Presentation at the "Neo-Journalism" conference, 3/4th october 2012, Brussels

1. Journalism and participatory media
Blurring or reinforcement of boundaries between journalism & audiences?
Findings from the “Tagessschau”
Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, Wiebke Loosen,
Nele Heise, Julius Reimer
@jpub20team
Hans-Bredow-Institute for Media Research
“Towards Neo-Journalism?”, Brussels, October 3, 2012

2. Outline of presentation
1. Audience inclusion: The #jpub20-Project
2. Selected findings from the „Tagesschau“ case study
3. Conclusion
2 of 14

3. Journalism-audience-relation as inclusion
• Effects of networked digital media are often described(1) – either affirmatively
or critically – with the metaphor of the “blurring boundaries”, e.g. between…
• … different spheres (‘public’ and ‘private’),
• … different communicative modalities (‘mass communication/publishing’ and
‘interpersonal communication/conversation’),
• ... different roles (‘communicator/producer’ and ‘recipient/user’)
• How to assess relationship between journalism and audience theoretically
and empirically?
• Approach of “jpub20”-Project: conceptualizing relationship as “inclusion” (2)
• Six case studies of different newsrooms (TV/Online and Print/Online) in Germany
• Combination of methods:
– in‐depth interviews with editorial staff and viewers/readers/users
– standardized online surveys among full editorial departments and users of online platforms
– content analysis of selected broadcasts/issues/articles and users discussions
(1) e.g. Bruns 2005, 2008; Lüders 2008; Robinson 2010; Schmidt 2011; Lewis 2012 3 of 14
(2) Loosen/Schmidt 2012

4. Heuristic model of audience inclusion in journalism
Journalism Audience
Inclusion Performance Inclusion Performance
Features of audience participation Participatory practices
Work processes/routines Inclusion Level Degree of collective orientation
Journalistic products/output
Inclusion Expectations Inclusion Expectations
Journalistic role perception
Motivations for participation
Images of the audience Inclusion Distance
Assessment of audience
Strategic rationales contributions
Source: Loosen/Schmidt 2012: 874
4 of 14

5. Case Study
– Focus today: case study of “Tagesschau”
– On air since 1953; produced by ARD (Public
Service Broadcaster)
– up to 23 newscasts a day
– most popular evening newscast in Germany
(on avg. 10 Mio viewers; 33% market share)
In-depth interviews Standardized survey
Journalists n=10 n=63 See
(from chief editor to ‚multi-media- (out of 130 people in pre-conference-paper
assistants‘ *= community manager+) editorial staff) (pls ask me for copy)
Audience n=6 n=4.686
(varying degrees of engagement) (random sample of
tagesschau.de users;
nth-visitor method)
pls stay and listen 
5 of 14

6. Participative platforms / channels
Discussion
tagesschau.de YouTube Twitter Blog Meta Facebook G+
boards
1996 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012
2004
6 of 14

7. Findings 1/3: Expectations and perceived expectations
Journalists:
Now we are interested in your views on
the audience’s expectations regarding
the Tagesschau/tagesschau.de – please
put yourself into your audience’s
position. How important are the
following aspects to your audience?
Audience [all users]:
Regardless of your own use: How
important ist it to you that the
Tagesschau is offering certain aspects or
features for participation?
n=57-59 / 4641-4667; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant” to 5 = ”very important”; 7 of 14
6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

8. Findings 1/3: Expectations and perceived expectations
5 • To get additional information on sources of
reporting
• To have a platform for discussing practices
and quality of news reporting
• To be taken seriously by journalists
4 • To have editors be present on social media
Audience expectations
• To be able to comment/rate news reporting
• To be able to contact/discuss with editorial
staff directly
• To be able to suggest topics for reporting
3 • To discuss the topics of news reporting
• To be able to forward / recommend news
• To get inf. on editorial routines/practices
• To have editorial staff introduced to them
• To make transparent which stories are
2 viewed /commented by many other
people.
• To be able to provide own material (text,
pictures, videos..) for news reporting
• To be able to interact with other
1 viewers/users
1 2 3 4 5 • To publicly show their attachment to the
Tagesschau
Audience expectations (perceived by journalists)
n=57-59 / 4641-4667; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant” to 5 = ”very important”; 8 of 14
6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

9. Findings 2/3: (Perceived) Reasons for participation (meta)
Journalists:
Viewers/users who comment (e.g.
reacting to a newscast or a story) or
participate in a different way will have
certain goals in mind. We have listed
some possible explanation; what do you
think: how important are the following
reasons for people who participate in
Tagesschau/ tagesschau.de?
Audience [only active users]:
Now please tell us about your reasons
for [participatory practice].
Depending on actual
answers, [participatory practice] read:
- Sending (E-)Mail to the editors
- Commenting on meta.tagesschau.de
- Commenting on Tagesschau blog
- Commenting on Tagesschau FB page
n=57-59 / 382-390; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant”/”Disagree completely” 9 of 14
to 5 = ”very important” / “agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

10. Findings 2/3: (Perceived) Reasons for participation (meta)
5 • To state my/their opinion publicly
• To propose a topic that is important
to me/them
• To expand my/their own knowledge
by interacting with journalists and
4 other viewers/users
Dis-/agreement audience
• To share knowledge and experiences
• To leave the passive viewer’s role
• To point out errors in news stories
3 • To support and advocate a certain
concern, event or group
• To fulfill my/their civic obligations
• To assist the journalists in their work
• To feel included in a community
2 • For self-expression and self-display
• To vent anger and frustration
• To find help with a problem
• Out of boredom
1 • To build relationship with editors
1 2 3 4 5
Dis-/agreement journalists
n=57-59 / 382-390; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant”/”Disagree completely” 10 of 14
to 5 = ”very important” / “agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

11. Findings 3/3: Journalistic Self-Image/image among audience
Journalists:
The following question addresses your
understanding of the journalistic
profession, i.e. which goals to fulfill in
your professional work.
What are your personal goals in your
profession?
Audience [all users]:
We now want to know what you
consider to be important tasks for
journalists of the Tagesschau (on TV as
well as online).
Tagesschau journalists should…
n=60-63 / 4570-4636; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 11 of 14
6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

12. Findings 3/3: Journalistic Self-Image/image among audience
• inform as objective and precise as possible
5 • explain and convey complex issues
• criticise problems and grievances
• point to interesting topics and further inf.
• inform audience as fast as possible
• show new trends and highlight new ideas
4
• control politics, business and society
Image among audience
• give the audience topics to talk about
• give audience opportunity to express
opinion on topics of public interest
• get into conversation about current events
3
• share positive ideals
• Encourage/moderate discu. among audience
• present my own ideas to audience
• concentrate on news that is interesting to an
audience as wide as possible
2
• Build/maintain relationship to audience
• provide people with opportunity to publish
their own content
• provide useful information for the audience
and act as advisor / guidance
1 • provide entertainment and relaxation
1 2 3 4 5 • provide audience with opportunity to
maintain ties among themselves
Journalistic Self-Image
n=60-63 / 4570-4636; 5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 12 of 14
6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

13. Summary
• Whether digital networked media are indeed „blurring boundaries“ between journalists
and audience can be analysed (theoretically & empirically) through concept of inclusion
• Case study on Tagesschau has shown…
• … in the pre-conference-paper (focussing on Tagesschau journalists)
Journalistic routines are opened towards audience inclusion
(e.g. offering participatory spaces; treating UGC as potential source)…
… but at the same time journalistic identity is defended
(e.g. separating news reporting from comments; assessing UGC through same
journalistic filters as other sources; emphasizing ‚gatekeeper‘ function)
• … in this presentation (focussing on inclusion distance)
By and large expectations and images of journalists and audience members are
congruent…
… but notable incongruence: journalists assume „self-centered“ motivations for
participation, while active audience rates knowledge exchange higher
• Preliminary conclusion for Tagesschau: Audience inclusion might blur boundaries
through shared mutual knowledge and transparency, but will actually enforce
boundaries with respect to core journalistic functions
13 of 14

14. Thank you!
Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt
Hans-Bredow-Institut
Warburgstr. 8-10, 20354 Hamburg
j.schmidt@hans-bredow-institut.de
www.hans-bredow-institut.de
jpub20.hans-bredow-institut.de
@jpub20team
14 of 14

15. Bibliography
• Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching. Collaborative Online News Production. New York: Peter Lang.
• Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond. From production to produsage. New York: Peter
Lang.
• Lewis, S. C. (2012). The tension between professional control and open participation: Journalism and its
boundaries. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 836–866.
• Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). (Re-)Discovering the audience: The relationship between journalism and
audience in networked digital media. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 867–887.
• Lüders, M. (2008). Conceptualizing personal media. New Media & Society, 10(5), 683–702.
• Robinson, S. (2010). Traditionalists vs. Convergers: Textual Privilege, Boundary Work, and the Journalist-
Audience Relationship in the Commenting Policies of Online News Sites. Convergence: The International
Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(1), 125–143.
• Schmidt, J.-H. (2011). (Micro)blogs: practices of privacy management. In S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Eds.), Privacy
Online. Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the Social Web (pp. 159–173). Berlin: Springer Science &
Business Media.
• Schmidt, J-H., Loosen, W., Heise, N., & Reimer, J. (2012) Journalism and participatory practices – Blurring or
reinforcement of boundaries between journalism and audiences? . Pre-conference Paper, „Towards Neo-
Journalism? Redefining, Extending or Reconfiguring a Profession”, 3./4. October 2012, Brussels
15 of 14