Identity vs. Image
Comparing the perception of young adults and political journalists in
the Netherlands on journalisms role in democracy
Masterthesis Journalistiek
Jelger Woudstra (s1694359)
Supervisor: dr. C.J. Peters
Second reader: dr. T.A.C. Witschge
Abstract
It is generally believed that in a democracy, journalism is a vital component. Journalists provide the information for citizens to fulfil their civic duties, such as voting, and keep them informed about the daily work of politicians. However, what is expected of journalists by the public might not always match the actually work of journalists and there are many different ways to fulfil this democratic function. This is especially an important factor, when looking at the younger news consumer, who will form the most important target group for news in the coming years. In a time news consumption patterns and expectations are changing, do the role perceptions of journalists and young news consumers also change? This research looks at the perception of the democratic role young adults in the Netherlands have of journalists, to see how it compares to the expectations of journalists. To do so, a survey was held among young adults, while political journalists were interviewed, to determine which of three ideal-typical roles (watchdog, mediator or advocate) Dutch journalists should adopt according to these groups. Much like previous research on journalism in the Netherlands, this research shows that Dutch journalists should adopt a mediating role, with watchdog elements, according to both journalists and the young audience. Both target groups emphasised the importance of journalists providing context and analysis for news events, while also showing a growing recognition of watchdog-elements, such as critically checking the work of politicians. Furthermore, the young audience recognized the importance of journalism to democracy, by regarding it as an irreplaceable part of the political system, much like journalists and researchers in the past.
Table of Contents
List of figures
4
Acknowledgements
5
1. Introduction
6
1.1 Outline
7
2. Journalism and Democracy
9
2.1 Why does journalism matter?
10
2.2 Changes and challenges in journalism
14
2.2.1 Journalists and their sources: a power struggle
15
2.2.2 Commercialism and Journalism: a devilish dilemma
16
2.2.3 Journalism and the internet: blessing or curse?
18
3. The Roles of Journalism
21
3.1 Journalism as a Watchdog
21
3.2 Journalism as a Mediator
24
3.3 Journalism as an Advocate
27
4. Journalism and the Audience
30
4.1 The audience of news and what they do
31
4.2 Views on journalism
35
4.3 Youth audiences
37
5. Journalism in the Netherlands
41
5.1 The journalistic landscape
41
5.2 The journalistic culture
43
6. Method
46
6.1 Interviews
46
6.1.1 Interviewing as a research method
47
6.1.2 Gathering and organizing data
49
6.1.3 Participants
50
6.1.4 Topic list
52
6.1.5 Limitations
53
6.2 Survey
53
6.2.1 Surveying as a research method
53
6.2.2 Gathering and organizing data
55
6.2.3 Participants
56
6.2.4 Content of the survey
57
7. Results
59
7.1 Interviews
60
7.1.1 The goal of journalism
60
7.1.2 The relationship with politics
64
7.1.3 Media identity
67
7.1.4 Strength and weaknesses
69
7.1.5 Journalism and the (youth) audience
72
7.1.6 Summary
75
7.2 Survey
76
7.2.1 Reasons to (not) follow news
76
7.2.2 Goals and expectations, strengths and weaknesses
79
7.2.3 The importance of journalism
84
7.1.4 Summary
87
8. Conclusion
89
8.1 How do journalists perceive their role?
89
8.2 How do young adults perceive journalisms role?
91
8.3 How do the perceptions compare?
92
9. Bibliography
94
Appendix I: Interview Guide
I
Appendix II: Interview Transcript sample and respondent data
IV
Appendix III: Letters of Consent
X
Appendix IV: Survey
XV
4
List of figures
Figure
Page
1. Results to the question 'What is the most important reason for you to
follow the news?'
77
2. Results to the statement 'By following the news, I develop my (political)
opinion'
78
3. Results to the question 'What is the most important goal of journalism?'
79
4. Results to the question how important it is for news media to be reliable
81
5. Results to the question how important it is for news media to cover
important subjects
81
6. Results to the question how important it is for news media to have a
critical stance towards politics and news
81
7. Results to the question how important it is for news media to have a
specific political stance
82
8. Results to the question 'What is the main strength of Dutch journalism?'
83
9. Results to the question 'What is the main weakness of Dutch journalism?'
84
10. Results to the statement 'Journalism cannot be missed in democracy'
85
11. Results to the statement 'All news media (so newspapers, TV-news,
Radio news and news on the internet) should be financed publically'
86
12. Results to the statement 'There should be a quality control on the Dutch
news media, for example by doing a yearly (political) debate.'
86
13. Results to the statement 'What I read and hear in the news, dictates my
voting behaviour during elections'
87
14. Results to the question 'How much money are you willing to spend on
news media?'
5
Acknowledgements
August 1st, 2012. While many people were still enjoying the lovely summer, I sat inside the newsroom at the harmony building alongside Eva Bosgraaf. Weeks earlier, we made a pact to start work on our thesis on this date in order to finish early. We both aimed to do an internship in December and graduate in March 2013.
At the time of writing this, it is July 9th 2013 and I quit my extended internship at De Volkskrant twelve days ago to be able to graduate before September 2013. When I started working on my thesis on that faithful Wednesday morning almost a year earlier, I certainly did not expect it would take me this long to finish it.
I started a very ambitious project. Researching the importance of journalism in democracy, by surveying young adults and interviewing political journalists; perhaps it was all a bit too ambitious. But now that the final product is here, I am proud that I took this task upon myself and decided to finish what I started.
I would not have been able to do that without #teamscriptie, the name we gave to our brave little squad of thesiswriters. Eva, Michiel, Sam, Marijke and myself were the regular members, spending almost every day in the newsroom for six months, other students were on heavy rotation. We kept each other spirits up, drank gallons of coffee and helped out when someone was stuck with their research. The idea that I would spend another couple of weeks with them in the newsroom made the fact that I did not make my own December deadline much more bearable.
Of course, I also want to thank my supervisor, Chris Peters. While he immediately pointed out that I was very ambitious with my project, his comments and nods in the right direction, helped me to make the product that now lays before you.
Most of all, however, I want to thank my parents for constantly supporting me. Without them, I would have not been able to study, let alone finish this thesis. They made everything I did these past couple of years possible. I cannot thank them enough for that.
I could go on thanking people, such as the respondents and all my friends, like I am an overwhelmed winner at the Oscars, but I am afraid the orchestra would have already started playing to shut me up by now. So without further ado; I hope you enjoy reading my thesis and appreciate the time and effort that went into it. It has been long and difficult road, but I made it to the end.
Jelger Woudstra,
6
1. Introduction
Democracy cannot function without journalism. This bold statement is what most journalists assume to be true. It is seen as the justification for the social status of journalists and the constitutional freedom they enjoy in most western democratic countries. According to journalists, they provide the democratic system with the informed voters it needs to function properly. Or better said, they provide the citizens with information and context of this information, so the citizenry can make informed decisions in the democratic process (Bennet et al., 2007; Curran, 2005; Dzur, 2002; Deuze, 2005; Ettema, 2007; Gans, 2011; Hanitzsch, 2007; McNair, 2009; Singer, 2003).
Not only is this what a lot of journalists assume to be true and also a popular subject among researchers. However, the majority of the research has one big flaw: it leaves the audience out of the equation (Madianou, 2009). What this means is that the identity (the self-perception) of journalists and their role is mapped out in the literature to a much greater extent, but the image (the perception of others) has been massively ignored. Some research is done on the image of journalists, but most of the times this was on the views of professionals, such as politicians and public relations experts, of journalists (see Neijens & Smit, 2006; Walgrave, 2008).
In this day and age, where traditional news media are struggling, it is important for both researchers and journalists to know what the audience thinks of news media. And there are several indicators that the perception of the audiences differs from that of journalist (see Singer, 2003; Paulson, 2002). Yet, through increasing commercialization and digitalization, the audience has become a more important player in news production (see for example Hanitzsch, 2007; Dahlgren, 2010a). The growing competition for the audience’s attention forces news media to pay closer attention to the needs, wishes and expectations of their reader- or viewership. And in a digital age, where interaction with the audience becomes part of the everyday job for news media and individual journalists, it is important to know what your social status is and how your work is received.
7
In line with the above, this research will focus on the perception of young adults (aged between 18 and 25 years old) of journalisms democratic role in the Netherlands. What role does journalism play in the democratic system, and how important are news media in maintaining this system, according to them? And most importantly, how does this compare to the journalists own perception. This leads to the following research question:
How does the perception of journalisms role in democracy by journalists and young adults in the Netherlands compare?
As both the research done on Dutch journalistic culture or role perceptions and the audiences perceptions of journalism is small in numbers and often dated, this research will research both sides of this comparison using. Each focus group will be researched using a specific method.
The journalistic perspective will be compiled by interviewing political journalists. It is chosen to interview political journalists for several reasons, but mainly because they are closest to what democracy is all about: politics. The perspective of young adults is gathered from surveying. This is done among people aged 18 to 25 years old, who have a right to vote and thus have a certain need to be informed and influence on democracy. In chapter 6 these methods will be discussed extensively. For these separate methods, two fairly straight-forward sub questions are formulated:
How do Dutch political journalists perceive the role of journalism in democracy? How do Dutch young adults perceive the role of journalism in democracy?
To determine the role, the separation made by McNair (2009) is used for analysis. He separates between three possible roles for journalism within democracy: journalism as a watchdog, as a mediator or as an advocate. These three roles and their respective goals and features will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 3.
What this research hopes to show is how the perceptions of journalists and its younger audience relate. As said, this is important since if the young adults of today do not read and pay for the news, the older generations of tomorrow are unlikely to do it. This naturally affects the future of journalism. And this starts with the expectations the audience has of journalists and what journalists think the audience expects of them. If the two do not overlap to some extent, a change in attitude on the journalistic side might be necessary to be able to continue reporting the news.
1.1 Outline
8
two, the need for journalism in democracy and the challenges the democratic function of journalism is facing, such as commercialization, digitalization and the pressured relationship with its sources. In chapter 3, we will discuss at the three possible journalistic roles used in this research to determine the role of Dutch journalism. This will start with a discussion of the watchdog role, followed by the mediator and the advocate role.
In chapter 4, we will look at the audience role and perceptions of journalism. The consumption of and views on journalism will be discussed. In the last part of this chapter we will take a closer look at the young audience.
The last part of the theoretical overview will be discussed in chapter 5, which will offer an overview of Dutch journalism in two parts; landscape and culture. In the former, the different media in the Netherlands will be outlined, while in the latter the ideological and professional attitudes of Dutch journalists will be discussed.
Next, the methods used in this research will be outlined in chapter 6. First, we will look at interviews, which were used to determine the self-perception of journalists. We will look at what they thought of as the goal of journalism, their relationship with politics, media’s identity and the strengths and weaknesses in Dutch journalism. Then, we will discuss surveying, which was done among young adults (between 18 and 25 years old) to determine their perception of the role and function of journalism. We will look at their motivation to follow the news and what they think are the goals, strengths and weaknesses and importance of journalism are.
What follows is the discussion of the results, in chapter 7, starting with the interviews, followed by the survey results. The full results of both the survey and the interviews can be found in Appendix II and V of this research.
9
2. Journalism and Democracy
Nowadays both journalists and journalism scholars agree that there is a relationship between journalism and democracy. According to Gans (2003: 56), journalists have a formed their own democratic ideal, which is widely accepted. Consisting of four basic steps, it can be regarded as a journalistic democratic theory, which describes how journalism influences, or should influence, democracy:
1. Journalists role is to inform citizens;
2. Citizens are assumed to be informed if they regularly attend to the local, national and international news journalists supply them;
3. The more informed citizens are, the more likely they are to participate politically, especially in the democratic debate that journalists consider central to participation and democracy;
4. The more that informed citizens participate, the more democratic America is likely to be. (Gans, 2003: 56)
It should be kept in mind that this four-step theory of how media help democracy develop is not scientific. Above anything else it is an ideal. In practice, there are many possible interfering variables. For example, citizens are not always willing to follow the news and even if they do there is no guarantee that they are more inclined to participate in democracy. However, the four-steps describe an ideal world, which journalists should keep in mind and strive for while producing their news.
Gans applies this four-step ideal to America, but it can just as easily be translated to any other democratic country, whether it is the United Kingdom, Germany or the Netherlands. Within this journalistic democratic ideal, journalism is an irreplaceable piece of democracy, a cornerstone of the political system (Bennet et al., 2007; Curran, 2005; Dzur, 2002; Deuze, 2005; Hanitzsch, 2007; McNair, 2009; Singer, 2003; Van Praag, 2012). In this idealistic world, citizens would not get the necessary, objective and neutral information to fulfil their role as active, engaged citizens who make informed decisions without news media. By providing this information, news media are democratically empowering citizens (Aalberg & Curran, 2012; Aalberg et al., 2012; Ettema, 2007; Gans, 2003; McNair, 2009).
10
of the democratic role journalism should fulfil is still based on the ideas from this era, in which politics were the sole focus of almost every news outlet (Curran, 2011).
To achieve its democratic ideals, journalism needs citizens who pay attention to the news and act upon it. Most definitions of the democratic ‘good citizen’ involve watching and following the news, as a form of civic duty (Ouellette, 1999). News media need to promote an active citizenry, which has voting as its most basic action. Newspapers often fulfil this mobilizing role better than television news does, research has shown, as newspapers often hold more “mobilizing information” (McCombs, et al., 2011: 122). In fact, mass media like television were not seen as “agent of socialization” at all swhen they first came onto the scene (Sundin, 2008: 130). Democratic theory also assumes that every individual citizen can hold elected officials accountable, but in practice this is far from realistic. To assure that citizens can still exert this power to some extent, journalism should serve as both a mouthpiece for the public and as a check on the state (Curran, 2011).
It might be stretching the point to argue that democracy and journalism are completely intertwined. As Schudson (2003: 197) points out: “News and news institutions exist even where democracy does not. Public notification about politics does not require or even imply general political inclusion.” Indeed, news consumption itself does not incite political engagement. It is argued to keep people at home, rather than make the public more actively engage with politics (Livingstone & Markham, 2008). In fact, political news rarely even changes short-term voting behaviour (McNair, 1998; Gans, 2003). News media do not create democracy, as they have existed and still exist in authoritarian, undemocratic countries. But journalism thrives when it enjoys freedom to report and most Western democratic countries grant press freedom as a constitutional right or have a public service model to keep news media a float. That press freedom is democratically decided, is a “political and constitutional agreement that public matters are to be decided on the basis of universal suffrage” (Schudson, 2003: 206). It acknowledges that journalism and news in democracy matter.
2.1 Why does journalism matter?
11
within the nation and report any fault made by these powerful institutions (McNair, 2009). Especially since the 1960s this has become an integral part of modern-day liberal journalism (Barnett, 2002). These functions also give journalists their social status. Journalistic products are regarded as a distinctive form of communication, privileged by the audiences’ expectations that a journalistic product is socially significant (McNair, 1998). This is agreed upon by Schudson (2003), who defines journalism as the production of information about publically important affairs. The aforementioned functions are also a way for journalists to justify their own work. The fact that journalists are allowed to keep their sources secret, is upheld by the idea that the information journalists provide is of such importance that their sources sometimes need protection. Some journalist would even go as far as breaking the law to get certain stories out, as long as the information gathered is of vital importance to the public and society as a whole.
By informing the public and fostering public debate, journalism also encourages democratic engagement and the evolution of democracy, though perhaps unconsciously (Curran, 2005; Dahlgren, 2009). To do so however, it has to have an effect on people and their lives (Gans, 2003). Most researchers now agree that journalism serves as a disseminator of both facts and values and by doing so shapes our (social) world. It is one of the most important sources on what is going on and what is true or false and right or wrong in the world (McNair, 1998; Schudson, 2003; Livingstone, 2003). First and foremost, however, it is the news event that has an effect on the public, not the news article or news video that journalists produce (Gans, 2003). The context and background journalists add in their news reports have an effect too, but without the news event that information is rather pointless and unlikely to have an effect. In other words, the events in the world shape journalism, while they shape it by reporting the events.
Journalism’s effect on democracy has been heavily researched and several researchers have shown that news media do indeed have an effect on the political engagement of the public. Much of the public’s knowledge on politics and general current affairs comes from news (Graber, 2004; McLeod et al., 1999), even if most stories followed closely by people are often stories told by friends or family, instead of directly by the news media (Gans, 2003). However, the political effects of journalism are widely covered and backed up.
12
Statistiek, 2011: 150). A link between declining media consumption and declining turnouts in the Netherlands is not confirmed. However, the declining turnouts follow the trend of decline in readership and hours spend on television (Bakkers & Scholten, 2011: 28).
Research done by Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996) has shown that good journalism does indeed help citizens to adhere more to the standards of democracy. Citizens that are better informed are more politically active, more likely to vote for politicians that reflect their ideas, have more stable attitudes on issues and are better at linking their own interests with their attitude. Other research has shown that undecided voters rely heavily on media for direction during election time (Van Aelst et al., 2012), that there is a correlation between hard news knowledge and a person’s ability to rank political parties on their ideals (Jenssen et al., 2012) and that news media are positively associated with more political knowledge, trust and participation (Norris, 2000; Livingstone & Markham, 2008), especially television (Gurevitch, et al., 2009). According to the Dutch statistics bureau, the Netherlands score high on political trust and participation, much like Scandinavian countries (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2011). But with journalism and political knowledge and participation closely linked, like outlined above, one can question what happens if younger audiences are less inclined to consume news. This research tries to establish a picture of the audience perception of the Dutch news media, which might help to shine a light on that situation.
Besides mobilizing effects, the most recognized effect of the news media is that of agenda-setting. This effect means that people will deem those subjects important to their lives or to their country that are covered in the news. In other words, the news media help public conversation to develop (Schudson, 2003). This is not to be confused with the propaganda-like approach of the hypodermic needle model, which implies that media insert ideas and stories into a passive public (Livingstone, 2003). Agenda-setting focuses on what people think about, not how they think about it. The concerns the public has about the world are often about what the journalists tell them that is happening, not everything that is in fact happening (McNair, 1998).
Besides the aforementioned informing, electoral and agenda-setting effects, Gans (2003: 71-84) distinguishes several other general media effects. These effects, such as the Watchdog-effect and the effects on the forming of opinions, can come under pressure if young audiences keep away from news media. Of others, such as the legitimation effect and the messenger effect, can be questioned whether they hold true for traditional media among younger audiences nowadays.
The Social Continuity effect: As Gans puts it, “the news is like the sun” (2003: 71), meaning
13
job. However, among younger audiences, the daily arrival of the newspaper hardly seems to be their cue that the world keeps turning. News is not a habit for younger audiences per se (Costera Meijer, 2007).
The Messenger effect: Journalists function as messengers to spread the word about an event
or happening and are usually hold accountable for the effects of an event that was part of the news. This could be seen as a ‘shoot the messenger’-reaction, but Schudson compares this with blaming a parent for the actions of their children and states that it helps to remind news media that they have a serious role (2003: 14). Their social role as messengers is assured by their use of renowned sources and the form in which the information is communicated.
Legitimation and Control effects: These forms and sources of news media give journalists a
certain level of legitimacy (Schudson, 2003). Through this legitimacy, journalistic outlets gain power. And by relying on mostly authoritative sources, they create a “mainstream snapshot” of the world and control how we see it (Gans, 2003; Schudson, 2003). Politically, this means for example that in election time, larger political parties’ dominance is usually being reinforced, as news media report on them more extensively than on smaller parties. By creating our window to the world, news media also form the basis for our opinions.
Effect on Opinions: The information from news media usually forms the basis of our opinions.
As there are many factors that influence and shape opinions, it is however hard to pin-point how much is contributed by the news media. Also, the neutrality journalism strives for makes it unlikely that its reports will radically change opinions.
Watchdog effects: The watchdog effect is perhaps the one journalists pride themselves on the
most. This focuses on the effects that follow from reporting of “illegal, dishonest, immoral, and other behaviour violating mainstream norms” (Gans, 2003: 79). An example of this is the impeachment of Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal. It is often argued that democracy would be hurt, if there were no news media to keep politicians in check.
General political effects: There are several smaller general political effects, the most
important of which is keeping politics on the public agenda and trying to attract people’s attention to it. This has proven difficult among young audiences (Livingstone & Markham, 2008). This keeps politicians and other public figures acting as if an audience is permanently paying attention.
14
accounted for is the influence of spin and public relations, usually overlooked when trying to assert media effects (Curran, 2011; Schudson, 2003).
Like any ideal, the journalistic democratic ideal is far from flawless. It is flawed as many different powers at play are ignored, especially economic powers, and it is so focused on politics that it often neglects the other aspects of society that have influence on the public’s political views (Gans, 2003). Journalism is facing many changes in this day and age, ranging from technological to commercial changes, that are generally believed to be “weakening public understanding and poses a threat to democracy” (Curran, 2011: 112). In the next section, these changes and challenges will be discussed and what effect they have on the democratic function of journalism.
2.2 Changes and challenges in journalism
Journalism is facing a major crisis (Dahlgren, 2010a). While television is still the number one medium for news in most homes (Curran, 2011), daily newspapers are in steady decline in most Western Countries, including the Netherlands, since World War II ended. In the United States at the end of the previous century, the reading public for newspapers declined to 45 percent, while in 1995 and 1965 this was still 52 percent and 71 percent respectively (Gans, 2003). More recent numbers show that the number of weekday newspapers in circulation has declined from little over sixty million in 1990 to little over forty million in 2011 in the United States (Pew, 2012a). In the Netherlands, circulation has dropped 26 percent between 1980 and 2010. The coverage level of the newspapers, meaning the percentage of the reading public that are reached by the newspapers, also dropped considerably in the same period: from 105 percent, meaning more than full coverage, in 1980 to just 47 percent in 2010 (Bakkers & Scholten, 2011).
And while television may still be the number one news source (see also Curran, 2011) and has attracted more viewers over 2011 than in the two years before, it has lost 54,5 percent of its audience since 1980 in the States, coming down to a loss of about 28.4 million viewers (Pew, 2012a). While the hours of television watched per week in the Netherlands in 2010 are slightly higher than it was in 1980, there is a considerable drop in time spend on television viewing since 2000. Back then, the Dutch spend 12.4 hours a week on television viewing, while in 2010 it was only 10.8 hours a week (Bakkers & Scholten, 2011: 28).
15
the decline in audience interest, like the growing power of political sources, the changes on the business side and the changes in technology, does not always work in their own best interest (Dahlgren, 2009).
2.2.1 Journalists and their sources: a power struggle
Sociologist Herbert Gans (2003) argues out that journalism prides itself on its public responsibility, but at the same time undermines democracy through its routines and practices. Most political news is top-down, often citing (high-level) government officials instead of bottom-up sources such as activists, opposition groups or citizens in general (see also Dahlgren, 2003; Dzur, 2002). Even the famous and applauded Watergate story could not have materialized without information and support from many high officials (Curran, 2011). Top-down news has two major consequences according to Gans (2003). First, the news reflects the perspective of the upper layer of society, widening the gap between audience and journalism. Too few stories are written from the perspective of the average citizen, causing them to quickly lose interest. Secondly, the official sources usually have the first say, putting journalists in a reactive and thus inferior position.
This last point has caused audiences, politicians and other agents that interact with the news media to be increasingly suspicious of journalists claim to be impartial and objective (Dahlgren, 2010a). Journalists may help shape society, as stated earlier, but society influences journalists as well. The statement of communist leader Vladimir Lenin that “to live in society, and be free of it, is impossible” is true for everyone, in both democratic and non-democratic countries (in McNair, 1998: 82). Journalists pretending to be free from societal influences incites scepticism. Journalism has to put more work into convincing the public that they are a trustworthy and autonomous institution, which are, despite increasing suspicion from the audience, still very important qualities ascribed to journalism (McNair, 1998; Costera Meijer, 2007).
Losing the public’s trust can be blamed partially on the increasingly structured political communication (Barnett, 2002). Even twenty years ago, journalists were seen as part of a political class, rather than be separated from it and reporting on it (Dzur, 2002). And since then, political communication has only grown in size and resources. Every politician has multiple spin doctors and communication experts by his or her side, controlling their communicative output. For journalists it becomes increasingly difficult to break through the flow of spin and PR (Dahlgren, 2010a). Failing to clear this PR and spin smokescreen, leads journalistic outlets some times to be seen as mouthpieces of political parties or organizations, harming their legitimacy (Curran, 2011).
16
opinions on or that will inspire them to be politically active (Barnett, 2002; Gans, 2011). And poorly informed, politically inactive citizens are a threat to the whole concept of democracy. Without politically active citizens, democracy cannot function properly as it is based on the very fact that citizens influence political power. Political inactivity among citizens can be blamed on both journalism, for not engaging citizens with the world around us, and citizens, for not fulfilling the responsibility to become engaged and participate (Dahlgren, 2009). This perhaps best described by Butsch (2002:2): “In the nineteenth century, critics feared active audiences; in the twentieth, their passivity.”
Especially television has been blamed for harming public participation, as it keeps people at home and has a tendency to quickly focus on entertainment rather than news (Putnam, 2000). Entertainment TV-programs, such as So You Think You Can Dance or The X-factor, simply attract more viewers than television news does. Putnam argues that these shows distract from the civic role citizens have and leaves them uninformed about current events. It can also be argued that serious television news-programs are incorporating more light-hearted, entertaining news, such as items on animal news or celebrity news, to attract viewers, which also distract from the more serious news items that arguably matter more democratically speaking.
However, Livingstone and Markham (2008) and Gurevitch et al. (2009) suggest that television does not harm such measures as political interest or voting behaviour, but only has a negative effect on more diverse civic activities, such as petition-signing, protesting and contacting politicians. Knowledge of newspaper and/or television hard news was still found to a positive impact on knowledge on (local) politics and political discussions (McLeod et al., 1999). It can thus be questioned whether the problem of civic disengagement really lies in the nature and quality of journalistic coverage, but it is perhaps to blame on other factors (Livingstone, 2005).
All in all, the way people view the world nowadays is more reliant on other factors than just traditional journalism, reducing journalism’s role in democracy (Dahlgren, 2010a). Journalism’s role as gatekeepers and enablers of public discussion is being diminished and challenged by political communication as outlined above. But not only the influence of sources is growing, commercial interests and technological innovation are changing the journalistic landscape as well (Deuze, 2005).
2.2.2 Commercialism and Journalism: a devilish dilemma
17
private media, this market orientation is becoming increasingly important too (Hanitzsch, 2007). This is partly due to very few big media corporations owning the majority of the media outlets, especially in the United States (McNair, 1998), and the need to make up for loss of advertisement revenue to the internet by increasing sales (Curran, 2011). Research done by the Pew research centre shows that today’s advertisement revenue, including online advertisement, for newspapers is roughly at the same level as it was in the mid-80s, with costs for production having risen considerably in the past thirty years (Pew, 2012a). In the Netherlands, recent numbers show that advertising is also under pressure. The third-quarter report of Telegraaf Media Group, owner of the Netherlands’ biggest national newspaper De Telegraaf, showed that their advertisement income in 2012 had dropped over 12 percent compared to the same period the year before1. Dutch media have to deal with dropping circulation and advertisement revenue (Pleijter et al., 2012).
Some argue that a free media market can only do well for journalism. With no funding from the government, the media are free from political pressures and can more successfully adapt a critical stance towards politicians. On the audience side, the free market assures that media are aimed at the wishes of the audience. Since private media rely on sales to generate income, they need to keep the interests of their audience in mind, as not to lose their connection with the audience. However, it is believed that commercial pressures undermine the democratic function of journalism (Baker, 2006). The free market usually leads to a polarization between elite media, with high information density, and mass media, with more entertainment-driven news (Curran, 2005). The sensationalistic story is favoured over the story that is, or should be, deemed most significant to the reader (Curran, 2005; Curran, 2011; Dahlgren, 2009; Gans, 2003; McNair, 2009). Furthermore, commercial pressures are feared to affect journalist’s autonomy over their news selection and the way it is presented (Gans, 2003). Also, market pressures undermine the critical position of journalists, as there are corporate goals at play that might prevent them from being the watchdogs they are thought to be (Curran, 2011). This is, however, not a critique of just commercial media markets. Public media are criticized for being too closely related to politics in order to be critical (Curran, 2005). The governmental funding these media receive, is said to restrict media in their coverage as a too critical stance towards the government can harm their income (Raboy, 2003). The complete opposite can also be argued however. The fact that politicians see it as important to keep journalism on the right track can be viewed as a confirmation of the importance of news media. McNair (1998: 95) cites the Representation of the People Act in Britain as an example of such political control. This legislation tries to assure equal
18
coverage of all important political actors during election time, to make sure people are informed on all sides of politics.
Since the public service ideal assumes that all citizens should be exposed to a varied programming to be able to cast informed votes in elections, its coverage is usually more varied than that of commercial outlets and less driven by the number of viewers. In the Netherlands, the public news broadcaster NOS has the goal to communicate the news in such a way that it is understandable for every potential viewer (NPO, 2010). To do so, several different news broadcasts exists besides the regular news broadcast, such as the NOS Jeugdjournaal, aimed at kids aged around ten years old, and NOS op 3, which is aimed at teenagers and twenty-something’s. Perhaps because of this, public media are often more successful in reaching disadvantaged groups, than commercial media (Curran, 2011).
Curran (2005: 130) even goes as far as arguing that publicly funded media often come closer to fulfilling the liberal ideal of news media fostering democracy. According to him, they are more diverse and prioritize public affairs programming and informed debate. On the other hand, a free media market, he argues, restricts the freedom to publish by the high start-up costs, focusses on human interest stories rather than public affairs, spawns information-rich media for elites and information-poor media for the masses, and undermines informed discussions, since it produces simplified and decontextualized information.
He continues by pointing out that publicly funded media often come closer to fulfilling the free watchdog role, than the free market media do. But as pointed out above, both have certain constraints that could seriously affect this role.
Both television and newspaper media are under influenced by commercial pressures. Television is seen as the medium most influenced by commercial pressures, especially since there are so many (non-news) alternatives for the audience to choose from (Gurevitch et al., 2009). But the rise of competition in the news media has also affected the traditionally more serious quality newspapers, which are also believed to become increasingly trivial to attract more audiences (Barnett, 2002). And the biggest competitor for newspapers and television audiences is the internet.
2.2.3 Journalism and the internet: blessing or curse?
19
day and age of information overload, a suitable way for journalists to fulfil their public service ideals might be that of a dissector of information, who serves as an interpreter of the information and gives it context (Gurevitch et al., 2009; Dahlgren, 2010a).
Despite all this, critics see the crisis of traditional journalism as an opening to create new progressive, independent journalistic projects, which were held back during the reign of traditional media. This hope is mainly based on three main arguments: the internet enables journalists to have instant access to new (previously overlooked) sources and public information; it gives birth to web-based media which compensate the loss of traditional news media and ‘old’ and ‘new’ media come together to form a new form of journalism, where the public works together with journalist to create new forms of reporting (Curran, 2011).
While the internet has enabled the rise of some interesting journalistic projects, with The Huffington Post as its prime example, it has hurt the traditional media more than anything. In the period between 2001 and 2009, the number of journalists in America was reduced by 20 percent, several newspapers closed and editorial budgets shrunk, because of losing advertising revenue to the internet. These effects especially damage the democratic function of those media that rely heavily on advertising income (Curran, 2011).
And while the internet does offer a lot of opportunities for traditional media to increase the public’s involvement with the news, both as producers and as consumers, they rarely are very innovative in their web-appearance. Most newspaper websites are still little more than online versions of the paper version, usually with shortened articles (Gans, 2003). Yet, these abbreviated online newspapers are thriving, especially among younger audiences (Pew, 2008; Livingstone et al., 2007). The internet, and more recently the trend of smartphones, has the potential to bring politics to any place at any time. News media have the opportunity to reach audiences anywhere and anytime, instead of when they are in the vicinity of their television set or doormat. With this around-the-clock access to news, the technological advancements have a considerable potential for news media to create a politically well-informed audience (McCombs et al., 2011).
20
journalists and their gatekeeper role are being reduced (Gurevitch et al., 2009). Traditional media are no longer the leading source for political information.
21
3. The Roles of Journalism
As shown in the past chapter, journalism is still believed to have an important democratic function, even now that it is being challenged by changes on the business, audience and technological side. This research is trying to find out how that democratic function is fulfilled by journalists in the Netherlands. In the next chapter, the theoretical framework for these roles will be outlined.
In this research the three roles identified by McNair (2009) will be used as a basis for analysis: the watchdog, the mediator or the advocate. These roles will be discussed separately in the sections below. Beforehand, it should be pointed out that these roles are not mutually exclusive. Different stories ask for different approaches and the roles can overlap to some extent. Also, different media can fulfil different roles within the same democracy (Curran, 2005).
While the separation by McNair is used as the main tool for analysis, the different professional milieus, identified by Hanitzsch (2011), should be acknowledged. These milieus are groups of journalist with the same or similar views on “the social functions of journalism” (Hanitzsch, 2011: 478). In his cross-national study, he finds four dominant professional milieus: populist disseminators, detached watchdog, critical change agent and opportunist facilitators. The first two of these milieus closely overlap with McNair’s mediator and watchdog roles respectively. Hanitzsch’ critical change agent and opportunist facilitators come, when combined, fairly close the advocate role.
However, there is one aspect on which these milieus are completely opposite, namely in their position towards the government. The critical change agent is detached from the government and completely opposed to fostering a positive image of politics and politicians. On the other hand, the opportunist facilitator milieu implies that the media are working closely with politics to facilitate a positive image of politics, policy and politicians. Unsurprisingly, this milieu is mostly found in western and non-democratic countries, such as Uganda and China (Hanitzsch, 2011: 478). In most western countries, especially those similar to the Netherlands such as Germany and Austria, the role is virtually non-existent. The relation between Hanitzsch’ milieus and McNair’s three roles will be discussed in more detail in the next sections.
In the next few sections, the three roles described by McNair (2009) are discussed, starting with the watchdog role. Second, the mediator role will be discussed and lastly the advocate role.
3.1 Journalism as a Watchdog
22
journalistic caution towards all official statements and policies. In other words, journalists act as a critical check on politics as a whole and business and hold them accountable (Barnett, 2002; Ettema, 2007; Hanitzsch, 2007; McNair, 1998). It also assumes a certain need to protect the public from politicians abusing the power granted by them by the very same public (Curran, 2005). This role has fair amount of overlap with Hanitzsch’ detached watchdog milieu (2011).
For both McNair’s watchdog and Hanitzsch’ detached watchdog, the same journalistic expectation is most important. Out of the four expectations of political journalism McNair (2009) describes (informing, critical scrutiny, representation and advocacy, and partiality (which should be clearly signalled as such)), critical scrutiny applies most to the watchdog. Commentary, analysis and a critical view on the news and people in the news is what both the critical scrutiny expectation and the watchdog role imply.
What the watchdog first and foremost requires to adhere to this expectation is autonomy, freedom from both state and commercial influences. Journalists in a democracy should also be willing to defend their freedom to report against the state (McNair, 1998). This is part of journalists’ ideal in general (Deuze, 2005), but for the watchdog-function it is crucial as journalists should not have to fear repercussions from being critical towards any institution, politician or organization. Hanitzsch (2011: 485) also points out, in his description of the detached watchdog, that journalists who identify with this role are “also most opposed to the idea that they should support official policies in order to bring prosperity and development”. In other words, journalists should be free from all bonds with the state, politics or individual politicians, in order to be critical. No relationship may compromise this critical approach, for those journalists who view themselves as watchdogs. They should not have to fear repercussions if they expose abuse of power or errors made by politicians (Curran, 2005).
Commercial news media, if they aim to act as critical checks on the state, should also be unrestricted by commercial ties. While some argue that only a free market system can support a true watchdog media, since public media might lose their ‘bite’ as watchdogs since cuts in their public support might follow if they bite too hard, but this assumption is premature as Curran (2005) shows. First, pressure from shareholders, to make profits, can compromise journalistic freedom. If media are pressured to make profits, it is likely that popular topics are preferred over politically important topics such as power abuse. Second, political and business interests of media owners can also restrict journalists in their critical approach, as critique on politicians or other business, may harm the media company in the long run.
23
1960s and 1970s. What was before known as lapdog journalism turned into watchdog journalism (Barnett, 2002). Lapdog journalism is what could be related to the opportunist facilitators from Hanitzsch’ (2011) division. In western democracies, specifically the United States, this was the common professional attitude until the mid-1960s. Journalists refrained from critical comments on their politicians, in order to maintain good relationship. The Watergate story and the Vietnam War were the starting points for the development of investigative watchdog journalism in the United States (Barnett, 2002). Journalists started to keep society as a whole, and specifically politicians, in check (McNair, 2009).
In the Netherlands, the media landscape was shaped by the different pillars in society. At the same time that watchdog ideal came to rise in the United States, around the mid-1960s, the Dutch media started to become increasingly pillar-neutral and act as assertive, yet respectful watchdogs. In the years after 1990, the Dutch media are typified as a distanced Cerberus, who is investigative and gives interpretation of the news (Brants, 2002: 97).
However, in the United States the watchdog attitude quickly turned into what Barnett (2002) describes as junkyard journalism, with journalists scavenging for sensationalistic political stories, in which politicians were often being treated harsher than necessary. He blames this partially on the fact that journalists determination to take a critical position transforms into a “relentlessly negative approach to both politicians and politics itself” (Barnett, 2002: 404), especially referring to the harsh and sometimes disrespectful language used by media when reporting about politicians. An argument made by Dahlgren (2009: 51) underlines this argument, in a slightly more nuanced way, by saying that the media “have also been barking at many shadows, too many trivial and personal details that do not necessarily relate to politics and the public interest”. According to him, media have abused the relative loss of power politicians have had to deal with in the past years, being watchdogs to politicians on a personal and private level as well. He continues by stating that media are so focused on politics, and nowadays their personal lives too, that the news media tend to forget to act as watchdogs towards other economic powers (see also Dahlgren, 2010b: 33). This argument is supported by Curran (2005), who suggest that the very definition of the watchdog-role is old-fashioned, as it originally focused keeping the state in check, leaving the other powerful forces, such as large corporations, within society relatively unchallenged.
24
sell and attract as many consumers as possible overrides the journalistic ethos of fair and critical reporting. While also criticizing the influence of the free market on the watchdog role, Curran (2005) also points to the need for private media to assure distance between state and news media, something a public model cannot assure.
Judging from these critiques, it may seem that no media model can facilitate the watchdog role of journalism. Curran is right to point out however that it is too easy to assume that private media will be slaves to corporate interests and that public media will be under heavy governmental influence. As he puts it:
Privately owned media need to maintain audience interest in order to be profitable; they have to sustain public legitimacy in order to avoid societal retribution; and they can be influenced by the professional concerns of their staff. […] Likewise, the long-term interest of public broadcasters is best served by developing a reputation for independence that wins public trust, and sustains political support beyond the duration of the current administration. (Curran, 2005; 127)
As shown at the start of this section, the watchdog role is one that prioritizes a critical stance towards the state, and ideally also to the other powerful within society, both in the public and the private realm. Autonomy, commentary, analysis and investigative reporting are key aspects for journalists who try to adhere to this role. It is, however, a difficult role to assume, as both public and commercial media markets restrict the critical approach of the news media in their own way. Also, it is a role that has a delicate balance between being too critical and not being critical enough. A role that does not prioritize critical scrutiny as much, and is more focused on (objectively) informing the public on the workings and policies is the mediator role, which will be discussed in the next section.
3.2 Journalism as a Mediator
25
One could say that the mediator role could easily be renamed to just a communicator role as this role focuses on spreading and providing information. This, however, would say nothing about the way in which “journalistic communication differs from poetry, encyclopaedias, how-to manuals, pornography, the Boy Scout Handbook and Star Wars” (Schudson, 2003: 11). What differs are the goals of journalistic communication. The main objective of journalistic communication is to supply necessary information about policies and decision making from the government to the public, so that they can act as informed citizens (McNair, 2009; Dzur, 2002; Singer, 2003; Van Praag, 2012). And as shown in the earlier section on the relation between journalism and democracy, the public’s political knowledge relies to a great extent on journalistic outlets. Since the public should be able to make their own informed, political decisions on the basis of the information journalists supply, neutrality and objectivity are key aspects to strive for when the mediator role is adopted (Deuze, 2005; McNair, 2009). The two terms should not be mixed up. In a news story, objective information can still favour one actor more than the other, and thus the story would not be neutral as one actor is being ‘harmed’. However, journalists as mediators aim to not emphasize this, if this might occur. Mediators do not want to decide for their audience what is right or what is wrong. They try to shape the image of the world, so that it is as close to reality as possible, by providing information, context, background and analysis to create that image (Dahlgren, 2009). The interpretation and implications of the news that is reported, is left up to the audience.
While objectivity and neutrality are important features of the mediator role of journalists, immediacy is a close third (Deuze, 2005; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1996). Usually, news is only relevant for a short period of time, either because the next story presents itself or because the news event lasts a short time. Therefore, getting the news out quick is important to many journalists, especially if you want to keep the public properly informed. But with immediacy, and also with objectivity and neutrality, come several problems for journalists as mediators.
First of all, the speed that the internet brought to publishing has sprouted problems for journalists (Kansas & Gitlin, 1999). First, the internet has increased the competition for the public’s attention. If one news outlet is not the first to publish certain information, the rival might be the first, thus taking away potential readers. Second, if reporting has to be put on the internet within a shorter time span, the time for fact-checking, contacting sources and writing decreases. This leads to incomplete or unchecked reporting, which in turn harms the mediator role for journalists as the public is not being properly and accurately informed.
26
have to make choices: Which items to report on, which items to prioritize, how much attention is given to a certain topic, how to cover a topic. By making these choices, news media consciously and unconsciously shape our image of reality (McCombs et al., 2011), thus making it more media-shaped than objective. And even the media’s gatekeeper role is being challenged due to the great extent of information on the internet (Deuze, 2005). Furthermore, news media always describe conflicts within society, in the broadest meaning, between two or more groups and the frames used to portray that conflict are never fully impartial (Curran, 2005; Schudson, 2003).
All of the above has led Gans (2011) to plea for multi-perspectival news, a term first introduced by the sociologist in 1979. Multi-perspectival news means that news should become more diverse and prioritize not only authoritative sources but also more ordinary sources, such as citizens. According to him, this would lead to a more representative picture of reality:
And if journalists are to function as representatives, what they contribute to the public sphere should also be representative: a picture of the country that is empirically and otherwise as accurate as possible. (Gans, 2011; 8)
Thirdly, there is criticism related to the free market model. As mentioned in the previous section on the watchdog role, Curran (2005) argues that the free market creates a (politically) information rich media for elites and an information poor media for the masses. This harms journalists as mediators as they do not supply the majority of the public with a full or detailed representation of the world and the different forces at play. And if the masses make use of news media with low information levels, a lack of political information can hamper them in their democratic role as citizens.
Lastly, on an institutional level, increasingly structured political communication is hurting journalists as mediators. Political spin and PR are distorting journalistic reports, as they are increasingly hard to identify. This means that the public receives distorted information as journalists are increasingly functioning as messengers for political parties (Dinan & Miller, 2009; Schudson, 2003). This puts tension on the relationship between journalists, politicians and the public. For starters, Journalists do not want to be treated as uncritical mouthpieces for politicians (Barnett, 2002), making journalists increasingly negative in their approach towards politicians. In addition, the public trust in journalism’s truthfulness declines and journalists are seen more and more as part of the political classes (Dzur, 2002). One could argue that this could especially be the case for public media outlets, as they have a relatively close relationship with the government.
27
always a mediator, since information is mediated in every news report. What distinguishes the mediator role from the watchdog role is that it is much more neutral and less critical. The ideal of neutrality and objectivity held in high regard by journalists as mediators, is the main point of critique, since it is almost impossible to be completely neutral and objective. It is widely accepted however, that journalists should strive to get as close as possible to objective and neutral reporting. If neutrality and objectivity are no longer the main goals for journalism, however, and taking sides becomes part of the job, a third role is created.
3.3 Journalism as an Advocate
The third and final role McNair (2009) describes, and that is used in this research as a framework for analysis, is that of an advocate. This role is much more persuasive and the partiality and advocacy expectations are the most important. In Hanitzsch (2011) division, this role comes closest to a combination of the critical change agent and opportunist facilitator milieus. Like mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, these two milieus are the complete opposite when it comes to the relationship with the government: one being very much detached and critical of government (critical change agent) and the other being very closely linked with the government as a whole (opportunist facilitator). McNair’s advocate is somewhere in the middle on this point, as it usually not per say uncritical of the state, but often closely linked with one political viewpoint, rather than the government all together. In the advocate role, journalists promote certain political views, are more partisan than in the watchdog or mediator role and can try to convince its audience of a particular (political) view (McNair, 2009). This role, even more than the watchdog role, falls in the category of journalism described as “interventionist, socially committed and motivated” (Hanitzsch, 2007: 372).
Of the key traits of journalism described by Deuze (2005), objectivity and autonomy are not as self-evident for journalists as advocates, as they are for journalists as mediators or watchdogs. Much more than in the aforementioned roles, the advocate role takes sides and often promotes certain solutions to problems only pointed out and explained by mediators or watchdogs (Curran, 2005; Haas & Steiner, 2001). Advocate journalism usually has strong ties with one political party or view and actively voice this in their reporting. It is a form of journalism that is strongly focused on the audience, both to persuade them and to represent what is on the audiences’ agenda.
28
poverty to a great extent, the public is likely to see poverty as a more important issue in society (Schudson, 2003). Advocacy journalists will pick up on this and increase their reporting on the poverty issue, as this is a topic that the public deems important. By doing so, journalists put poverty on the agenda, and the whole cycle start again. So by prioritizing certain issues in their reporting, advocacy journalists can put them higher on the public agenda and more or less influence the direction of their own work.
In democratic corporatist media systems and liberal media systems (Hallin & Mancini, 2004), this role is usually limited but not non-existent per say. One can argue that Fox News and MSNBC in the United States are openly acting as an advocate for certain political views, as well as the tabloids in the United Kingdom. In the pluralist media system, mostly found in Mediterranean Europe (Hallin & Mancini, 2004), this role is much more common, as news media often have strong ties with political parties. Especially in Italy this relationship is obvious, as former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is the biggest shareholder in mass media organization Mediaset, which owns several (news) channels in Spain and Italy.
While traditional journalism in some countries adopts the advocate role, it is often fulfilled by public journalism. Public journalists call for a redefinition of news. From their point of view, news is dominated too much by officials, political parties and elite sources, and should be aimed more at the interests of citizens (Dzur, 2002). Public journalism “attempts to put the ideals of deliberative democracy into the practice of journalism by making the promotion of public deliberation part of the journalists role” (Dzur, 2002: 315; see also Gans, 2003). Public journalists argue that journalists are out of touch with their audience, and neglect one of the key democratic functions of journalism, representing people to authority (Curran, 2005). Furthermore, the argument of Haas and Steiner (2001) that journalists should also promote solutions to problems in society, is also used by public journalists. On the other hand, Dzur (2002) points out that public journalism often neglects the importance of a critical stance towards the state and other powerful organizations.
29
News media that fit into the advocate role usually have strong ties with a certain political viewpoint or party. However, unlike the opportunist facilitator milieu (Hanitzsch, 2011), which also tries to create a positive image for the state, the advocate role is usually critical of politics at large. The role is also aimed at the audience to a great extent, as representing the interests of the audience is of great importance. Out of the three of McNair’s roles, this is what comes closest to being a mouthpiece of the people, but with the side note that it usually is focused at only its audience, not the public as a whole.
30
4. Journalism and Audiences
In this chapter, the relationship between journalism and its audience will be explored. While research on journalisms role has been to a great extent, much of it has one big flaw: it leaves out the audiences’ perspective (Madianou, 2009). Research on audience perception is thus limited. This research tries to fill that gap to some extent, by looking at both journalists’ self-perception and the perception of the audience, specifically the younger generation. First, the way news is used will be looked at, followed by an overview of the perceptions of journalism. Lastly, the relationship of youth with news and journalism will be described.
Perception research on journalism has been done, but mostly focused on politicians or public relation experts (Neijens & Smit, 2006; Walgrave, 2008). The perception of the audience on journalism seems largely ignored. A lot of recent research on audiences focusses on the empowerment of citizens through the internet (Bruns, 2008) and perceptions on news credibility of blogs, rather than traditional news sources (Chung et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2007). And in the article of Chung et al. (2007) the perception of journalism educators and journalists is researched, but is not it of greater importance what the audience thinks of blog credibility? In order to better understand how journalism is used and experienced, researchers must, just as Peters (2012: 704) concludes, “begin to speak with audiences, as opposed to just about them”. And the aforementioned subjects are important to cover, but the relationship the audience has with journalism in a time where journalistic power is waning, is a question that should not be ignored.
31
consuming, but it also causes different research-projects to be disconnected from each other, since their categorizing system differs greatly.
Therefore, a less risky approach for analysing audiences and publics is adopted in this research. Here we see the audiences as the public (Livingstone, 2005). No separation is made between the more passive audience and the active public. This means that those who consume media are seen as a quite homogenous group. Of course, it can be questioned if all people can be thrown together in one group, all assumed to behave or act in the same way. While this is true, it also makes the analysis of this group clearer as they are not categorized and can be analysed as one group. Because the definitions of an active public and the audience are so unclear, it makes it incredibly hard and risky to distinguish between audience and public, as there is no way to test where one person belongs. Therefore the terms audience and public are the same in this research and can be used interchangeably.
In the following sections, the uses of news, the perception of news media and the media’s relationship with youth audiences will be looked at. While this research does not look at the way news is consumed, it is important to have some understanding of the uses and consumption of news media. This will be discussed in the next section.
4.1 The audience of news and what they do
The first important question regarding the audience is how they use news. If for whatever reason, be it commercial or democratic, journalists want to understand audience needs, they need to know what keeping up with the news means for the audience (Gans, 2003). While journalists cannot survive without an audience, the audience usually plays just a minor role in news production. For a long time, the audience was seen as a mere collection of receivers of news (Loosen & Schmidt, 2012). But in an internet-era, this old-fashioned notion seems no longer relevant. News media have to take the needs and wishes of the audience seriously in their production, as the competition for the audience’s attention, which grew more intense when cable television and 24-hour news channels were introduced, has increased even more since the introduction of the internet.
Besides that, the increased possibilities for interaction with the news give the audiences a voice like never before in news discussions (Livingstone, 2003). Yesterday’s consumers are today’s users of media:
Media audiences are now able to intervene in political stories with a degree of effectiveness that would have been unthinkable ten or twenty years ago. (Gurevitch et al., 2009: 168)
