14
Online news creation and consumption
Implications for modern democracies
David Tewksbury and Jason Rittenberg
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
This chapter examines how citizens acquire political information using the internet. For some time,
researchers have been looking at the form of news online and how news audiences find (or at least
encounter), consume, and retain political content there. The available literature suggests that major
news outlets rarely create content exclusively for the online audience. In fact, news online is often
similar to what one finds in print newspapers. Internet audiences are increasingly likely to seek news
online, but there is little evidence thus far that this has resulted in replacement of print newspapers
and television news. Online audiences tend to limit their reading to topics of special interest to them,
though not to the extent that some observers expected. There is some evidence that learning from the
news is different online than off. The reviewed research on learning from online news suggests that
the national news audiences may become fragmented if they rely on the internet for their news consumption. This finding has implications for understanding the distribution of political knowledge and
issue agendas within nations today and in the future.
w
Contemporary versions of democratic
theory tend to hold citizens to a relatively
high standard. As the keystone of democracies, citizens are expected to pay attention to local, regional, national, and
international public affairs and to acquire
information they can use to formulate
opinion (Berelson, 1952; cf., Schudson,
1998). The strongest version of this
requirement suggests that citizens should
be ever-vigilant; responsibility for acquiring information primarily rests with them.
A more moderate expectation acknowledges that news is selectively presented by
media sources and that public affairs
information vies with other information
for public attention (Lippmann, 1922).
This contest is most visible in newscasts,
front pages, and other news venues. A
reasonable set of expectations of citizens
186
recognizes that their selection of public
affairs news is a partial function of what is
available and how it is presented.
Recent normative and research treatments of news audiences have focused on
how people respond to expanding content options, particularly those options
that have multiplied with the introduction of high-bandwidth media. If audiences were to choose content at random,
heedless of cues and enticements offered
by media producers, the large number of
content options online would decrease
the probability of any one option being
selected. Of course, few audience members choose entirely at random; content
producers (e.g., news editors) exercise
substantial influence over what people
choose to read in print and online
(Graber, 1988; Eveland and Dunwoody,
O N L I N E N EW S C R E A T I ON A N D C O NS U M P T I ON
2000). The wealth of news content
online available on traditional and internet-only outlets and the high levels of
selectivity and interactivity these sites
provide are often thought to free citizens,
at least partially, from the hierarchical
power of news editors and to increase
citizen’s involvement with political information and the public sphere.
This chapter provides a review of both
the recent literature on news on the
internet and the concepts researchers use
to define the potential effects of the
medium. Our goal is to identify a set of
findings and ideas that researchers, critics,
and policy-makers can use to think about
certain effects of the internet. The review
begins with some background on how
media effects researchers have thought
about comparing the effects of exposure
to news in different media. We turn from
there to the growing literature on the
presentation of news online. Our goal
here is to identify whether and how news
on the internet is different from what
audiences may find in the traditional
media (for a discussion of the structure
medium comparisons, see Eveland, 2003).
The focus then turns to how people are
using the internet for news consumption
and whether that consumption has an
effect on what and how people learn
about public affairs. Finally, we will draw
on the literature dealing with online news
reading to discuss a set of concepts that
we hope will help readers of this handbook consider and study how online news
consumption operates in contemporary
society.
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
1998). Basic processes of media development suggest that online content providers will develop focused sites containing
content of interest to a small segment of the
news audience (Merrill and Lowenstein,
1979). This segmentation strategy could
result in audience members consuming
only a fraction of the range of possible
current affairs information. The internet
provides opportunities for users to preselect their news preferences such that
they are able to avoid entire categories of
news online. The ultimate version of this
process is what Negroponte (1995: 153)
dubbed “The Daily Me.” Some researchers
have suggested that specialized news sites
and delivery options will fracture the
national news audience into internally
homogeneous groups (Sunstein, 2001).
The result will be a polarized nation, with
divisions in knowledge and opinions
becoming increasingly prevalent.
Writing about the segmentation of
audiences through cable television and
other high-bandwidth media, Katz (1996)
put a decidedly normative spin on changes in audience knowledge. He suggested
that segmentation of the audience in
modern democracies was part of larger
patterns of increasing social segmentation
in these countries. He decried this development, suggesting that common public
spaces where ideas and issues are discussed
for a general audience can be highly
functional for democratic nations. As a
result of audience fragmentation, common
public perceptions and agendas are less
likely to emerge (Chaffee and Metzger,
2001). Thus, any development toward
segmentation (and, therefore, fragmentation) could ultimately weaken modern
democracies (Katz, 1996).
At the same time, some observers have
suggested that online news media may
give audiences more independence in
choosing what news to view and more
power over processes of news production
and presentation (Corrado, 1996; Havick,
The content and form of
online news
The internet is clearly technologically
distinct from the traditional news media
(Eveland, 2003). Even online news sites
differ significantly from each other (Deuze,
187
D A V I D T E W K S B U R Y A N D JA S O N RI T T E N B ER G
2003). Our review focuses on the mainstream news sites, which have the most
traffic of news content providers (Alexa
Web Service, 2007). Research differentiating online news from traditional news has
emphasized three facets: creation, content,
and design; we adopt that approach.
Creation
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
Editors play a crucial role in the production of news for any medium (White,
1964). Research shows that web editors
mostly reproduce stories from the print
version of their papers (Singer, 2003),
with additional content coming from wire
services or interactive features (Boczkowski,
2004b). Comparatively small staffs (Singer,
2006) and the success of reproducing
stories (Houston, 1999) contribute to this
practice. However, surveys of editorial
staffs suggest an ongoing interest among
editors in providing additional perspective
pieces online (Cassidy, 2005), which may
encourage users to view the online version as a supplement to print. Research
suggests web editors make content choices
with such a goal in mind (Garrison, 2005).
A study of Colorado newspapers found
editors recognizing a disproportionately
local audience by including proportionally more local news than the print version (Singer, 2001). Again, research thus
far has identified few attempts to generate
original content, even for local stories.
Theoretically, news sites should publish
more stories and run them with more
updates than would be the case in the
offline media (Dessauer, 2004), and some
studies have found evidence that audiences specifically go online for news
when big events occur (Salaverria, 2005;
Tewksbury, 2006). Cohen (2002) suggests
that the haste to publish breaking news
online may warrant a re-thinking of the
concept of newsworthiness. Faster publication times appear to give websites an
agenda-setting advantage, and ongoing
research is evaluating whether online
papers are leading traditional media, or
simply beating them to the punch. For
example, a study of South Korean news
agendas found an online paper influencing a wire service (Lim, 2006).
Agenda building can also occur through
opportunities people have for requesting
and generating content (Deuze, 1999). In
a review of public journalism research,
Witt (2004) notes that the public appears
to exert some influence over news content, and Zhou and Moy (2007) demonstrate the ability of online public discussions
to shape issue frames in the news.
Weblogs (blogs) are perhaps the most
discussed channels for this ground-up
communication (Pavlik, 2001). Some
researchers (for example, Shah et al.,
2005) suggest that user discussions should
produce comparatively strong mobilizing
effects, and American Presidential campaigns have used blogs to generate excitement among supporters (Lawson-Borders
and Kirk, 2005). Lynch (2005) has reported a similar community forming around
blogs and chat rooms in the Middle East,
with the former being particularly used by
violent political minorities.
Perhaps the image of the audience is
different for mainstream and alternative
sites, which has led to the mainstream’s
limited acceptance of new formats (for a
discussion of alternative sources, see
Davis, 2005). Some mainstream news sites
encourage editorialists and reporters to
maintain blogs and utilize discussion
(Imfeld and Scott, 2005). However,
research by Boczkowski (2002) suggests
they have a limited impact on the creation
of the news. Another reason for hesitancy
is posited by Lowrey and Anderson
(2005), who suggest that the increase in
public journalism may undermine perceptions of mainstream news and even
change what counts as news. However,
successful community-building around
news topics most likely has positive
188
O N L I N E N EW S C R E A T I ON A N D C O NS U M P T I ON
implications for society, and the implications of public journalism and alternative
news formats should be a subject of further
research.
Content
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
Predictably, content analyses of online
newspapers have found few differences
from print versions (Barnhurst, 2002).
However, even subtle differences in
content are worth noting; research by
Eveland and Dunwoody (2001a) suggests
learning occurs differently for online
news. Early observers expected internet
sources would eagerly provide mobilizing
information (i.e., information that allows
or encourages audiences to act on issues
and events in the news), at least as a
means of attracting an audience (Hume,
1996). Instead, studies have found few
differences between the offerings of print
and online papers (Hoffman, 2006), with
the main variation coming in the form of
additional community information (Singer,
2001). Print and web editors alike report
valuing mobilizing information online
(Cassidy, 2005), potentially explaining the
limited variation. A more encouraging
study suggests that online news fosters
more discussion than print news (Shah
et al., 2005), which indicates increased
public participation with the news.
Design
interface development (Manovich, 2001)
predict visual convergence for all news
media. In fact, a study of news presentation by Cooke (2005) found print papers
increasingly using thumbnail-sized pictures during the 1990s, and both TV and
online news adopting modular layouts.
The strongest diverging point for online
news is the use of interactivity. This term
has been applied loosely, despite attempts
to explicate the concept (Kiousis, 2002).
Interactivity is typically divided between
categories such as control over content,
customization, and participation (Dessauer,
2004). Alternatively, Deuze (2003) advocates
discussing news in terms of connectivity,
encompassing hypertext, multimedia, and
interactivity as distinct components.
Hypertext plays a significant role in the
interpretation of political information (see
Sundar et al., 2003). Tremayne (2004)
finds that linked stories become both more
episodic as related information is removed
from the stories, but also more contextual
as relevant materials are embedded as links
within the text. The result is better
information only if the user follows the
links. Research has also identified increased
presentation of other interactive elements.
Photograph slide shows and user polls
became more common with coverage of
the 2000 presidential campaign (Singer and
Gonzalez-Valez, 2003), while personalized
information such as interactive maps or
itemized candidate comparisons were popular during coverage in 2004 (Singer, 2006).
Such additional content may make up for
the lack of original news stories online
(Palser, 2004). Massey and Luo (2005)
find that sites use as much interactivity as
their resources allow, but other research
finds editorial perceptions of the target
audience a strong predictor (Boczkowski,
2004b). Anticipating audience desires may
be a rather complex determinant; however, as research suggests personality types
predict enjoyment of interactive features
(Chan and Leung, 2005).
The availability of space and opportunity
for interactivity online suggests that the
design of news sites should provide the
biggest differences between traditional
media and online news. The aesthetic
design of news sites has received little
attention from research. Li (1998) found
major news sites emphasizing text and
leaving most of the graphic space to
advertisers, creating a product little different from a newspaper. Remediation
theory (see Bolter and Gruisin, 1999) and
189
D A V I D T E W K S B U R Y A N D JA S O N RI T T E N B ER G
web for news requires answering several
questions. First, why do people use the
internet for obtaining political information? Second, how do people read the
news online, including both site and
content choices? Technological characteristics and individual factors play a role
in each level of choice.
Getting news online
The likelihood of using the internet for
political information gain has increased
over time. The internet audience was on
the rise before 2000 (Norris, 2001a), but
the events of September 11, 2001 seem to
have been a catalyst for online news use.
September 12 was a record day of internet news access, but other events during
the following months drove traffic to
news sites in similar patterns (Rappoport
and Alleman, 2003). Horrigan and Rainie
(2002) show that internet users turn to
the medium first for most types of information. Although the news environment
has changed drastically over the last
decade, the internet is only part of the
story. Cable news and talk radio have also
risen, while print and broadcast news use
have dropped (Norris, 2001a). These patterns suggest replacement of traditional
sources (Dimmick et al., 2004). Other
research indicates that users follow complementary patterns (Dutta-Bergman,
2004), using online papers only to get
updates or to use interactive features
(Rathman, 2002).
Part of the decision to use online news
is the belief that the internet is a credible
source of information. Relatively early
studies by Sundar (1999) suggest the
complexity of online credibility, based on
more considerations than merely evaluations of traditional media. A series of studies by Johnson and Kaye (see 2002)
found that online news was viewed as
more credible than the traditional media,
although both were rated no better than
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
Research results are mixed about the
potential benefits of interactive news formats. Eveland and his coauthors have
found mixed results for online learning.
Similarly mixed results have been found
for interactivity, which is capable of
increasing return rates but also of decreasing
recall (Sundar, 2000). Perloff (2003) does
note that video games, which are highly
interactive can increase message effectiveness, but this is not necessarily a benefit in
the context of the news. A realistic, but
optimistic, viewpoint suggests two implications of multimedia and interactive elements on news sites. First, there is a
significant chance that these elements will
provide better educated audiences with
more information, potentially worsening
knowledge gaps (Prior, 2005). Second,
online news is perhaps akin to soft news
as it is not especially informative but may
do well in attracting otherwise disinterested
audiences. More research is certainly
required to assess the changing nature and
subsequent implications of online news
features.
Online news, at least as it is presented
in the mainstream sites, is not yet significantly different from traditional news.
This lack of distinction is particularly disappointing in the area of mobilizing
information. On the positive side, interactivity has improved over time, and there
are more (potentially) useful features now
included with stories. The onus lies with
the reader to make use of the available
benefits of online news, because the additional content is not in a readily scannable
format. It appears that in the near future
the important question regarding online
news is not “what?” but “how?”
Audience use of online news
Recognizing the importance of user control as a primary characteristic of the
internet, understanding public use of the
190
O N L I N E N EW S C R E A T I ON A N D C O NS U M P T I ON
The importance of selection suggests
that uses and gratifications theories of
media are appropriate for internet effects
research (Chaffee, 2001), but the current
glut of definitions is problematic.
Tewksbury and Althaus (2000) found
support for applying traditional news
gratifications: entertainment, surveillance,
and passing time. Kaye and Johnson (2004)
studied entertainment and informationseeking, as well as guidance-seeking and
convenience. Information-seeking, but
not entertainment, was supported by
Flavian and Gurrea (2006). LaRose and
Eastin (2004) found status-seeking a
strong motivator of web use. Until consistent results are established, the best
lesson from these studies is that people
select websites at least partially based on
personal motivations (Tewksbury, 2005a).
Specialization is another promising line
of research for understanding of how
people select news, particularly by exploring the choice to limit oneself to a few
sources and topics. An analysis of naturally
occurring online news reading patterns
found that audiences of different news sites
tend to be relatively distinct from one
another (Tewksbury, 2005a). A parallel
analysis of reader behavior at popular online
news sites suggests the presence of reader
clusters who limit their exposure to a
small number of topics (Tewksbury, 2005b).
Not all people specialize their reading,
however. Some clusters sample broadly
from the available news (Tewksbury,
2005b). Thus, the evidence gathered thus
far suggests some element of site and
audience specialization.
The research on internet use suggests
the choice to get news online has been a
function of time. The more exposure
people have to the web, the more likely
they are to get news there. There is
debate over the nature of cross-media use
in the public, but complementary uses
seem well-supported by research. Once
online, the user has the freedom to select
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
“somewhat” credible. Other studies have
looked at credibility ratings of online
news by particular groups of users. Choi
et al. (2006) found opponents of the war
in Iraq rating online news as more credible than traditional media. Johnson and
Kaye (2004) found blog readers rating
these sites as most credible, with other
online news performing no better than
the traditional media. The findings highlight the significance of site selection once
the user is online.
Reading the news online
w
As a medium that allows a high level of
user control, the internet requires many
more decisions from the user, including
what source to select. Factors that play a
role in source selection include browsing
skill (Hargattai, 2002), site popularity
(Webster and Lin, 2002), structure and
information (Richard, 2004), in addition
to personal choice. For example, Best et
al. (2005) found that about 25 percent of
all news users access foreign sites, with
those most opposed to the Bush administration most likely to look abroad for
information.
Once on a site, selection can again
determine news exposure (Eveland and
Dunwoody, 1998). Part of the determination is the user’s goals for the browsing
session (Sanchez-Franco and Roldan,
2005). For example, New York Times
online traffic patterns suggest an audience
with an atypical interest in international
affairs (Wu and Bechtel, 2002). Structurally,
sites can influence story selection by
incorporating recommendation systems,
which are most effective when “other
users” choose stories (Sundar and Nass,
2001), and the “others” ratings are linearly
related to selection (Knobloch-Westerwick
et al., 2005). In this way, features of contemporary new sites give users the ability
to bypass or supplement the traditional
gatekeeping power of editors.
191
D A V I D T E W K S B U R Y A N D JA S O N RI T T E N B ER G
sites and stories based on personal goals
and design cues, but the nature of these
motivations remains unclear. Ultimately,
it is the impact of these choices that most
interests media effects scholars.
The effects of reading news
online
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
A number of effects of citizen use of
online news services have been studied
empirically. Much of the research has
examined what people learn online and
offline and how that learning influences
issue agendas. This research typically examines the impact of users’ online behavior
and how the relationship between news
content and citizens’ normative roles may
be changing over time.
America Online, presumably) when going
online for other purposes. Tewksbury
et al. (2001) report that these people, with
other news exposure controlled, know a
bit more about current affairs in the news
than do other internet users.
Incidental contact with the political
news at internet hubs cannot compensate for users’ focused attention on content that fits their particular non-political
information or entertainment preferences. Looking at diversification of
content on cable television and on the
internet, Prior (2005: 580) reports that
surveyed people with a “relative entertainment preference”—the extent to
which people will choose entertainment
over news—take advantage of the diversity of content on newer media to focus
on entertainment and, by extension, avoid
news (however, the pattern was not consistent across a number of tests). Prior
observes that because people with political knowledge are less likely to prefer
entertainment to news, the diversity of
content online may exacerbate existing
knowledge gaps.
Survey-based studies of learning
effects
w
Survey studies have produced mixed
assessments of the potential for learning
from online news. Measures of general
internet use (Johnson et al., 1999) and
online news seeking (Scheufele and Nisbet,
2002) have failed to correlate with domestic U.S. political knowledge. However,
online news seeking has been shown to
predict international affairs knowledge
(Kwak et al., 2006). More developed
measures of news content sought online
may improve future research. After all, the
most prominent attribute of the internet
is that it can be all things to all people.
While much research has focused on
intentional learning from news, some
studies have suggested that people can
accidentally receive information from traditional media (Zukin and Snyder, 1984)
and the internet (Tewksbury et al., 2001).
The Pew Research Center for the People
and the Press (2004) reports that as many
as half of internet users report coming
across news (at hub sites like Yahoo! and
192
Experiment-based studies of
learning effects
Two experiment-based studies examined
the connection between what news people
choose online and their knowledge of
current affairs. Tewksbury and Althaus
(2000) found that online news readers
select public affairs topics less frequently
than their print newspaper counterparts.
Looking at current affairs in terms of both
national and international news (Althaus
and Tewksbury, 2002) and the prominence of the news (Tewksbury and
Althaus, 2000), the online readers acquired
less of the political content in The New
York Times than did the print readers of
the paper.
A replication of this study failed to
observe differences between readers of
O N L I N E N EW S C R E A T I ON A N D C O NS U M P T I ON
Eveland and Dunwoody’s work on
news processing online provides some
explanations for studies showing lower
recall of online news. Eveland and
Dunwoody (2002) suggest that separating
the extent to which people cognitively
elaborate on the news they read online
from the amount of selective scanning
of online content they do (“picking
and choosing among information” 2002:
38) should isolate the factors that can
encourage and discourage learning from
online news. They find that people reading news on a website engage in both
more elaboration of the news and selective scanning of the presented information. The former process leads to greater
learning of information and the latter
tends to suppress it. These tendencies
partially counteract each other, leading to
a net effect of reduced learning online
(see also, Tremayne and Dunwoody,
2001).
Eveland and colleagues have subsequently suggested that exposure to online
news may have benefits beyond the recall
of factual news information. Eveland et al.
(2004) suggest that news sites’ use of
hyperlinks in stories may encourage readers to consider the connections between
bits of information. The result is that
online readers may develop structures of
knowledge more dense than their linear
(i.e., non-hyperlinked) news reading
counterparts. Indeed, Eveland et al. (2004)
find that linear online news readers learn
more from a story than readers of
hyperlinked stories, but the latter exhibit
more dense knowledge structures regarding the news topics. Thus, there are suggestions that researchers looking at citizen
acquisition of information from online
news sources should be conscious of the
way they conceptualize information. The
density of knowledge structures may carry
very different normative weight in terms
of what and how people learn about
public affairs.
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
print and online versions of two prominent Dutch newspapers (D’Haenens et al.,
2004; see also Eveland et al., 2002). The
striking feature of the outlets examined in
the Dutch study is that the print versions
of the papers contained more stories than
did the online versions and some categories of news (international news) were
better represented online than offline.
Thus, it does not appear that online versions offered the diversity of content
that researchers have identified as a key
component of audience distraction from
political information online. This result
highlights the difficulties inherent in predicting the effects of internet use when
the medium does not have the constraints
and traditions that define and limit the
structure of news on television and in
print newspapers. One online news
source can be very different in its inclusion and presentation of public affairs
news from another. As a result, it can be
difficult for one to know, on average,
how the stories will be presented when
people look at news online.
The psychology of learning
online
w
From a theoretical perspective, there is
some reason to expect people will learn
more from web-based news presentation
than from traditional print news. Webbased news gives users more control over
the flow and presentation of news, and
the hyperlinked nature of news online
may mimic the associative network structure of human memory (Eveland and
Dunwoody, 2001a). Perhaps surprisingly,
empirical research has not supported these
expectations. Indeed, research in this area
suggests that the online environment may
not be particularly conducive to acquiring
information. For example, Sundar (2000)
observed that the addition of audio and
video downloads to print stories online
lowered news recall and recognition.
193
D A V I D T E W K S B U R Y A N D JA S O N RI T T E N B ER G
Agenda building and agenda
setting
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
If mainstream news sites are largely replicating their traditional media versions,
then clearly these sites are not uniquely
involved in setting the public agenda, at
least not in a meaningful way. One area
of note is the influence of alternative sites,
particularly blogs, on public and media
agendas. Anecdotal evidence offers several
notable examples, particularly blog activity regarding U.S. Senator Trent Lott’s
comments about Strom Thurmond in
2002 (Lawson-Borders and Kirk, 2005).
Blogs are relatively good at maintaining
and developing interest in under-served
stories (Pew Research Center, 2005),
particularly when those stories are partisan,
previously discussed, or from non-elite
sources (Lowrey, 2006). The practice of
posting snippets and linking leaves many
stories fragmented but still able to offer
worthwhile material (Wall, 2005). In fact,
an analysis of external linking practices
suggest that blogs are well suited to complement mainstream media, by both
building stories and by channeling readers
back to mainstream sites (Reese et al.,
2007).
Related to the impact of the new
media on the traditional media agenda is
the question of whether readers of online
news may develop issue agendas that
differ from those of audiences of the
traditional media. One expectation
researchers have suggested is that readers
of online news outlets may be exposed to
a smaller variety of issues by virtue of
their ability to focus their news selection
(Schoenbach et al., 2005). Using a survey
approach, Schoenbach et al. find that
online newspaper use increases the number
of social topics readers consider important,
but only for the most educated members
of the sample. Thus, an overall agenda
shrinking effect was not observed. Althaus
and Tewksbury (2002) tested a weaker
version of the effect in their experiment
with New York Times readers. They found
that online readers care less about the
sorts of topics that show up in the public
affairs sections of the paper.
The overall normative tone of this
research is mixed. Some studies of the
learning effects of news media are decidedly pessimistic. Online news readers may
learn less about public affairs than do their
offline counterparts, and a similarly dystopian view is advanced in the research
on audience agenda acquisition. However,
an expanded view of online learning
suggests that, to the extent that online
news readers choose public affairs news,
they may acquire more densely structured
knowledge than if they had read a print
newspaper. At the same time, a number
of studies have shown that frequent use of
the internet (e.g., news reading, e-mail,
etc.) is positively associated with online
and offline political participation (Hardy
and Scheufele, 2005; Tolbert and McNeal,
2003). What is more, there is mounting
evidence that citizen online political
activity (e.g., blogging) may influence
mainstream and online news agendas
and so indirectly influence the political
process.
This seeming normative paradox is
illustrative of a basic feature of advanced
media, of which the internet is perhaps
the most extreme case. The internet,
broadcast radio, magazines, and cable television, to varying degrees, allow their
users to focus their exposure on topics
and activities that interest them. For the
bulk of Americans, the internet offers the
opportunity to choose their own news, as
it were, to the exclusion of political
information (Tewksbury, 2003). Thus,
these advanced media at the end of their
natural evolution as media forms (Merrill
and Lowenstein, 1979) give perhaps too
much freedom, some researchers seem to
assert. At the same time, the politically
interested can take the reins of the
194
O N L I N E N EW S C R E A T I ON A N D C O NS U M P T I ON
abundance of political information online
to build their engagement with politics
and become more efficacious than may
have been possible some 20 years ago.
Online news audiences:
united, divided, and
empowered
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
Our review of the literature suggests that
developing an understanding of how
online news distribution may influence
individuals and society can be profitably
undertaken by looking separately at how
news is organized online (on its own and
in contrast to how it is organized offline),
how people use the internet, select sites,
and choose individual news stories, and
what they learn from the news they consume. This multi-part analysis nicely parallels what researchers and other observers
have said about the potential effects of the
internet on American society. There is a
fair number of terms used in the literature
to describe how the internet today and in
the future may be affecting political
knowledge, agendas, and, possibly, opinion. What follows is a review and
integration of these normatively based
concerns. The resolution and integration
of the terms should provide researchers
with some tools to apply to ongoing
research regarding the political effects of
internet news consumption.
one finds on television or in a newspaper,
news online represents a substantially
smaller portion of the total content the
medium offers. It may be easier than ever
before for citizens to omit news reading
and not be reminded of that fact (this
assumes low levels of the incidental online
news learning online described above).
Even when users seek the news, their site
choices can be based on selecting sources
known for specific categories of news.
Thus, selection at the level of websites
could result in an overall reduction in
political knowledge in specialized audiences.
Specialization can also take the form of
audiences selecting specific news topics
when they go online, a phenomenon for
which researchers have found some evidence (Tewksbury, 2005b). Specialization
of news selection may be conceptualized
on three dimensions. The first is the
consistency of topic selection. For example, someone who occasionally selects
international news is less specialized than
someone who selects international news
each time he or she gets news online. The
second dimension is the depth of exposure. This is essentially the quantity of
reading a person does on a selected topic.
The amount of focused learning that
comes from specialization should be different for a reader who selects one story
on a favored topic than for one who reads
all available stories on a topic. This difference is all the more relevant in the
happy chance (from a normative view)
that the selected topic concerns public
affairs. The final dimension of specialization is the exclusivity of exposure. The
issue here is whether specialized internet
users are focused on one, two, or more
topics when they choose news stories. It is
easy to think of the one- or two-topic
reader as specialized, as most readers do
not specialize on a large number of topics
(Krosnick, 1990). One could still consider
a citizen who focuses on a half-dozen
topics or more as specialized, but the
Specialization
Content selection and specialization figured
prominently in this review. Specialization
is what people do. It is their tendency to
focus their reading on specific topics. It
can take many forms relevant for the
development of segmentation, fragmentation, and polarization. Specialization in
online selection can take the most direct
form of audiences failing to read news
content at all. Indeed, relative to what
195
D A V I D T E W K S B U R Y A N D JA S O N RI T T E N B ER G
meaning of the term begins to collapse.
Specialization at that point does not carry
the same implications for the distribution
of political knowledge as it does were we
to imagine that all news readers focused
exclusively on one topic. Thus, it may be
necessary to set some a priori standard for
when specialization by news readers
becomes normatively relevant.
Segmentation
Polarization
When fragmentation takes hold, polarization is one potential consequence. The
possible segmentation of the news audience suggests that political knowledge in
the population will not be reduced or
fragmented in a random fashion. Rather,
“to the extent that one subset of the
audience comes to use [a] class of content
whereas others tend not to use it, the
mass audience can be said to have polarized” (Webster and Phalen, 1997: 111).
The polarization of the news audience
may come as the result of specialization in
news reading. People may spend quite a
bit of time online reading news, but they
may focus entirely on sports, business, or
some other content (Tewksbury, 2005b).
If so, they may rarely seek public affairs
content. As a result, they will not know
as much about public affairs as the news
readers who choose current events content. An even more focused type of
polarization may result from people
choosing content from within the public
affairs domain. In this case, a yet unstudied possible tendency for people to specialize their news selection within political
topics means that people may come to
know quite a bit about one area (for
example, international affairs or environmental policy) but little about some other
domain (for example, education policy or
health care policy).
The presence of issue publics in America
is one bit of evidence to suggest that
some people come to specialize their
political information exposure (Converse,
1964; Krosnick, 1990). A recent study
supports this suggestion. A combined
observation of online information seeking
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
If specialization is what users do, segmentation is what content producers do—inasmuch as these are separate roles online.
Segmentation is the tendency for sites to
tailor their content to specific groups
(typically defined by demographic characteristics) of interest to advertisers or
others willing to provide sites with revenue (cf., Katz, 1996). Theories of media
history argue that systems progress from a
stage in which most media outlets serve
large, heterogeneous audiences to one in
which most outlets serve smaller, internally homogenous audiences (Merrill and
Lowenstein, 1979). To the extent that
specific demographic groups are drawn to
separate sites, one can talk about the
range of online content being segmented
(of course, a website can segment users
within subdivisions of the site, as well).
likelihood that any one person knows any
one piece of information. By definition,
fragmentation is assessed relative to some
past, desired, or optimal level of uniformity of political information holding.
Fragmentation
Fragmentation is the outcome of people
specializing their news exposure and/or
site producers segmenting the audience.
Fragmentation is the lack of widespread
public exposure to some content of interest.
When fragmentation in a group or society
is advanced, information is distributed
over the population but is not widely
shared by its members. It is what occurs
when fewer people than before or desired
receive a given piece of information. Thus,
fragmentation may be best considered a
social-level term that refers to the
196
O N L I N E N EW S C R E A T I ON A N D C O NS U M P T I ON
the centralized gatekeeping role of mainstream news editors.
These elements of the internet suggest
there is evolving a democratization of the
creation, dissemination, and consumption of
news and information. This information
democratization comes from some of the
forces that may also lead to fragmentation
and polarization, but it suggests a very
different normative perspective on internet
news. As people seek and encounter a
greater range and depth of information
online, they are less likely to rely on
centralized content producers. In effect,
the marketplace of ideas, as an ideal and
tool, is found more easily online than off.
In that way the availability and structure
of news online may be serving democratic
ideals more effectively than are the features
of the traditional media.
The bulk of the data suggests that
online news readers have the ability to
specialize their news reading to the point
of both fragmenting and polarizing the
news audience. There is less evidence to
suggest that popular news sites are being
designed to segment the audience, a pattern that appears to limit the likelihood of
polarization occurring. Instead, polarization seems most likely to come from
audiences taking advantage of personalization options on existing news services
(e.g., internet hubs such as Yahoo! and
AOL) and from actively focusing their
reading on a select set of news topics.
Sunstein (2001) has suggested that this
pattern of use can result in a polarization
of opinion. Were that to happen, divisions and conflicts over political parties,
figures, and policies may become increasingly common. Accompanying processes of
fragmentation and polarization is information democratization, a broadening of
citizen control of, and access to, news and
information. Thus, as people know less
about what mainstream news editors
think is important, they may know more
about what other citizens think is
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
and survey data collection showed that
people concerned about a political issue
are more likely to seek online information
about the issue than are others (Kim,
2007). Similarly, a study of the personalization of internet portal sites found that
when given a chance to select their own
information pages, the selection of content and its placement on a page were
determined, in part, by predispositions to
seek certain kinds of content (Tewksbury
and Maddex, 2001). In particular, that study
showed that some people are quite willing to set up personalized news pages that
omit such core public affairs content as
international and political news.
Information democratization
w
At the same time that the internet provides opportunities for fragmentation and
polarization—normative concerns based,
perhaps, on the desirability of the mass
public—it makes possible new avenues
for citizen independence from mainstream
news media and larger social forces. The
depth of information that can be found
on online news sites and the variety of
content in blogs and other interactive
sources gives users access to substantially
more information than is available in
other media. Once online, any user has
access to essentially the same range of
content as any other (subscription sites
aside). Few would argue that knowledge
gaps are impossible online. However, in
many ways, the information-access advantage of economic status common offline is
practically erased once someone obtains
internet access. In addition, many online
news sites give users the ability to post
content online and interact with journalists through blogs and other forums,
encouraging involvement with the news
and, ultimately, politics. Finally, there is
some evidence that citizen activity online
may affect the agenda of news in the offline and online media, thus weakening
197
D A V I D T E W K S B U R Y A N D JA S O N RI T T E N B ER G
important. The effect of a marketplace of
ideas that is both large and diverse may be
citizens more engaged with current events
and politics but perhaps not as uniformly
informed.
Conclusion
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
Almost all of the topics examined in this
review require more investigation. The
comments here are focused on areas with
substantial normative weight and the
greatest likelihood of future importance.
More research is needed on the potential
effects of online news presentation and
selection on media and public issue agendas. The bulk of the findings on news
content suggest few differences between
online and offline outlets of the same
organizations. Future research in this area
might focus more attention on features of
news presentation (for example, page
placement, daily cycle and the movement
of news on a site, or headline size) that
might distinguish online news from offline and which might have some effect on
audience agendas. The research reviewed
here suggests the presence of some differences in the type of current affairs information people select online and off
(Schoenbach et al., 2005; cf., DuttaBergman, 2004), but there is much more
we can do in this area. If future audiences
devote more time to reading news online
than they do today, what the field knows
about news availability and organization
online suggests that basic agenda setting
processes are in for some changes. One
area of developing interest is the extent to
which online discussion (for example,
chat or blogs) may influence news content and agendas (Hopkins and Matheson,
2005). Thus, processes of agenda building
as well as setting are potentially undergoing change.
Future research may profit from the
application of the five concepts defined
here. Researchers can conceptualize specialization as what audiences do in
response to (or as the ultimate origin of,
to some extent) the structure and content
of news online. Segmentation is what
websites do. Some news producers may
fashion their sites to serve specific news
audiences rather than follow the mass
public model of traditional newspapers
and television news. If so, they are essentially choosing to serve only segments of
the citizenry. If people specialize and/or if
news producers segment audiences, the
results may be fragmentation and polarization. Fragmentation is the distribution
of information over smaller segments of
the public than is normatively desirable.
Once that information is fragmented,
polarization—the separation of information and opinion in relatively homogenous,
isolated groups—is a likely outcome.
Filling in some of the gaps created by
fragmentation is a trend toward information democratization. By permitting the
decentralization of information control
online, relative to the traditional media,
and by increasing the opportunities for
citizens to access a range of political content, the internet may be enhancing political involvement and debate.
Future research might profitably examine more dimensions of the mobilizing
potential of online news. The main findings reviewed here (Shah et al., 2005;
Hoffman, 2006) suggest that there are not
many differences in the amount of mobilizing information provided online and in
print. Shah et al. (2005), however, suggest
that interpersonal interaction options
available online at news and other sites
may have a larger impact on citizens
than the presence of similar mobilizing
information in print. Future research
looking at online news might examine
how news sites are continuing to integrate
blogs and other means for citizens to
interact among themselves and with news
producers. It may be that the combination
198
O N L I N E N EW S C R E A T I ON A N D C O NS U M P T I ON
online news sites will increasingly be
willing to engage in audience segmentation.
Reviews of the history of media suggest
that maturing media and outlets almost
inevitably follow a path of increased segmentation. On the basis of these two
considerations, there is reason to expect a
substantial amount of fragmentation and—
perhaps inevitably—polarization in the
public. These trends are unlikely to be
universal, of course, but they may noticeably affect the operation of democratic
nations in the future. Fortunately, information democratization is also likely to
expand in the near future. It is always
threatened by seemingly inexorable forces
of centralization and homogenization, but
if any medium seems suited to the reduction of those threats, it is the internet. In
sum, information democratization may be
the more important long-term development facilitated by the internet.
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
of the presence of mobilizing information
and these interpersonal interactions may
be particularly likely to activate citizen
participation in politics.
Finally, there appears to be a need for
investigation of whether online news
reading patterns have implications for the
presence or development of opinion
polarization. Sunstein’s (2001) discussion
of polarization focuses on the segmentation of opinion groups online. The question for researchers is whether news
reading online may play a role in such a
process. It is certainly possible that specialized news reading may result from
pre-existing audience polarization. Kim
(2007) shows that when members of an
issue public (not identified by partisanship, to be sure) go online for campaign
information, they go to sites that focus on
their pet issues. If citizens limit their
exposure to opinions and information
supporting their side of the issue, the
widespread availability of that information
online may foster greater opinion polarization. The field could use more research
that examines whether people engage in
that sort of selective exposure online.
Research suggests that people are very
selective on some occasions for some
topics (Knobloch et al., 2003). The pivotal question is whether the online environment encourages and facilitates greater
selectivity of this sort.
The evidence reviewed here suggests
that audiences are willing to engage in
some specialization of their news use
online. Most internet news receivers
appear to be using the medium to supplement their exposure to other news
media, and this may leave them free to
seek out their focused interests online.
However, there is also evidence that many
people use the internet as they use other
media. If that is the case, there is little
reason to expect that people will be particularly willing to specialize. At the same
time, there is ample reason to suspect that
Guide to further reading
This review focused, in part, on how the
particular attributes of online news presentations affect which stories people
select. Researchers looking at what people
learn once they select the news could
profit from the research on learning from
hypermedia text. Eveland and Dunwoody
(2001b) provide an excellent review of
that literature. Webster and Phalen’s discussion of the fragmentation and polarization potential of online new consumption
proved a significant resource for this chapter. For background on those topics, and
for a detailed discussion of conceptions of
the mass audience in twentieth century
media research, see Webster and Phalen
(1997). Opinion polarization has received
less attention in the recent research looking at online news media than have specialization and fragmentation. For a good
discussion of the normative implications
of opinion polarization, see Sunstein
199
D A V I D T E W K S B U R Y A N D JA S O N RI T T E N B ER G
discussion of technological characteristics
of the internet (and the computer) limited. Please see Bolter and Grusin (1999)
for a theoretical development of remediation and the strategies of immediacy and
hypermediacy and Dessauer (2004) for a
discussion of technology’s implications for
the development of online news.
w
w
IS
w
IS B
.r
BN N
ou
97
tle
97 8
dg
8- -0ep
0- 41
ol
20 5
iti
3- -42
cs
96 9
.c
1
25 4
om
4- 6
1 (h
(e bk
bk )
)
(2001). In order to remain succinct, this
review has focused on studies of online
mainstream news since 2000. For a
review of research on the production, use
of, and interactivity in earlier online
newspapers, see Boczkowski (2002). Davis
(2005) provides insight on the social and
political uses of chat rooms and blogs.
Finally, readers may have found the
200