Alternative media sourcing routines in the digital era:

(1)

Alternative media sourcing

routines in the digital era:

A comparative analysis of how Scottish alternative and

mainstream media use Twitter as a sourcing tool

MA Thesis

Student: Mark McIntyre (S2922185) Supervisor: Dr. Dana Mustata Second Reader: Dr Scott Eldridge II MA Media Studies 2017-18

University of Groningen Hand in date: 28/03/2018

(2)

2

Abstract

This research sets out to explore how Scottish alternative and mainstream publications are making use of social media platform Twitter in their sourcing routines, with particular interest in seeing whether the ‘alternative’ news-site in question (CommonSpace) is using it to feature a different range of voices to that which appear in the mainstream newspaper (The Herald). To do this, a two part analysis is conducted: firstly, a content analysis of tweets that are cited in news reports in CommonSpace and The

Herald in order to see which types of voices each publication is sourcing from the social media

platform; secondly, a discourse analysis of tweets cited in CommonSpace articles, analysing their language, content and context, in order to better understand the degree to which these voices featured in CommonSpace are drawn from a truly ‘alternative public sphere’.

The findings of the content analysis show that CommonSpace does appear to feature a different range of voices drawn from Twitter to that of The Herald: that CommonSpace appears to feature a much higher number of ‘alternative’ voices to that which appear in The Herald.

The discourse analysis of tweets within several key example articles from CommonSpace reveals that its journalists are using the social media platform as a means of drawing attention to a range of causes and viewpoints from across an ‘alternative public’ sphere, and to voices which would not be

ordinarily represented in the mainstream media. Additionally, it is shown that in citing the tweets of such alternative sources, CommonSpace broadly portrays these political and social groups as positive, optimistic, and inclusive movements.

Keywords: alternative media, mainstream media, sourcing routines, social media, content analysis,

(3)

3

Introduction

In recent years, technology has been dramatically altering the shape of the modern media landscape.

The spread of the internet has done much to democratise and disrupt what was previously a structured and hierarchical media system, dominated by the biggest players. The easy availability of blogging software and other publishing tools, as well as new means for promoting work to a wide audience at low cost, has lowered the barriers to entry for would-be journalists and allowed non-professional reporters to challenge traditional media institutions for presence in the modern public sphere. Alternative media, which has long existed in various forms, from political pamphlets to activist newsletters, has blossomed to new heights in this digital era.

And yet, despite this increased presence in what is an increasingly fragmented medial landscape, it is still a relatively open question of how much alternative media publications are living up to their radical promises of upturning the so-called hierarchies of access and of bringing new counter-elite voices into news reportage.

The key studies into alternative media reporting practices, which aimed to answer this question, are not only few and far between, but now almost all over a decade old. Variously, they observed alternative media to be living up to its long predicted potential for incorporating a different cast of voices than in mainstream reporting (Harcup, 2003), although there were indications that this achievement was only very limited (Atton & Wickenden, 2005).

More recent studies into online alternative media (in the form alternative news sites and blogs) have found that when it comes to linking to other online sources, there is a strong preference for official government sources (Kenix 2009), or even mainstream media sources (Walejko et al., 2008). All in all though, there remains a mixed picture in the understanding of just how radical alternative media is in terms of which voices it gives power to in its reporting, and whether it is living up to its promise as supposed in earlier literature.

It is the hope of this study then, to answer the calls of scholars of alternative media who have asked for more up to date examinations of alternative journalists’ newsgathering routines –

specifically their sourcing routines (Atton, 2009), to better determine how alternative publications are living up to their supposed ideals of promoting alternative voices.

(5)

5 In an attempt to bring something new to the study of alternative media sourcing routines, this study will examine a novel aspect of sourcing practices in journalism, that of sourcing via social media.

A recent batch of studies have highlighted how journalists are incorporating social media platforms as news and source gathering tools to increasing degrees (Broersma & Graham 2012, 2013; Paulussen et al. 2014). As yet though, these studies have focused solely on mainstream media.

This study will aim to take what has been learned from this recent body of research, and taking the lead of Tony Harcup’s (2003) comparison of alternative and mainstream publications’ use of sources, will compare how one alternative online news website and one mainstream newspaper utilize tweets as sources in their journalism.

An added benefit of this study, and in order to maximise the utility, originality and freshness of the research, this study will chiefly focus on the media landscape of Scotland – a country where alternative media has blossomed strongly in recent years in response to political events, but one which has historically received little attention from journalism scholarship. As such, the study will compare the alternative online-based news website CommonSpace, and quality mainstream newspaper The

Herald, to see how the pair utilize tweets as sources differently.

The study’s main overarching research question will then be put as thus:

Research question:

How does alternative media make use of Twitter in its

sourcing routines, and in what ways does it differ from the mainstream media’s

use of the platform?

This is admittedly a fairly broad question, but in order to help answer it, several more specific sub-questions will be asked:

Sub-question 1: Whose tweets tend to feature in CommonSpace’s reporting, and how does this differ from The Herald?

This question is informed by the work of Harcup (2003), and Atton & Wickenden (2005), who both observed, to varying degrees and with certain nuances, that alternative media did appear to be featuring voices otherwise marginalised by mainstream reporting. It will be the aim to see if a contemporary alternative publication shares this tendency, or whether its sourcing patterns, as

(6)

6 influenced by social media, share more in common with a mainstream media publication than had previously been observed.

Sub-question 2: How frequently do tweets from alternative and mainstream media sources feature in reporting from CommonSpace and The Herald’s comparatively?

This is question arises out of the findings of Kenix (2009), Walejko & Ksiazek (2008), who discovered that modern online-based alternative media shows a tendency towards sourcing from mainstream news sources and official sources, rather than non-elite sources as may have been expected.

Sub-question 3: How frequently does CommonSpace reporting feature tweets in full as opposed to in a paraphrased or truncated form, and how does this compare with The Herald?

Sub-question 4: How frequently do tweets trigger stories in CommonSpace’s reporting, as opposed to being merely illustrative, and how does this compare to the The Herald?

These final two questions are informed by the recent work of Broersma and Graham (2013), and their observation that mainstream media is both tending to feature quoted tweets in full,

suggesting a dangerous counterbalancing of the traditional source-journalist power dynamic, and their finding that tweets are also triggering many news sources in mainstream media, raising the question of how journalists’ work routines and beat-work is changing.

Each of these sub-questions is informed by findings from past research into alternative media sourcing tendencies, as well as the more contemporary findings of how mainstream journalists are using Twitter as a sourcing tool. This will be discussed in greater detail in the literature review section.

The overall aim will be to see how a contemporary example of an alternative media publication is using Twitter as a source gathering tool, and to see if it is using the platform in a different way from the mainstream media. Principally I am interested in seeing what voices are differently represented across both types of media, as well as how their use of Twitter differs in other regards.

In order to answer these questions, all articles from both publications which feature quotes drawn from Twitter will be analysed. In order to get a sense of how both media types incorporate Twitter into their general sourcing patterns, a sample of all relevant articles from across a three month period will be taken. A coding scheme, which will be detailed in the methodology section, will be applied to each quoted tweet, so as to ascertain who the original author was, as well as other functions and characteristics of each tweet.

(7)

7 As this is a relatively small, exploratory study examining just one alternative media website, and one traditional mainstream newspaper, it will be difficult to make generalisations about how alternative and mainstream media use Twitter as a sourcing tool differently. Nonetheless, such an examination will provide valuable indications of habits, and likely offer direction for further avenues of study.

Before explaining the methodology of this study in greater detail, we will first take a look at the body of theory and research previously done on the three main topics at hand, all of which informs the central research question, and sub-questions of this study:

1) Alternative media (what it is, how it differs from mainstream media, what the

expectations of it are, and what research has shown about whether it has lived up to these expectations);

2) Sourcing routines in general (what ‘sourcing’ is in a journalistic context, why it is important to study)

3) Twitter’s role as a sourcing tool (a chapter looking at how social media is featuring more and more in journalists’ sourcing patterns, and what has been learned to date).

(8)

8

Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework

1. Alternative Media Theory and Research

The opposing dual concepts of “alternative” and “mainstream” media have embedded

themselves in public discourse in recent times, to the degree where even the most passive consumer of news might be able to offer an example of what constitutes each (Rauch 2015). A conclusive

scholarly definition of the term “alternative media” though, has been harder to pin down, with various ideas being put forth of how to best define this brand of journalism, and pinpoint what sets it apart from the perceived “mainstream”.

At the same time, others outright reject the idea of a simple alternative-mainstream

dichotomy, preferring to place media outlets and journalistic work on a spectrum which takes account of the increasing fusion of practices, routines, and funding strategies used by producers of news of all varieties.

In all though, several key characteristics of what constitutes “alternative” media persist in the main body of scholarly work on the topic, and with them, ideas of what such alternative journalism can hope to achieve.

In this chapter, the varying definitions of alternative media will be outlined and discussed, so as to provide a basis for the later study. Quite simply, we need to know what alternative media is before identifying and examining a supposed example of it.

Secondly, this chapter will outline the varying scholarly descriptions of what might be

expected from alternative media, in terms of the imagined benefits its specific practices and routines

afford (as compared to mainstream journalism). The later study will shed light on whether alternative media – free from the constraints and pressures placed upon traditional, mainstream journalism production – can indeed live up to its envisioned “idealized best” (Kenix, 2009: 292).

Finally, this chapter will dwell on what has been learned about alternative media from

empirical research on the topic to date, such that it exists, and highlight how this study aims to answer some lingering questions. In all, the questions that will be asked will be: What is alternative media? What opportunities and promises does it offer at its imagined best? To what extent has previous research shown it to live up to these promises?

(9)

9

1.1 What is meant by ‘alternative media’?

The twin processes of technological innovation and globalisation have dramatically altered many aspects of people’s lives over the last half century – and the field of journalism is no different.

Owing to the success and proliferation of the internet, and the many tools it provides, the barriers to entry for would-be journalists have been dramatically lowered. Journalism, long seen to be the preserve of those employed by renowned, well-financed and well-connected media institutions, has opened up to “bloggers, citizen journalists, small news organisations, and alternative news outlets” of all sizes, keen to make use of the new cheaply available web-based tools and platforms in order to distribute their own “news and views” online (Kenix, 2011: 21; Heinrich, 2015: 32).

Individuals with little technical knowledge or experience now have avenues – largely through commercially available weblog software – to create and publish journalistic content of their own, and disperse it to potentially global audiences (Kenix, 2009: 792).

One need only look to coverage of recent events of international significance, from the 2011 Arab Spring, to the worldwide protests of the anti-corporate “Occupy” movement, to see small-scale “new media” organisations competing directly with traditional media outlets for audiences (Heinrich 2015: 32).

It is important to note though, that this modern blossoming of “new” or “digital” journalism, sits within a long history of new media actors which have sought to disrupt the monopoly of

mainstream media, or have attempted to disseminate information and comment about the world in an innovative way. In looking at this history, we might be able to come to a reasonable definition of what is actually meant by the term “alternative media”.

* * *

Harcup for example has written that alternative media publications have tended “to emerge during periods of heightened social tension”, many of which predate even the 20th century (Harcup, 2003: 357). Examples offered include printing presses used for “radical purposes” in the UK town of Kingston in the 16th_{century, through to pamphlets and news-sheets distributed in Paris during the}

French Revolution (2003: 357).

Similarly, scholars have traced the development of an “alternative” press through to the frenetic political environment of the 1960s, describing it as being a hotbed for radical alternative counter-culture publications in Britain and the United States in particular (Harcup, 2003: 357-9; Kenix, 2009: 791). Referring to the work of Wall (2005), Kenix has also traced the growth of alternative media back to the New Journalism wave of the 1960s, with its new and experimental narrative style that “directly countered many of the standardized norms of mainstream journalism”,

(10)

10 paralleled by a period of intense political tumult, hinting that: “when political crises arose, new forms of news might also appear” (Kenix, 2009: 791; Wall, 2005: 155).

This association of alternative publications with times of political upheaval continues into the modern era, with scholars also pointing to the “explosion of events blogs” which occurred during (and often in response to) the Iraq War of the mid-2000s (Kenix, 2009: 271; Herring et al. 2005).

In this sense, we may begin to understand “alternative” media publications as offering an avenue for discussions, debates, and perhaps even experimentation with styles and methods of writing, which are unavailable in mainstream media of each given era, as well as being outlets for dissenting opinion. All in all, alternative journalism, whether in the form of hastily printed news-pamphlets or modern-day political blogs, is presented as a consistently radical activity, and one which exists in a long-lived tradition.

As put by Downing, alternative media might be seen essentially as “historical constants, albeit ever in flux” (Downing, 2001: 391).

1.2 Towards a definition of ‘alternative media’

Despite acknowledging that a “bewildering array of terms, concepts and definitions” have been applied to the recent wave of alternative or “new” media, including the variously used descriptive adjectives “radical, citizens’, autonomous, activist, independent, participatory, and

community media” (Rauch, 2016: 757), making the term appear somewhat nebulous, some scholars

have argued that a resolute definition can nonetheless be found (Atton, 2007: 18).

At its simplest, alternative media has been defined as that which is created in “explicit

opposition” to mainstream media (Dowmunt & Coyer, 2007: 1), and predominantly as journalism that is “produced by the socially, culturally and politically excluded” (2007: 5). Indeed, its very name has been said to imply a necessary “binary” or oppositional nature in relation to what might otherwise be termed “established” mainstream journalism (Kperogi, 2013: 54)

John Downing, in his 1984 book Radical Media, which laid the foundation for much of the subsequent work on the subject, similarly framed alternative media as an essentially radical act, often performed by political activists and other social movements with the aim of pushing for political or social change (Downing, 1984; 2001). In doing this, Downing suggested that participation in and creation of alternative media was the means through which these activist groups and social

movements created a space for discussion of their causes and ideas – in the creation of what might be termed a kind of “alternative public sphere” (Atton, 2007: 19).

(11)

11 This is an idea which has also informed much of the work of Chris Atton, perhaps one of the leading figures on the field of alternative media over the last two decades. Atton has similarly argued for this ‘oppositional’ view of alternative media, of it as a direct challenge to the dominating power of mainstream media. Atton has written that alternative media should be considered most simply as that which is “produced outside mainstream institutions and networks” (Atton, 2007: 18), expanding that:

“They tend not to be produced by professionals, but by amateurs who

typically have little or no training or professional qualifications as journalists:

They write and report from their position as citizens, as members of

communities, as activists or as fans. Much of the work of alternative media is

concerned with representing the interests, views and needs of underrepresented

groups in society. Alternative media also seek to redress what their producers

consider an imbalance of media power in mainstream media, which results in

the marginalisation (at worst, the demonization) of certain social and cultural

groups and movements.”

(Atton, 2007: 18)

It is this theme of alternative media as the work of spirited grassroots activists which has recurred throughout much of Atton’s writings. In their work, alternative media producers are less concerned with maintaining any ideology or pretence of objectivity, preferring to embrace “overt advocacy”, and what Atton terms “oppositional practices” (Atton, 2003: 267). As such, their work might be regarded as an attempt at “rebalancing media power”, offering a way for ordinary people to “represent their own lives and experiences in ways that are often ignored or marginalized by the dominant media institutions”, and of challenging the “exclusive authority and expertise of professional journalists” (Atton, 2007: 17).

From this, Atton has paid particular attention to the “often non-hierarchical” or “collective” organisational strategies through which alternative media has been historically produced (Atton, 2007: 18), whether they be in the form of pamphlets, fanzines, or of increasingly modern and proliferated forms such as blogs and non-mainstream, topic specific news websites.

For Atton (1999; 2002), the existence and success of an alternative press goes hand in hand with the creation of what might be termed as ‘alternative public spheres’, realms for viewpoints and discussions which otherwise gain little airtime or attention in Habermas’ (1989) conceptualised mainstream public spheres. Just as mainstream newspapers, television and radio news function as the medium through which ideas spread in society’s public sphere, in Atton’s belief, alternative media

(12)

12 acts as the medium through which alternative viewpoints can be exchanges, and alternative voices be given space to make their arguments.

Atkinson has also suggested that alternative media typically be viewed as “any media that are produced by non-commercial sources and attempt to transform social roles and routines by critiquing and challenging power structures” (Atkinson, 2006: 252). Harcup too has spoken of the tendency of mainstream journalism to “privilege the powerful” voices in society, in contrast to alternative media which by comparison aims:

“…to privilege the powerless and the marginal; to offer a perspective

‘from below’ and to say the ‘unspoken’”.

(Harcup, 2003: 371)

All in all, from these various reflections we are given the image of alternative media as a radical, bottom-up enterprise, largely carried out by amateurs who are unafraid to subvert the professionalised norms of journalism – whether that be through a disregard for objectivity, by choosing to write about topics which are otherwise ignored, or through exploring innovative and essentially non-commercial business models. Alternative media might fundamentally be described as an attempt at truly “independent” media, free of the constraints and pressures of the marketplace, and “immune to institutionalisation” (Atton, 2007: 18).

From these various descriptions, we might be given the impression of a fundamentally dichotomic and oppositional alternative-mainstream relationship, where each is produced in isolation (and in fundamentally different circumstances) from the other. Mainstream journalism effectively being home to professional ‘norms’, routines, and practices, and alternative media being a contrary, or perhaps even innovative mode of journalism where these professional norms are actively challenged, and above all, where alternative views are given some form of platform.

However recent research into audience perceptions of alternative media, has questioned whether such a black and white view of alternative and mainstream journalism is necessarily accurate. The recent work of Rauch (2015), has shown that audiences themselves deem a wide and surprising range of media to merit the descriptive term “alternative”. Amongst online blogs and small-scale alternative media operations, survey respondents also named publications and media productions of obvious corporate and commercial weight, such as The Daily Show, Fox News, The Huffington Post, even Facebook, as examples of “alternative media”. For Rauch there was an indication that users saw less importance in the “alternative” form or production methods taken by a given outlet, than in the alternative character of its content (described in terms of whether it offered coverage of neglected issues, or a more diverse range of voices than found elsewhere) (Rauch, 2015: 124).

(13)

13 From this, Rauch has further explored the idea that alternative and mainstream journalism belong less in a binary pairing, and more on what some researchers have termed a “dialectic continuum” where organizational structures, practices, and even content or social motivations are shared between “mainstream” and “alternative” journalists (Rauch, 2016, 764).

Ethnographic research (in the form of workplace observations and interviews with

practitioners of alternative media) has similarly suggested a blurring of the lines between what might categorize mainstream and alternative practices, with alternative media journalists often admitting to sharing many of the values and even professional or educational backgrounds of those working in mainstream corporate media (Harcup, 2005). Overall, journalistic motivation as well as content, might be deemed more important than any supposed difference in organisational structure (or even practices) in these readings of what sets alternative media apart from the mainstream (Rauch, 2016: 764).

Whether we talk though of a hard alternative-mainstream dichotomy, or of both forms of media existing on a fluid “converging spectrum” (Kenix, 2011), where differences are less obvious and discrete, there are nevertheless certain defining aspects of alternative journalism which crop up time and again in the literature on the topic.

Perhaps best summarized by Rauch, there appear to be three chief tendencies of alternative media, amongst which are that:

“Alternative media persist in being [1] less commercial, [2] producing

mainstream counterparts.”

(Rauch, 2016: 756)

In understanding that there are discernible qualities such as these that set alternative media apart from the mainstream, we might be left to think: what does this mean for how alternative journalism is conducted?

Might alternative media, with its relative freedom from commercial pressures, tendencies towards innovative practices, and supposed commitment to social change, actually offer benefits, or new ways of practising journalism? Scholars have hinted at the supposed “promises” of modern alternative journalism, in its ability to bypass the pitfalls of mainstream journalism when operating at its supposed “idealized best” (Kenix, 2009). Others on the other hand, have dismissed this as the mere “fetishization of amateurism” (Comedia, 1984: 98-100). But what exactly are these promises and ideals, and from what has been observed so far, to what extent have these promises come to fruition?

(14)

14

1.3 Testing the promise of alternative media

As mentioned previously, a key part of Atton’s conception of alternative media – and one of the principle factors which sets it apart from the mainstream – is what he sees as its tendency to be performed by non-professionals, who willingly “write and report from their position as citizens, as members of communities, as activists or as fans” (Atton, 2007: 18).

This idea of amateur journalists embracing their position as activists or members of specific communities is central to what Atton has termed “native reporting” (Atton, 2002: 112). By this, Atton means to describe a politicised, or openly partisan style of reporting, where alternative media

journalists’ personal association with various communities and interest groups, or even political parties, actively informs how they report on news stories. As “native reporters”, they themselves can be seen almost as “correspondents” from various parts of society, using their own self-gained

knowledge to report on “their own experiences, struggles and lives” (Atton & Wickenden, 2005: 349). In doing this, these “native reporters” might hope to challenge what has been termed the mainstream media’s “hierarchy of access” (Atton, 2002: 10-11). The thinking behind this is that mainstream media tends to offer a platform, or “access”, to an exclusive and “privileged” group of well positioned, elite individuals (experts and politicians for example), providing them a

disproportionate means for getting their views into the news itself.

This idea has its foundations in the work of Hall et al. (1978), who described experts and other elites (employers, police, politicians etc.) as the “primary definers” of events. That elites and officials are the first port of call for mainstream journalists looking for sources affords these groups the benefit of being able to set the tone of coverage in a general sense across all media, a state of affairs that Hall et al. argued both reflected and cemented in place the inherent power structures of society, where the views of the powerless remain relatively ignored (Hall et al. 1978).

The hope or assumption then is that alternative media, with its relative lack of commercial pressures (and thus greater freedom to report), and the greater distance between its journalists and these elites, may mean that it offers this “access” to an entirely “different cast of voices” as is ordinarily heard in journalism (Harcup, 2003: 360-361). Alternative journalism – and its tendency towards “native reporting” – by contrast might offer a platform up to those in society that might be variably considered “speechless” or even “deviant” (Cottle, 2003: 5).

Attempts to test this hypothesis across various types of alternative media, have thus far provided something of a mixed picture however.

(15)

15 Tony Harcup’s examination of two contrasting English media outlets, the Yorkshire Evening

News (a traditional, mainstream newspaper), and its local “alternative” rival Leeds’ Other Paper,

found clear differences in how each approached and covered the same local news event (the 1981 outbreak of riots in Leeds). Harcup found that the mainstream Yorkshire Evening News’ coverage of the story was dominated by official sources from positions of authority within the city of Leeds (e.g. police officers, council leaders, magistrates, MPs) (Harcup, 2003: 363-5). In essence, the newspaper have prominence to what Hall would have identified as the typical “primary definers” of society, with Harcup also noting that its reporting took on a mostly ‘law-and-order’ style of coverage, where focus was placed on the short-term events and immediate happenings, such as arrests and lootings.

By contrast, official sources were found to be almost entirely absent from Leeds Other

Paper’s coverage of the riots, with its reporting instead mostly sourced from un-named eyewitnesses

and locals, who were quoted at length and offered an opportunity to opine on what they saw as the root causes of the riots (Harcup, 2003: 362-5). As a result, and despite the obvious questionability of featuring so many anonymous sources, the alternative paper’s reporting dealt more with long-term, underlying problems that locals claimed to have been cause for the riots, including poverty,

unemployment, low pay, and racism (2003: 365).

In a similar vein to Harcup, Atton and Wickenden (2005) undertook a broad study of the journalism of SchNEWS, a prominent but now defunct alternative “activist” publication based in Brighton – specifically with an interest in quantifying how it selected and utilised its news sources. In this instance it was again found that the alternative publication tended to favour ‘ordinary’ sources over and above ‘elites’ in the bulk of its reporting, apparently going some way to subverting the supposed “hierarchy of access” (Atton & Wickenden, 2005).

Yet in a deeper analysis, in which the authors conducted interviews with SchNEWS

journalists, and examined the discourse of the publication’s journalism, they reasoned this to in fact be only a superficial inversion of such a hierarchy.

Despite sources being arguably non-elite (i.e. not members of established power structures, such as police, politicians, academics etc.), the ‘ordinary’ voices so often selected by the reporters were in reality not as ‘ordinary’ as the word might normally be understood. Importantly, the authors observed that the majority of sources were fundamentally of significance to reporters themselves, coming from a circle of familiar and well-connected political activists whose opinions and experience the journalists highly valued.

“These are far from “ordinary”; they are more accurately a “counter-elite”

whose power, legitimacy and authoritaveness are as significant to SchNEWS as

their mainstream counterparts are to the mass media.”

(Atton & Wickenden, 2005: 355).

(16)

16 In actual fact, the newspaper’s use of genuinely ‘ordinary’ citizens as sources (those not in positions of authority or identified as members of the journalists’ network of grassroots activists), was found to be remarkably low.

Whether this observance and the researchers’ reflections are true of the wider world of alternative media or are confined to SchNEWS is hard to tell, as frustratingly little attention has been paid to studies of this manner in the years since. Atton himself has spoken of the need for further empirical research into alternative media and their sourcing routines specifically (Atton, 2009). And considering the changes that have happened in the digital realm of alternative media over the last decade, a more modern study which examines how alternative journalists select and use their sources is arguably long overdue.

* * *

In more recent years, some increasing attention has been paid on the newsgathering techniques and reporting patterns of more modern, digital examples of alternative media – political blogs.

Kenix’s study Blogs as Alternative (2009) attempted to look specifically at how four alternative US-based current affairs blogs hyperlinked to other online sources in the course of their writing. It was hypothesised that the selected blogs would show a tendency towards sourcing from alternative viewpoints across the blogosphere, and neglect mainstream or official sources.

Surprisingly, this turned out not to be the case, with the four analysed blogs rarely if ever linking to alternative news sources or featuring unofficial, ordinary, or independent sources. Instead, links to mainstream media websites or even official government organisations dominated.

Walejko and Ksiazek’s (2008) arguably more rigorous study, in which they examined the use of hyperlinks in over 400 blogposts from 40 US-based politics and science blogs, similarly found online versions of the traditional mainstream news media to be the single highest type of source linked to. This didn’t tell the full story though, as interestingly, and counter to assumptions about journalistic preferences in sourcing practice, the authors found that official government sources accounted for only a tiny fraction (3.5%) of overall sources. Added to that, links to non-official sources such as academics, non-profit organisations and other miscellaneous blogs and websites, featured almost as highly as links to mainstream news sources.

In the authors eyes, despite the dominance of links to mainstream media sites, the surprising rejection of “official” sources, together with the high occurrence of links to other blogs and non-official sources, indicated a possible “a renegotiation of the blogosphere power structure, where bloggers assign themselves, traditional and non-traditional online sources authority, credibility, and legitimacy at varying levels” (Walejko & Ksiazek, 2008: 149). To the authors this suggested an

(17)

17 openness in new online media towards incorporating a greater diversity of voices, in line with the hopes of earlier scholarship, but warned that much more research was required before firmer assumptions could be made (2008: 149).

It is still something of an open question then, what effects modern alternative media (especially new, web-based alternative media) might be having on the basic power structures of journalism. Recent studies into alternative journalism have focussed largely on audience impressions (e.g. Rauch, 2016), and where recent analysis of media source selection exists, it has been targeted almost exclusively the mainstream (e.g. Strömbäck et al, 2013; Tiffen et al, 2014; Skogerbø et al, 2015).

As this study will attempt to look again at the neglected field of alternative media, and see whether it is indeed living up to its “idealized best” as a radical, anti-hierarchical mode of journalism, it will follow on from the work of these afore mentioned studies from a decade ago and attempt to see how sources are being utilized.

Thus, over the course of the following chapter I will outline the basics of the theory surrounding journalistic sourcing practices.

2.1 Sourcing as a news routine

“Sources make the news”.

(Sigal, 1986)

Michael Schudson’s 1991 declaration of the seemingly obvious, that “journalists make the news” (Schudson, 1991: 263), was much more than a mere statement of fact about the functional role reporters have at the heart of news production. Embedded in his words, was the idea that journalists, through their everyday habits, routines and subjective decisions, get to decide in a very real way what

becomes news (and by implication, what doesn’t), and in what manner this news is framed.

Schudson’s words though, were an echo of those offered by Sigal some years earlier, who spoke of another group with the power to influence how news is constructed – the very sources of information used by journalists themselves. For it follows that if those creating news have a hand in shaping it, so too must those who first impart the information that it is based upon.

For this reason, the journalistic act of sourcing information has proven to be a valuable avenue of research in recent decades. Analysing how sources fit into news creation can tell us a good

(18)

18 deal about journalists themselves – principally which views they value, and which ones they don’t (Walejko and Ksiazek, 2008: 146).

But why is sourcing such a prominent journalistic activity anyway? At its most basic, news might be understood as the piecing together of information about the world, and relaying accounts of happenings and events. The sourcing or gathering of this information is thus central to the act of creating news.

Sourcing is often theorized as an attempt by journalists to appear at once authoritative and un-opinionated, with the act distancing themselves from those selected facts and opinions within a story, lending the journalist a sense of factuality and objectivity:

“Journalists are told to report facts and keep both themselves and their

opinions out of the news… to establish they are not just making up information,

reporters find authorities or written reports and documents to which they can

attribute facts”.

(Hamilton and Krimsky, 1996: 91; Cook, 1998; Gans, 1979; as cited in Hamilton & Lawrence, 2010: 684-685)

Sourcing helps to give the journalist’s work the “aura of factuality” (Berkowitz, 2009: 109), and at the same time convey a sense of “detachment” from events (Hamilton and Lawrence, 2010: 683). It has also been spoken of as a “strategic ritual” (Tuchman, 1978), performed consciously by the journalist in order to protect them from mistakes (such as those associated with depending on their own recollection of events), and as a means of insulating them from critics (Tuchman, 1972: 678). Put more simply, the sourcing of facts and views from others, rather than constructing news dependent on their own first-person accounts and perceptions, helps to create the image of the journalist as a something approaching a ‘neutral arbiter’ of available facts.

But it would be wrong and hopelessly naive to imagine journalists as being such neutral arbiters. The process of selecting sources is not one which is done in a vacuum, and environmental factors and industrial pressures weigh heavily on which sources are sought out before others.

* * *

While sourcing may have its benefits for the journalist (in terms of how their writings are perceived), most theorists describe it a process which arises out of professional expediency, rather than out of a personal attempt towards objectivity (Manning, 2001).

The routinized, habitual practice of souring quotations from others has been said to be a way of making the journalist’s work more efficient (Hamilton and Lawrence, 2010: 685). As a result of the common need to work on multiple breaking stories per day, and the obvious impossibility of being

(19)

19 ‘on-the-scene’ at each moment of every breaking story, journalists by necessity must rely on others’ accounts in order to inform their reporting (2010: 685).

In an attempt to maximise their efficiency at gathering reliable, authoritative accounts of such goings-on, journalists will habitually “locate themselves in places where information is most likely to flow to them” (Sigal, 1973:119) – i.e. in positions and networks where they will regularly cross paths with reliable and well informed individuals. In most cases this will necessarily be in locations of bureaucracy or authority, where information is centralised, such as police stations, town halls, and other government buildings – essentially, what might be termed news beats (Hamilton and Lawrence, 2010: 685).

As a consequence of sticking to these afore-mentioned types of ‘news beats’ however, the journalist often finds themselves returning to the same narrow crop of sources – people who are primarily “located within a power structure, who have authority of knowledge and autonomy to speak about that knowledge”, and “tend to be the most powerful” (Berkowitz, 2009: 105).

Even if they are aware of this frailty, mainstream journalists are stuck in their routines, as Manning sees it, unable to “escape the pressures of production processes which encourage routine dependence upon the usual, routine voices within political elites” (Manning, 2001: 70).

That journalists are seen to be drawn routinely to such figures of authority, creates what Becker terms a “hierarchy of credibility”, where those at the top of society are seen as having greater value by reporters (owing to their abundant connections and likely knowledge of behind-the-scenes goings on), and are thus sought out for comment time and again, while those at the bottom of the hierarchy are consistently neglected (Becker, 1967).

Hall et al. expressed serious concerns about this dependency on elite sources, arguing it led to these elite individuals earning a position as the “primary definers” of events (Hall et al. 1978). In this view, elites’ status as the first ‘go-to’ fonts of information about happenings in society, affords them a disproportionate power to build (and cement in place) society’s understanding of events. All debate from there on is simply an extrapolation of these elites’ initial interpretations. As a result, society’s entire understanding of itself is built around the definitions set out by these elite sources in the news media.

With little opportunity for those lower down Becker’s “hierarchy of access” to have their views and interpretations heard, let alone act as such “primary definers”, it is assumed by Hall et al, that the mainstream news media does little more than reflect and perpetuate of the power structures already inherent in society – and certainly does nothing to challenge them (Hall et al. 1978).

Whilst sourcing may offer the journalist a means of avoiding “mistakes” as Tuchman (1972) put it, and of improving the reliability and accuracy of their newswriting, it is worrying to think that

(20)

20 the routines which are a standard practice in journalism may well have such limitations or effects as grave as those expressed by the afore mentioned scholars.

2.2 Who leads “the dance”?

With these concerns in mind, it makes sense to devote energy to examining who exactly holds the power in the journalist-source relationship.

Gans famously spoke of the relationship between journalists and their sources as an intricate dance, with both parties continually vying to lead the way, but with sources more often than not coming out on top (Gans, 1979: 116). Alternatively it has been described more colourfully as a “snake pit”, a depiction of a more competitive, even adversarial relationship where journalists and their sources “slither all over each other, hissing with hatred but hopelessly knotted together” (Savage & Tiffen, 2007: 79).

This fits with Franklin’s description of a “strategic complementarity of interests”, whereby ambitious journalists will strive to make themselves available to highly placed sources, knowing that an

exchange of information will be to each other’s mutual benefit (Franklin, 2003: 47). Journalists’ dependence on such highly placed, even “elite” sources, leads to said sources having “considerable ability to influence what is covered in the news” (McChesney, 2000: 49)

The concern again though, is that by maintaining such transactional relationships, and attempting to curry favour with elite sources, journalists risk being led around (Franklin, 2011). And once again the consequence of this may well be that news ends up simply being a reflection of existing of power structures within society (Schudson, 2003, p150-153).

Because journalists are so in thrall to facts and accounts of events as depicted by those in positions of power or authority, they are prone to missing out on what might be termed the ‘view-from-below’, and so analysis which takes account of deeper-lying issues within society may be neglected as a result:

“…long-term public issues, like racism or suburban sprawl, tend to fall

by the wayside, and there is little emphasis on providing the historical and

ideological context necessary to bring public issues to life to readers.

(McChesney, 2000: 49-50)

An additional fear is of modern journalism turning into “churnalism”, where through a mix of various environmental pressures (staff cuts, increased time pressure etc.), make journalists so

(21)

21 releases and spokespeople’s announcements verbatim, without applying any critical examination of their veracity (Lewis et al, 2008: 40).

This rather pessimistic view of mainstream journalism is one which comes after several decades of research of journalistic sourcing practices, with multiple studies across various nations, and media platforms, confirming the dominance of official, and even “elite” sources in mainstream newswriting (Althaus et al., 1996; Brown et al., 1987; Entman and Page, 1994; Hallin, Manoff, and Weddle, 1993; Lacy and Coulson, 2001; Sigal 1973).

In his landmark study of two decades’ worth of sourcing practice by The New York Times and

The Washington Post, Sigal found that as many as eight out of ten sources were routinely

government-related (1973). When Sigal’s study was repeated in North Carolina in the late 1980s, the same was found to be true (Brown et al. 1987).

These findings were further confirmed by another later study (Hallin et al. 1993), which examined news reports across seven of the biggest name titles in US print media, and discovered that government sources accounted for nearly three quarters of all featured quotes.

Even studies of environmental journalism, which might be assumed to be more open to insights from activists, campaigners, and other ‘grassroots’ voices, have found that governmental sources are amongst those most commonly used as sources (Lacy and Coulson, 2001).

At this stage, it is essentially taken as an assumed fact that official sources dominate in the mainstream media of ‘western’ societies (Tiffen et al. 2014).

* * *

But it would be wrong to think of media systems as being entirely monolithic, and immune to change.

Longitudinal studies have shown that in the domain of foreign reporting, while official sources have historically been the dominant variety, this has changed more recently, with increasing attribution of ordinary citizens in reports from correspondents (Hamilton and Lawrence, 2010).

Over the last two decades too, the picture has developed of a global media system in flux, where traditional modes of journalism (such as print, radio, TV, etc.) are being challenged by the new players on the internet. As discussed in the previous chapter, recent forays have been made into examining how sourcing is practiced in alternative media and digital journalism, which has seen a blossoming as a result of this changing media environment (Harcup, 2003; Atton and Wickenden, 2005; Walejko and Ksiazek, 2008; Kenix, 2009). There are indications here that these new forms of media (such as political blogs, and alternative media websites) are opening journalism up to non-elite

(22)

22 voices, at least to a certain extent, although the picture remains somewhat cloudy and there is a need for additional research.

More contemporaneously though, attention is being paid towards how that other great phenomenon of the internet age - social media – is affecting modern journalism. Questions are being raised about how the journalist-source relationship is being changed in light of revolutionised modes of network communication, and whether previous assumptions about the power of elite sources to take the lead in the dance still hold true.

In the following chapter, I will examine some of the recent work that has been done in this regard.

3. Twitter and Sourcing

3.1 Social media’s interaction with politics and journalism

Since launching in 2006, Twitter has slowly developed from its initial incarnation as just one amongst many social networking sites, geared towards letting people share status updates with a small group of friends, to becoming what might essentially be viewed as a “news platform” with a world-wide audience. (Broersma and Graham, 2016: 90).

Unique in form when compared to other social media platforms, Twitter has been described as resembling a global “awareness system” (Hermida, 2010), where users, positioned as the central node in their own vast, and instantaneous communication network, can access information about various goings on, anywhere, at any time. This network’s “always on” status, (as opposed to other, older communication systems such as television or perhaps radio) has also been said to give rise to what Hermida terms, “ambient journalism”, whereby breaking “news” of events (whether in the form of various users’ tweeted messages, or shared links to online news stories) is constantly being spread (Hermida: 2010).

It can be easily understood then, why Twitter has been so quickly and readily adopted by journalists, as a means of staying connected to happenings in the wider world.

Twitter’s own shift in business model was not accidental, but one which was guided by the platform itself. A telling change came in 2009 when the platform’s interface changed from asking “what are you doing?”, which encouraged the sharing of personal status updates, to a more general “what’s happening?” – a prompt for the user to share information about goings on around them

(23)

23 (Broersma and Graham, 2016: 90). At every step in its growth since then, journalists have figured heavily in Twitter’s marketing of itself.

In 2011 Twitter launched ‘Twitter for Newsrooms”, (ibid: 95) a service aimed to serve as a one-stop-shop repository for information on how journalists can use the social network’s to their greatest advantage, and a sign of how reporters’ are valued as users of the platform. A cursory search online will also reveal the sheer number of handbooks, beginners’ guides, and even journalistic memoirs that are available, promising to show the uninitiated reporter how to get the most out of the social media platform.

For journalists, Twitter offers the powerful ability to extend the “spatial and temporal dimensions” of traditional journalistic beats such as parliaments, town halls, and other centres of business or information (Broersma and Graham, 2016: 90). Without having to leave their office, or even their home, or without even necessarily having a conversation, they have ready access to the thoughts, opinions and information as publicly shared by a vast number of potentially useful sources.

3.2 Affordances and opportunities

Senior UK broadsheet journalists have branded Twitter, “a revolution” in their working habits, and one that is “redefining everything that the industry does and how it behaves” (Broersma and Graham, 2016: 91).

Indeed, the author of the previous comment expanded on this view, explaining Twitter’s great value lies in the fact it:

“…can act like a wire service, a fact checking service, a propaganda

vehicle, an advertising vehicle – everything that you could possibly want from

the internet is boiled down in Twitter – into one very, very simple service”.

(Anonymous Guardian journalist, referenced in Broersma and Graham, 2016: 91).

Twitter has thus been widely adopted into journalistic workflows over recent years, and has even been described as “an integral part” of the modern journalist’s toolkit (Heravi and Harrower, 2016: 1194-5).

Given the nature of the platform – that views from ordinary citizens are just as accessible and available as those occupying positions of authority – there are suggestions that the traditional power of official sources over mainstream media may be being slowly being upended, with journalists able to make use of their ability to source opinions from a whole host of “varied perspectives” (Heravi & Harrower, 2016: 1195).

(24)

24 But it must also be considered that whilst social media sites such as Twitter may afford journalists great new abilities to reach out and connect with sources of information, by the same token it is also challenging the previously assumed role of journalists as society’s gatekeepers of this information. There is a blurring of roles going on, with both journalists and politicians (as one prominent source type) approaching parity in their ability to broadcast information, and as a consequence, their ability to guide debate (Broersma and Graham, 2016: 92).

3.3 Shifting the source-journalist power balance?

According to Broersma and Graham, the power balance that has long existed between

journalists and their sources may be undergoing a fundamental change as a result of their use of social media as communication method (Broersma and Graham, 2016: 92).

There are signs that politicians have already adapted to use Twitter as a way of gaining greater control over how their views are spread in the media, and over which public utterances are taken notice of. “I already tweeted about it”, is something journalists are increasingly getting used to hearing, when they attempt to reach out to politicians for quotes on a certain issue (Broersma and Graham, 2016: 98). This implies that politicians are – at least to some degree – purposely using Twitter as a means of distributing their quotes in a pre-packaged format, with a mind to it being the only access point for media.

Broersma and Graham (2016: 98) point to Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders, as an example of someone who seems to use this technique to their maximum advantage – refusing to speak to journalists wherever possible, he rations attention towards his often controversial and provocative Twitter pronouncements, not only giving him a platform to reach his followers and acolytes directly, but giving him greater control over how he is quoted in the press.

Whilst perhaps an extreme example, Donald Trump’s characteristically bombastic approach to social media during the 2016 US Presidential election, has also highlighted Twitter’s specific utility as a tool for politicians and other individuals interested in self-promotion. It has worrying implications for the power of politicians to direct media attention in a manner of their choosing, and bypassing the media’s traditional gatekeeping role (Hermida, 2016; Lewis & Carlson, 2016).

Far from living up to early utopian ideals of liberating information, and fostering increased online discussion of issues, there are increasing concerns about the general impact social media is having on society and the public sphere. Evidence is showing that social media is dominating how citizens receive and access their daily news content (Pew, 2016). Its hidden algorithms also quietly influence what news audiences are exposed to (and what news they’re not). There are increasing fears

(25)

25 too of the rise of so-called “filter bubbles”, where audiences are exposed only to the kind of news that dominates their own personal network, contributing to the further siloing and polarisation of society (Lewis & Carlson, 2016).

All in all, as well as bringing a host of new affordances and opportunities to journalists and media practitioners, there are also serious concerns to be had about the how Twitter and other social are transforming the public sphere, and the relationship between journalist, source, and audience.

3.4 What previous research tells us

Because of this increased relevance of social media to how the news media operates, there has been increasing interest of late from scholars keen to examine the specifics of how the two are

interacting. In particular, there is a growing body of research which is paying attention to how

information garnered through social media is being presented in the work of journalists reporting from various sectors of the media landscape.

Early research, particularly that which analysed NPR journalist Andy Carvin’s pioneering use of Twitter to examine the Arab Spring in Syria, suggested the platform was indeed offering

revolutionary affordances to journalists in terms of how they connect with and discuss developing stories. Without leaving the US, Carvin was able to conduct deep and meaningful conversations with a vast range of sources on the ground in Tunisia and Egypt. The analysis of his Twitter interactions over a 10-month period in 2011 showed that alternative and non-elite sources, such as protestors, activists, independent journalists, and often ordinary citizens, dominated Carvin’s conversations on the topic, much more so than institutional or “elite” voices (Hermida, Lewis & Zamith, 2014)..

Whilst not an examination of how sources are represented in a final media product in the traditional sense (e.g. a newspaper article, a television report etc.), the authors nonetheless argued that their study pointed towards Twitter’s potential for changing the sourcing and researching habits of journalists working on developing stories. Not only this, their findings hinted that the platform may well be in some sense opening up the “hierarchy of access” to voices from below in a way which goes against traditional expectations.

But while much has been made of the encouragement journalists are given to seek out a greater diversity of sources via social media, research into actual sourcing patterns in traditional media outlets themselves, seemed to paint a different (or at least, mixed) picture.

Despite being portrayed in the British media as the first great “Twitter revolution” (owing to beliefs about the social media platform’s fostering of civic unrest and encouragement of protest movements), it was found that UK coverage of the 2009 Iranian election disappointed in its

(26)

26 overwhelming tendency to cite government and institutional sources via Twitter, rather than

independent or even ordinary voices (Knight, 2014).

Van Leuven et al.’s (2015) quantitative content analysis of social media posts used as sources in Belgian print and television media coverage of the Arab Spring, found that their use varied subtly depending on the political and societal circumstances in each Arab country. Overall there was a general willingness to incorporate posts, pictures and video from social media into reporting, but the authors concluded that these forms of media were mostly used for illustrative purposes – with the authors concluding that in the final analysis, mainstream and elite sources continued to hold sway over how stories were reported. This was particularly true in coverage of Egypt and Tunisia, where events were comparatively peaceful and orderly (at least in the wider context of the Arab Spring). However in coverage of Syria, which had suffered marked civil disorder and conflict, voices from below did seem to permeate the reporting a good deal more – and provided a valuable alternative source of information about events in a time when access to “authoritative” or institutional sources was severely hindered (Van Leuven et al., 2015).

Whilst these pieces of research focussed variably on stories of developing crises, conflict, or civil disturbances of some kind or another, and all were in the context of foreign-reporting, another branch of research has sought to examine how western media outlets are incorporating Twitter into their coverage of every day politics. For while social media may well be an obvious helping hand for journalists reporting on distant, complex, and even dangerous events, it is unclear if the tendencies uncovered in these various studies of foreign reporting similarly translate into coverage of domestic affairs.

Interviews with American political reporters though, have proved revealing, with journalists who covered the 2012 US Presidential Election offering ethnographers anecdotes and examples of how Twitter had aided and shaped their reporting. In the course of conversations recorded in John Parmelee’s ethnographic research (2013), journalists openly acknowledged that the figures they chose to follow via Twitter had significantly shaped their coverage, in terms of: which campaign events they chose to cover: what angles their coverage took; which background information they built their stories around; and even in terms of offering quotes to fill their reporting. Overall, the conversations paint a picture of tweets and having a strong impact not only on what stories journalists cover, but how they cover them, with the implication that this situation is greatly increasing the power of political figures to influence the media’s daily agenda (Parmelee, 2013).

The agenda-setting power these actors are able to wield through Twitter and social media though, may not be limitless. One interviewee, in an interesting contribution, noted that she made a “conscious effort” to expand the ideological diversity of political leaders and commentators she follows, her because: “I sometimes think [my readers are] going to think I’m too conservative or too

(27)

27 liberal based on who I’m following”. An unexpected benefit of doing this, as she noted, was that she was much more likely to see viewpoints she had never considered before, and incorporate them into her writing (2013: 10).

The implication is that with the proper type of self-corrective behaviour such as this, the power may well lie in the hands of the journalist to use Twitter (or other social media) to avoid dependency on the same habitual pool of sources, and potentially enable them to draw opinion from a greater diversity of voices.

In addition to ethnographic studies of this kind, an increasing amount of work is being done to assess in quantitative terms, which types of voices are making their way from Twitter to the

journalist’s writing (Skogerbø et al., 2016; Broersma and Graham, 2012; Broersma and Graham, 2013)..

Broersma and Graham’s comprehensive series of studies (2012; 2013) into how Twitter is used by in the mainstream print media of the UK and the Netherlands, have been particularly

instructive, examining not just in what volume tweets appear, or which types of sources (non-elite vs elite) these tweets are giving voice to, but also what function and character quoted tweets tend to have.

As a result of coding tweets for such characteristics, their study was able to tell which types of tweets gain the most attention from journalists. Consequently, the authors found subtle differences from across those newspapers sampled – amongst them that: humorous tweets gained a significantly greater amount of citations in UK papers than in Dutch papers (Broersma and Graham, 2012: 414); and that those tweets that were included in UK coverage, were often the trigger of stories themselves, rather than being used simply for illustrative purposes (2012: 411-412).

Very infrequently did “factual” tweets, or “calls to action” from politicians or anyone else feature in the UK papers sampled – instead quoted tweets most often took the form of expressions of opinion or were of an argumentative nature (2012: 414). Across the board too it was also noticeable, and surprising, that tweets offered a means of getting ordinary citizens into the reporting of the UK newspapers (2012: 411-412; 2013, 457-8).

Perhaps most importantly though, there was observed to be an overwhelming tendency across both UK and Dutch newspapers to quote tweets from politicians (and indeed, from all sources) in full – i.e. without any obvious signs of editing, paraphrasing or other reduction.

Again, this observation poses serious questions about the about the power that Twitter is giving, not to journalists, but to those who use it as a medium to broadcast their views and opinions to the public. With their comments being cited in full, and with no sign of any additional approach from journalists attempting to corroborate, verify, or even supplement their tweeted words, it is left to be

(28)

28 assumed that the old power-struggle dynamic between journalist and source, which was always in “negotiation” in the course of face-to-face meetings, may increasingly be being won by the source.

In essence, rather than levelling the playing field, or even opening modern journalism up to alternative voices, the incorporation of Twitter and other social media into the sourcing routines of mainstream journalists, might be allowing powerful elites to set the agenda of news media, and still “lead the dance” (Skogerbø et al., 2016).

Summary

Throughout this literature review, I have outlined variously the concepts surrounding

alternative media, sourcing as a journalistic practice, and the newly observed impact that social media is having on journalistic sourcing habits and work routines.

I have discussed the supposed “promise” of alternative media as traditionally understood by media scholars and what supposedly sets it apart from the mainstream – that owing to its relative independence, and freedom from industrial and commercial pressures which underpin much of mainstream journalism, that at its best it offers a public voice to the otherwise voiceless in society, and discuss issues and feature contributions from those otherwise marginalised by traditional media forms. As also outlined though, the extent to which this promise has been shown to be acted out in reality, is far from clear.

Much of this research into which voices are given a presence in alternative media, necessarily involves examining sourcing practices, a history of the study of which I have also touched on here.

It is notable though that ‘sourcing’ as a journalistic routine has also been shown to be adapting to societal and technological changes, principally those brought about by the new

affordances of the internet and a networked public sphere. Social media is influencing how journalists connect to and even quote their sources, and appears to have become something of a ‘beat’ in and of itself, which the modern mainstream news reporter trawls for both story ideas, and quotations.

With this said, it is the aim of this study, to draw together the various threads which have been discussed, and to examine in the light of not only a changing media landscape, but also in light of an apparent reconstruction of journalists’ newsgathering routines, just how alternative media is performing in this modern era. As such, and taking the cue of past research both into alternative and mainstream sourcing routines, this study will look specifically to compare how mainstream and alternative publications are now making use of social media in their journalism.

(29)

29

Chapter 2: Methodology

Research Design Outline

The aim of this study is to examine how alternative media and mainstream media are using Twitter as a sourcing tool, and to determine whether there are noticeable differences in the way they do.

As described in the literature review, much work has been done over the past few decades to see how alternative media select their sources, in order to better understand which voices are gaining representation, and to see whether it is living up to its supposed ideals of giving voice to otherwise underrepresented and marginalised groups.

While earlier studies gave indications that alternative media does indeed favour such marginalised voices otherwise ignored by mainstream news (Harcup, 2003; Atton & Wickenden, 2005), other research (Walejko et al., 2008; Kenix, 2009) has cast doubt over how much this is the case for modern online-based alternative media, which shows a tendency towards sourcing

information and content from those traditionally regarded as elite sources.

Taking inspiration from a relatively new branch of sourcing research – that of how journalists are sourcing their news from Twitter and other social media platforms – this study will look at how alternative and mainstream media are using social media (specifically Twitter), to select sources in their news coverage.

Overall this study will ask the overarching research question:

How does alternative media

make use of Twitter in its sourcing routines, and in what ways does it differ

from the mainstream media’s use of the platform?

As discussed in the introduction, this overarching question can be broken up into several smaller, and more specific sub-questions, each informed by the body of theory and literature discussed in the previous section. These questions are as follows:

Alternative media sourcing routines in the digital era: