Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011 (Huberman et al.; 2010, Heil & Piskorski, 2009; Krishnamurthy et al. 2008; Java et al., 2007). Closer to our subject, a recent study by Asur et al. (2010) explicitly tried to test the agenda-setting hypothesis and its time patterns on data collected through the Twitter API. The findings showed that there are few topics that last for a long time in users’ messages, while most of them fade out rapidly. They also revealed that traditional notions of user influence such as the frequency of posting and the number of followers are not the main drivers of trends. What actually triggers a long lasting trend on Twitter over a certain issue is the dominant position of this issue in the media agenda. In this respect, Twitter, and social media in general, behave as a “selective amplifiers” for the content produced by traditional media. Similar findings were also made by Yang and Leskovec (2011) regarding time patterns of dissemination of news on social networks and agenda setting effects of traditional media. Their study revealed that both the adoption of hashtags in Twitter and the propagation of quoted phrases on the web exhibit nearly identical temporal patterns. For instance press agency news exhibits a very rapid rise followed by a relatively slow decay, whereas news stories that are discussed by bloggers may experience several rebounds in popularity. These empirical implementations of the theoretical frame of the new science of networks and of automated content analysis produces interesting results but at the same time raises serious epistemological and methodological questions from the social scientist’s point of view. Indeed, frequently there is a tendency of overreliance on concepts, categories and figures provided by the network operators themselves (e.g. Twitter’s Trending Topics, Google Trends’ Unique Visitors or Facebook’s Like Buttons statistics). Yet for a humanity scholar these are artifacts that need to be deconstructed and explained. If they are completely opaque, like the examples mentioned above, the researcher finds himself confronted to a technological black-box effect (Rieder & Röhle, 2010). Similarly, not all digital traces left on the web have the same value as explanatory tools of social practices: writing a long blog post isn’t the same thing as poking a Facebook “friend” or performing a search on Google. This means that the race to the “biggest corpus” is useless without suitable reflection prior to the collection of data on what one measures and why. Finally, as Duncan Watts points out, interpreting empirical data of this nature is tricky: “in a symbolic relationship it is frequently unclear how network metrics such as degree, path length, or centrality should be interpreted with respect to their consequences for some particular social, physical, or biological process (…), these relationships involve different kinds of social interactions, but because the interactions themselves are underspecified, the network alone cannot be said to reveal much about actual social processes” (2004: 254). This means that real-world networks metrics should systematically be put in perspective in regard to the socio-economic determinants of social relations. A case study: the IPRI research project In 2010 and 2011 we carried out a research project called IPRI (Internet, Pluralism and Redundancy of Information) aimed at measuring the diversity of online news in France 232
Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedings of ECREA/CICOM Conference, Pamplona, 4-5 July 2011 through a transdisciplinary study. Its main aspect was a quantitative analysis of a sample of thousands of articles: we created a software called IPRI News Analyzer (IPRI-NA) 70 to collect and process automatically headlines from tenths of news sites through rss feeds. We then developed a semi-manual classification method based on the data collected by IPRI-NA as means to test the agenda-setting effect in online news. This revealed the variety of issues and the types of websites generating diversity, compared to those leading to redundancy. We then doubled the sample of news headlines composed by IPRI-NA with a collection of tweets produced by a sample of French users in order to test potential discrepancies between online news agenda setting and Twitter users’ preferences. In order to deepen our overview of French online journalism landscape, several other analyses were led. First, the “offered pluralism”, as measured by the initial quantitative study, was confronted to “consumed pluralism” through traffic analysis based on statistics of news sites audiences. Then, a qualitative study of full text news articles allowed us to identify the use of particular media frames, strategic cues and linguistic routines. Finally, we made a comparison between our results concerning the internet and another study related to TV news, to understand how the internet contributes to the diversity of news in a larger media landscape. Figure 1: a capture of IPRI News Analyzer 70 The IPRI News Analyzer software was developed by Samuel Gesche, Elöd Egyed-Zsigmond and Cyril Laitang. It is distributed under a Creative Commons Licence http://liris.cnrs.fr/ipri/pmwiki/index.php?n=Public.IpriNA 233
Page 1 and 2:
diversityof journalisms (cicom+ecre
Page 3 and 4:
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Uni
Page 5 and 6:
Getting Personal: Personification v
Page 7 and 8:
Tradition and Innovation in Online
Page 9 and 10:
Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedin
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182: Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedin
Page 231: Diversity of Journalisms. Proceedin
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
show all

Download the eBook (8.25 MB) - ECREA Thematic Sections

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?