies indicate that internet users appear to have a higher level of political knowledge in comparison to an average citizen, and are more likely to pursue additional information from the media (Johnson and Kaye, 2000).
Political knowledge can be seen as an influential factor on media trust, as it is also closely associated with political trust. The more political knowledge one has, the more this will influence the level of trust or distrust one places in politics, and as a consequence in the media that reports on politics (Johnson and Kaye, 2000). A study by Lee (2010) further supports this notion, as their study results bared that political trust and political knowledge is associated with, and positively predicts, consumers’ trust in the press. However, “ Is there a
placed in source”? (RQ3a).
Political knowledge and media credibility
Johnson and Kaye (2004) argue that political variables such as political involvement, political interest, hereunder political knowledge, and political trust, serves as a strong predictor for Credibility. This in turn, based on credibility assumptions, influences the overall trust placed in media. One can therefore assume that there is a relationship between political knowledge and content credibility, and that the more knowledgeable one is, the easier it is to detect flaws and misinformation in the press, which in turn influences the level of credibility of the source, hence the trustworthiness (Johnson et al., 2007) One could therefore assume that credibility serves a moderating effect on the relationship between political knowledge and trust placed in news sources. The level of political involvement, interest and knowledge, overall effect the judgment placed in the media content, this on the basis of how credible the content is experienced (Johnson and Kaye, 2004).
A study addressing the coverage of the Iraq War, found that people perceived the Internet as more credible and therefore more trustworthy than the mass media, as the coverage, online, of the war, was less unified with the government’s pro-war position than traditional media (Choi, Watt & Lynch, 2006). One can assume that knowledge overall affects the judgment placed in the media, as this influence how credible the news content is perceived and hence the trust in news sources. Therefore, the last question posed in this study is, “Do Credibility moderate the association between political knowledge and trust placed in news sources”?(RQ3b).
Figure 1. Conceptual Model.
Methodology
Sample
A total of 147 participants took part in this study. Four respondents were excluded from the sample as means of not completing the experiment, six were excluded as they failed to pass the manipulation check and two were excluded as means of straight-line answering behavior. A total of N=135 participants were included for further analysis. All subjects (N=135) were recruited online, through social networking websites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, using a convenience sampling method. The participants’ age ranged from 19 to 49 (M=28.34, SD=5.78) and 64.4% of them were female. The sample consisted mainly (96.3%) of highly educated individuals with 86.7% of them having a master degree or higher. The majority of participants (56.3 %) were of Norwegian origin, followed by German (20.9%) and Dutch (8.1%).
In order to assess whether the random assignment to different condition was successful in in regards to demographics, chi-square tests were performed. The results indicated no significant differences between the three conditions with regards to education level, (χ2= 5.92, df= 10, p =
Furthermore, a one-way analysis of variance bared non-significant differences between the groups in regards to age, F(2,132) = .72, p= .48. The randomization can therefore be considered successful as the three conditions did not vary significantly in terms of demographic
measurements. Randomization to each of the conditions resulted in the following distribution: n=48 respondents were assigned to the control condition, followed by the professional journalism condition: The Guardian (n=46) and the citizen journalism condition: Anonymous (n=41)
Stimulus Material
Trust in news source, a between-subjects experimental factor, was manipulated at three different levels: Traditional media source (The Guardian), Citizen media source (Anonymous) and no source (control) (see Appendix C). The participants in each condition were exposed to one specific journalistic piece, corresponding to one of the sources. The content of the articles was identical per condition. However, the layout was tailored in terms of headers, logos and colors, this to fit the original layout of set sources. This was done in an attempt to increase the internal validity and minimize any confounding factors.
The Guardian was chosen, as the source is a well renowned and recognized quality publication. One would assume that a large portion of the European population would recognize this source. Anonymous was also selected as means of recognition. There has been a lot of media attention around the works of the hacker group Anonymous, and one would assume that people would recognize this source as a clear indication of citizen journalism.
The choices were based on the notion that previous exposure to set sources would be favorable, as people then have some prior knowledge to base their judgement on, hence the stimulus material, was created using already existing, known, sources.
The content of the article was chosen as means of neutrality, meaning the content of the article was chosen as it was not specifically related to any current events or topics, nor events that would automatically trigger any sense of bias, e.g. terror or refugee crisis. The chosen article was an expose on the use of teargas as a “crowd control weapon”, mainly in US prisons, but also by countries with “checkered human-rights records”, such as The Erdogan administration whom regularly gases protesters in Turkey. The article was shortened in length, and edited so to fit the format of the stimulus (see Appendix C).
Furthermore, to make the stimulus believable, the content of the article needed to come across as authentic for each condition, therefor collected from the publication The Nation. The Nation is acknowledged as the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. Independent from corporate financing, The Nation pride themselves on being able to serve the public with hard-hitting stories and exposes, unlike publications with corporate ties (Sheck, 2015), hence, fit the mold of professional journalism as well as citizen journalism.
Employing recognized sources and an authentic journalistic piece, increased the external validity of the experiment. The stimulus contained thus the sources logos, and other attributes such as advertisement, and the journalistic piece was the only information added to the original layout of the source.
Procedure
The experiment was created with, and distributed through, the online survey software “Qualtrics”. The participants were provided with a link via e-mail, LinkedIn and Facebook, redirecting them directly to the survey experiment. The respondents were invited to take part in a study about Media Trust and Credibility and the participation was voluntary. The anonymity and confidentiality concerning the data collected was assured, and only
participants aged 18 years or older were eligible to partake in the study. The field period ran over a time period of 6 days in May of 2016.
When entering the experiment, the respondents were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions, traditional media source, citizen media source or no source (control) (see appendix F1). All the respondents (N=135) were thus exposed to the same article, and some either exposed to the article being provided by The Guardian or Anonymous. The
manipulation check followed directly after the respondents were exposed to a condition, and the respondents were asked to state what source they had just read, by choosing between four alternatives. The average length of the response time was 14 min.
Measures
Media Trust
Trust in Source was measured by using a scale, adapted from Kaufhold, Valenzuela and de Zuniga (2010). The scale was composed of six items, which were measuring the level of trust placed in; “Traditional news media”, “Online traditional news”, “Blogs”, “Twitter”, “Facebook” and “Other Citizen Journalism Publications sites”. The scale was measured by employing a 7-point Likert scale: 1= lowest level of trust – 7 = highest level of trust.
First, a principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to investigate whether these items measured the same latent concept of Trust in Source. The six items proved to form a two dimensional scale, as two components were extracted with an
eigenvalue above 1, which was further mirrored in the clear inflexion point on the scree plot. These scales were then divided and renamed into Trust in Traditional Media, (TrustTM) (EV=2.45) and Trust in Citizen Journalism media (TrustCJ) (EV=1.65). Both scales were included in the final analysis. Overall, the six items explained 63,23 % of variance in the original variables for condition 1 “The Guardian”, 73,44 % of variance for condition 2
“Anonymous” and 68,83 % of variance for condition “no source” (control). Internal consistency in regards to the items, confirmed the scales to be reliable, component 1, “TrustTM” (α= .85), and component 2 “TrustCJ” (α= .64) for “The Guardian”, “TrustTM” (α= .92), and “TrustCJ” (α= .74) for “Anonymous”, and “TrustTM” (α= .74), and “TrustCJ” (α= .78) for the control condition.
Second, based on the results from the PCA and reliability test, the items measuring trust in source, were computed in to two scales, by averaging the scores on all items fitted to the set scale. Furthermore, the scores were then summarized across the conditions resulting in the scale assessing Trust in traditional media for condition 1, The Guardian, (M= 4.44, SD= .93) and Trust in Citizen Journalism media for condition 1, The Guardian (M= 3.85, SD= 4.90), Trust in traditional media for condition 2, Anonymous, (M= 4.98, SD= 1.38) and Trust in Citizen Journalism media for condition 2, Anonymous (M= 4.26, SD= 7.32), Trust in traditional media for condition 3, Control (no source), (M= 4.90, SD= .96) and Trust in Citizen Journalism media for condition 3, Control (no source) (M= 2.84, SD= 1.03).
Credibility
Credibility was measured through items adapted from Nah and Chung (2011). The scale was comprised of four items, which were measuring how “believable”, “accurately”, “trustworthy” and “honest” the respondents rated the article they were exposed to. The scale was measured by employing a 5-point Likert scale.
The four items created unidimensional scale, (EV =2.95). The scales proved to be reliable for all conditions and explained 73.92% variance for The Guardian (α= .87), 63.29% for Anonymous (α= .80). and 73.23% for “no source” (α= .85). Scores were further
Political Knowledge
As political knowledge is somewhat difficult to measure, the variables measuring political knowledge actually measures recall of political information and news. The variable is measured by having participants name various political actors from both the European continent and the U.S. Four items were adapted from Kaufhold, Valenzuela and de Zuniga (2010); What is the name of the British Prime Minister?”, “Who is the General Secretary of NATO?”, “Who is the Vice president of the USA?” and “Who is the general secretary of the UN?”. Additionally, four items were included, adapted from Egmond et.al. (2010); rating facts about the European union true or false, e.g. “Switzerland is a member of the EU” and “Every country in the EU elects the same number of representatives to the European Parliament”. Political knowledge was hence measured with a total of 8 items.
Results from the principal component analysis verified that these items measure the concept of Political knowledge. All the items were used in the following analyses, (EV =1.90). The scales proved to be reliable for all conditions and explained 66.91% variance for The Guardian (α= .64), 64.43% for Anonymous (α= .59). and 59.80% for “no source” (α= .56). The low Cronbach’s alpha scores reflect the specifics of the items; the questions are differing. None the less, they are measuring political knowledge, and the low Cronbach’s alpha scores are therefore acceptable. Scores were further summarized across the conditions, The Guardian (M= 6.52, SD= 1.82), Anonymous (M= 6.50, SD= 1.63) and No source (M= 6.54, SD= 1.94).
Manipulation check
To be certain the manipulation was successful, one question was posed directly after the respondents were exposed to the stimulus, asking the respondents which of the following were the source of the article they just read; “The Washington post”, “The Guardian”,
“Anonymous” or “No source, only text”.
The manipulation check indicated that, in total, six respondents failed to answer correctly, and hence excluded from the sample.
Results
Trust in Source
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test whether being exposed to citizen journalism sourced content have a greater effect on level of trust placed in citizen sourced content than in professional journalism sourced content (RQ1a).
Based on Levene’s test, the assumption of the homogeneity of variance was met p= .226, it can therefore be assumed that the variances between the groups are not significant. The results showed that there was no significant effect of the type of source on trust placed in citizen journalism sourced content (p= .29), The Guardian (M=3.44, SD=2.51), Anonymous (M=3.71, SD=2.71) and No Source (control) (M=2.89, SD=2.53). This indicates that there is no difference between the conditions.
Also, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was further employed to test whether being exposed to professional sourced content have a greater effect on level of trust in professional sourced content, rather than citizen journalism sourced content (RQ1b).
Based on Levene’s test, the assumption of the homogeneity of variance was not met p= .003 it can therefore be assumed there is a significant difference between the groups. There was a significant small effect of type of new source and trust in professional news source F(2,132)= 3.36, p=.04, eta2=0.04. Respondents exposed to Anonymous expressed a greater level of trust in professional journalism sourced content (M=4.02, SD=1.78) compared to by no source (control) (M=3.95, SD=1.50) and The Guardian (M=3.71, SD=1.45).
Comment [MJ2]: Watch out this is
Bonferroni post-hoc test shows that there are significant differences between
participants exposed to Anonymous and The Guardian (Mdifference= -.31, p = .01). However, no significant difference was present between Anonymous and no source Mdifference= -.07, p = .54), nor The Guardian and no source Mdifference= -.23, p = .55). Nonetheless, as the Guardian, representing professional journalism, expressed the lowest level of trust in professional sourced content, compared to the other conditions, being exposed to professional sources does not constitute higher level of trust in professional journalism sources.
Credibility
In order to test whether credibility has an influence on level on trust placed in news sourced, both in regards to citizen journalism and professional journalism, the PROCESS macro tool from Hayes (model 4) was used. In exploring whether credibility served a mediating effect of news content and level of trust placed in citizen journalism sources, we found insignificant results for the model as a whole for those exposed to citizen journalism sourced content, F(1,133)= 1.35, p= .24. meaning there is no relationship between being exposed to citizen journalism sourced content and credibility, therefore no mediating effect can be found. The same steps were taken for the other conditions as well, and yielded no significant results. For professional journalism, F(1,133)= .48, p= .49, and for no Source F(1,133)= .18, p= .66
The same analysis was carried out for trust in professional journalism sources, and here too did the results deem insignificant. Citizen journalism source F(1,133)=1.82, p= .70, for professional journalism, F(1,133)= .48 p= .48, and for no Source F(1,133)= .91, p= .36. If we were to look beyond the mediation effect, the results did reveal a significant relationship between credibility and trust, meaning that credibility significantly serves as a predictor for trust in, F(2,132)= 15.06, p= <.001. For every unit increase in credibility, trust increased with 0.346. Even so, credibility does not hold a mediating effect (RQ2).
Political Knowledge
A regression analysis was carried out to explore whether political knowledge served a mediating effect between source of news content and level of trust placed in professional journalism sourced content. However, the results deemed no significant direct effect F(1,133) =3.65, p=.06, nor a significant mediating effect F(2,132)=2.30, p=. 12.
The same analysis was carried out to test whether there was an effect on trust placed in citizen journalism, and here too were there no significant direct effect F(1,133)=1.19, p=.27, nor a significant mediating effect F(2,132)=.77, p=.46. Political knowledge does not hold a mediating effect (RQ3a)
Table 2. Trust in Professional Journalism mediated through political knowledge.
B se p Trust P.J. (constant) 5.19 .24 .000
Political Knowledge - .21 .11 .058 Direct Effect. Adj.R2=.007
Table 3. Trust in Professional Journalism mediated through political knowledge. B se p
Trust P.J (constant) 3.07 .24 .000 News Source -.219 .11 .058 Political Knowledge .283 .36 .434 Mediating effect. Adj.R2=.034
Table 4. Trust in Citizen Journalism mediated through political knowledge. B se p Trust C.J. (constant) 2.51 1.12 .027
Comment [MJ3]: Tables need to go
in the back
Separate the two tables more. They are two different models and this is confusing otherwise. Also report the R2.
Comment [MJ4]: Tables need to go
in the back
Separate the two tables more. They are two different models and this is confusing otherwise. Also report the R2.
Direct Effect. Adj.R2=.002
Table 5. Trust in Citizen Journalism mediated through political knowledge B se p Trust C.J. (constant) 4.116 2.90 .159 News Source .573 .52 .275 Political Knowledge -.985 1.64 .551 Mediating effect. Adj.R2
=.010
Credibility and Political knowledge
Lastly, in attempt to see whether credibility moderates the association between political knowledge and trust placed in news source, the moderating- mediation effect was tested with the PROCESS macro tool from Hayes (model 14). The results from the analysis revealed no significant effects between political knowledge and trust in news source, F(1130) =0.06, p=.93. This in turn means that there is no significant effect between type of news source and level of trust placed in sources, mediated through political knowledge, moderated by credibility (RQ3b).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to expand the existing literature on journalism in regards to trust placed in news sources. Moreover, whether this is influenced by political knowledge and content credibility.
Journalism has a central role in democracy, and democratic principles are enshrined in both the media's own ethical guidelines, and it is also a prerequisite for media policy. The news media are important stewards of free speech and public debate (Strömback,
2005). Moreover, democracy needs strong and independent journalism. Nevertheless, the
Comment [MJ5]: Same comment as
above
Comment [MJ6]: Provide some
sources for this if you can. Second readers always check the discussion for references. The more the better.
media does not have monopoly on dissemination anymore. Everyone can be their own editor, and convey both events and opinions, which is in it self a democratic good, as means of digital advancements. However, can user-driven content and social media replace
professionally driven journalism, and does the citizenry entrust citizen journalism to be a new form of news dissemination?
This is one of the first studies, to my knowledge, to compare professional journalism with citizen journalism in regards to trust placed in news sources, based on key indicators such as political knowledge and content credibility.
The overall findings of this research indicates that citizen journalism cites does not promote a greater level of trust in source amongst news consumers in comparison to traditional media, and vice versa, nor do we find relationships moderated through political knowledge, mediated through credibility. The results of this experimental study showed that there was no significant difference between the trust placed in professional journalism and citizen journalism.
In response to the first two research questions, being exposed to citizen journalism sourced content or professional journalism sourced content does not promote greater level of trust in set sources. However, whilst testing whether being exposed professional journalism sourced content leads to greater level of trust in professional journalism, the results did prove to be significant, however, the results indicated that being exposed to citizen journalism led to higher level of trust in professional journalism, not the other way around. This partly supports Melican and Dixon’s (2008) findings, that people tend to trust traditional media more, however it is not directly comparable, because of the design of this study.
Furthermore, a potential explanation for these results can thus be found in the lack of pretests to assess stimulus. The pretest could have had contributed as an assessment of the
value placed in the chosen sources, and give an indication of whether the respondents were familiar with the sources, in particularly the “citizen journalism” source.
Furthermore, another reason may be that this study was conducted in Europe. As with other social trends, citizen journalism is more prominent in some countries than others, The US and the Middle East for example. While independent political bloggers and citizen journalism has had significant influence on the news and the political sphere, e.g. in election campaigns in the US and during the Arab spring (Allan, 2013), this has not been the case necessarily in Europe. One can assume that citizen journalism is fairly a new phenomenon in European societies, and a “huge” citizen journalism movement, has been apparent. Moreover, many Europeans have grown up in a time when the state has had a monopoly on broadcasting, and therefore prefers news in a uniform format (Johansen, 2014), which can possibly also explain to some degree the results of the second hypothesis. When exposed to citizen journalism content, one could assume that this further validated the trust they normally place in professional journalism. The results can be deemed differently if the study is executed elsewhere, in the US for example.
Additionally, the study was designed as a between subject’s factor which did not allow the participants to assess the trust placed in the sources when compared to each other. Recommendations for future research is discussed further on in the article. Also, a limitation to be considered is the use of a single component to measure trust.
Moreover, the mediating effect of content credibility (RQ2) was found to be non-existent, meaning that trust in sources was not influenced by how credible the respondents assessed the content. However, the results did prove content credibility to be a significant predictor for trust, only not as a mediator in this respect. This however, implies that content credibility is a factor in people’s estimations of trust placed in the media as a whole, which,
based on credibility assessments such as honesty, truthfulness and accuracy, could explain the level of trust/distrust placed in different sources.
Finally, in response to RQ3b, there is no mediating effect of political knowledge, which indicates that trust in source is not influenced by the level political knowledge one have, which is conflicting with prior studies claiming causality between these two variables (Kaufhold et al., 2010). This could possibly be explained by the measurement instrument, as the indicators did not explicitly measure political knowledge per se, but rather recall of political information and news. In addition, the items did have a certain difficulty level that may have been too difficult for the respondents, as proven by very low level of political knowledge scores. This could also have been avoided with a pretest. Additionally, the results did not uncover a significant moderating effect of credibility between political knowledge and trust in source, which indicates that trust did not vary depending on content credibility.
The aforesaid explanation accounts for the insignificant hypotheses about trust in citizen journalism sourced content versus professional journalism sourced content.
Direction for Future Research
Apart from the elements discussed above, there are further limitations to consider. A short timeframe and limited resources did not allow for testing the stimulus material prior to the experiment. Furthermore, even though the experimental design was employed
deliberately, it signifies some weaknesses. The between-subjects factor was employed to examine whether the groups differed solely base on stimuli exposure, this to see whether the source of the article itself had an effect on trust. Moreover, the respondents, as exposed to a particular source, could not evaluate and assess the level of trust when comparing the sources, as each condition was exposed to only one source/message. This may have had an effect on the end results and can be an explanatory factor for set news sources not having an effect on
level of trust placed in news set source. One could assume that when being able to compare the sources, the respondents might have placed a higher level of trust in one out of the other.
It is also worth mentioning that in an experimental study, respondents are somewhat prone to expect an experimental manipulation to occur, hence their assessments may be a bit tainted and might have differed in a real-life setting.
Limitations notwithstanding, this study represents a valuable contribution to the field of political communication research and journalism. This study explored trust placed in different news sources, specifically in regards to citizen journalism, in an attempt to mend the research gap, in regards to the investigating the contributions of citizen journalism form a consumer point of view, with emphasis on trust placed in citizen journalism source, independently, compared to professional journalism. Future research should take the aforesaid limitations into account and continue exploring this phenomenon. Future research should consider carrying out this research beyond the boarders of Europe, and perhaps focus on a design with within-subjects factor, for the purpose of comparison, or use a different instrument.
Furthermore, choosing other stimuli may possible yield different results, hence suggested as an improvement for future research.
Concluding thoughts
We know that in a democracy, public opinion is going to have an effect on policy, and governmental actions are determined by the general public. That is at least what democracy is supposed to be. Throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between democratizing tendencies, which has mostly been coming from the population, pressure from below, and effects for more control and domination coming from above, the state (Chomsky, 2015). Consequently, we have been, and still is witnessing, a constant civic pressure for more freedom and democracy. When sectors of the population whom are usually passive and
apathetic, become active and start pressing demands, change is going to come. We have seen that public participation and popular views, has changed the consciousness in a lot of way; minority rights, woman’s rights and concerns for the environment, to mention a few. Popular movements have made huge changes in society, and an informed population is crucial for constituting civilizing effects (Chomsky, 2015; A Requiem for the American Dream, 2015).
During the course of the last couple of decades, one can argue that citizen journalism is representing a new form of popular movement, that is confronting the flaws of democracy and the professional press, and contributing to a new way of political activism and action (e.g. the Arab spring, Occupy Wall Street and WikiLeaks) (Allan, 2013).
Even though this study didn’t not find any significant relationships in regards to trust, we can still acknowledge that citizen journalism puts the power back in the hands of the general public, by mobilizing and representing different voices in society, that is different from those in the mass media. The mass media have had, still has, the tendency to represent experts’ opinions and elite institutions and typically yielding to the political and financial interests of their employers, the owners, rather than the public (Starkman, 2012). One can therefore argue that citizen journalism is an antithesis to the consecration of wealth and power, as means of challenging the professional, corporate, press -and elite views, which is important.
Bibliography
A Requiem for the American Dream. (2015). [DVD] USA: Kelly Nyks, Peter D. Hutchison and Jared P. Scott.
Abdulla, R., Garrison, B., Salwen, M., Driscoll, P. and Casey, D. (2004). Online News and the Public. Online News and the Public,, pp.147-163.
Aime, M. and Lioy, A. (2005). Incremental Trust: Building Trust from Past Experience. Sixth IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless Mobile and Multimedia Networks.
Allan, S. (2013). Citizen witnessing. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Althaus, S. and Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and Traditional News Media Use
in a Networked Community. Political Communication, 17(1), pp.21-45.
Benkler, Y. (2011). WikiLeaks and the protection Act: A New Public-Private Threat to the
Internet Commons. Daedalus, 140(4), pp.154-164.
Beam, R., Weaver, D. and Brownlee, B. (2009). Changes in Professionalism of U.S. Journalists in the Turbulent Twenty-First Century. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), pp.277-298.
Bjerke, P. (2009) Refleks eller refleksjon: En sosiologisk analyse av journalistisk
profesjonsmoral, Ph.D.-avhandling, Det humanistiske fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo
Blaagaard, B. (2013). Shifting boundaries: Objectivity, citizen journalism and tomorrow's
journalists. Journalism, 14(8), pp.1076-1090.
for de tradisjonelle mediene?. Master. Universitetet i Bergen.
Brooks, C., Carpini, M. and Keeter, S. (1997). What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. Contemporary Sociology, 26(4), p.466.
Brüggemann, M., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., Humprecht, E. and Castro, L. (2014). Hallin and Mancini Revisited: Four Empirical Types of Western Media Systems. J Commun, 64(6), pp.1037-1065.
Bruns, A. (2009). From Reader to Writer: Citizen Journalism as News Produsage. International Handbook of Internet Research, pp.119-133.
Carpenter, S. (2010). A study of content diversity in online citizen journalism and online
newspaper articles. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1064-1084. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444809348772
Choi, J. H., Watt, J. H., & Lynch, M. (2006) Perception of news credibility about the war in
Iraq: Why the war opponent perceived the Internet as the most credible medium. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(1), Article 11, Retrieved April 13, 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue1.choi.html
Crichton, D., Christel, B., Shidham, A., Karmel, J. and Valderrama, A. (n.d.). The Objectives
of Journalism | Journalism in the Digital Age. [online] Cs.stanford.edu. Available at:
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/Journalism/index1766.html?page_id=21 [Accessed 17 Mar. 2016]
Curran, J. and Witschge, T (2010). Liberal Dreams and the Internet. I New Media, Old News: Journalism & Democracy in the Digital Age, red. Natalie Fenton, 102-118, London: Sage Publications.
uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3), pp.680-704.
Duggan, M., Ellison, N., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. (2015). Frequency of Social Media Use. [online] Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/frequency-of-social-media-use-2/ [Accessed 3 Jun. 2016].
Edelman’s Trust Barometer, (2011). Edelman’s Trust Barometer - Norway 2011. [online] Scribd. Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47667236/Trust- Barometer-Norway-2011 [Accessed 23 Jun. 2016].
Gant, S. (2007). We're all journalists now. New York: Free Press.
Gil de Zúniga, H., Jung, N. and Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social Media Use for News and Individuals' Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), pp.319-336
Goode, L. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society, 11(8), pp.1287-1305.
Habermas, J., Lennox, S. and Lennox, F. (1974). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964). New German Critique, (3), p.49.
Hoem, J. and Schwebs, T. (2010). Tekst2null:Nettsamtalenes spillerom. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Johansen, G. (2014). Tilliten til medier og journalister er deprimerende lav. [online] Journalisten.no - Nyheter og debatt om medier og journalistikk. Available at:
http://journalisten.no/2014/09/tilliten-til-medier-og-journalister-er-deprimerende-lav
[Accessed 3 Jun. 2016].
Journalism Web Sites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), pp.332-348.
Johnson, T. and Kaye, B. (2000). Using Is Believing: The Influence of Reliance on the Credibility of Online Political Information among Politically Interested Internet Users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), pp.865-879.
Johnson, T. and Kaye, B. (2004). Wag the Blog: How Reliance on Traditional Media and the Internet Influence Credibility Perceptions of Weblogs Among Blog Users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), pp.622-642.
Johnson, T., Kaye, B., Bichard, S. and Wong, W. (2007). Every Blog Has Its Day: Politically- interested Internet Users’ Perceptions of Blog Credibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), pp.100-122.
Kaufhold, K., & Lewis, S. (2015). Citizen Journalism: Motivations, Methods, and
Momentum. Academia.edu. Retrieved 6 November 2015, from
http://www.academia.edu/172313/Citizen_Journalism_Motivations_Methods_and_Mo ment um
Kaufhold, K., Valenzuela, S. and de Zuniga, H. (2010). Citizen Journalism and Democracy:
How User-Generated News Use Relates to Political Knowledge and Participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(3-4), pp.515-529.
Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur. New York: Doubleday.
Lee, T. (2010). Why They Don't Trust the Media: An Examination of Factors Predicting
Trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), pp.8-21. Melican, D. and Dixon, T. (2008). News on the Net: Credibility, Selective Exposure, and Racial Prejudice.
Lotan, G., Graeff, E., Ananny, M., Gaffney, D., Pearce, I., & boyd, d. (2011). The Arab
Spring; The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions. International Journal Of Communication, 5(0), 31. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/ article/view/1246/643
Lyons, D. (2010). Has Arianna Huffington Figured Out the Future?. [online]
Newsweek. Available at: http://europe.newsweek.com/has-arianna-huffington-figured-out-future-74833?rm=eu [Accessed 23 Jun. 2016].
Marcel H. van Egmond, Eliyahu V. Sapir, Wouter van der Brug, Sara B. Hobolt, Mark N.
Franklin (2010) EES 2009 Voter Study Advance Release Notes. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam
McManus, J. (1995). A Market-Based Model of News Production. Commun Theory, 5(4), McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's mass communication theory. London: Sage Publication Messner, M., & Distaso, M. (2008). The Source Cycle. Journalism Studies, 9(3), 447-463.
Moy, P., Torres, M., TANAKA, K. and MCCLUSKEY, M. (2005). Knowledge or Trust?:
Investigating Linkages Between Media Reliance and Participation. Communication Research, 32(1), pp.59-86.
Nah, S. and Chung, D. (2012). When citizens meet both professional and citizen journalists: Social trust, media credibility, and perceived journalistic roles among online
community news readers. Journalism, 13(6), pp.714-730.
Næss, T. (2012). På Slak Line, En kvalitativ studie av faktorene som påvirker tillit og mistillit til pressen. Master. University of Oslo.
journalistikken i Russland og journalistenes erfaring av sin egen situasjon. Master. University of Bergen.
Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. (2005). A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age. [online] Available at:
http://www.journalism.org/2005/02/01/a-new-journalism-for-democracy-in-a-new-age/ [Accessed 3 Jun. 2016].
Rainie, L. (2012). Citizen 2.0. [online] Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/04/20/citizen-2-0/ [Accessed 3 Jun. 2016].
Rettberg, J. (2008). Blogging. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Carpenter, S. (2008). How Online Citizen Journalism Publications and Online Newspapers Utilize the Objectivity Standard and Rely on External Sources. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3), pp.531-548
Schudson, M. and Anderson, C. (2009). The handbook of journalism studies. New York: Routledge.
Staksrud, E., Steen-Johnsen, K., Enjolras, B., Gustafsson, M., Ihlebæk, K., Midtbøen, A., Sætrang, S., Trygstad, S. and Utheim, M. (2014). Ytringsfrihet i Norge: Holdninger og erfaringer i befolkningen. [online] Fritt Ord. Available at:
http://www.frittord.no/images/uploads/files/Ytringsfrihet_i_Norge_Holdninger_og_erf aringer_rev2_%283%29.pdf [Accessed 24 Jun. 2016].
Starkman, D. (2014). The watchdog that didn't bark.
Strömbäck, J. (2005). In Search of a Standard: four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), pp.331-345.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. and Hanitzsch, T. (2009). The handbook of journalism studies. New York: Routledge.
