- Attitudes Toward Algorithmic News Selection
How Algorithms Are Changing What We Read Online !
Public perceptions of algorithmic news selection haven’t caught up with the reality that the AI of the internet determines what’s relevant. AI has taken away our right to make our own decisions. Fears about echo chambers and filter bubbles often assume audiences are passive and uncritical consumers of information. Surveys can help assess these assumptions. Algorithms distribute news by manipulating news stories, selecting, filtering, ranking and bundling news for consumers. Coupled with the above threats of counterfeit news, AI-powered adaptive algorithms have exacerbated the problem of identifying newsworthy content and factually-checked information ever harder.
Using data from the Digital News Report, this analysis explores public opinions on algorithm-driven news selection, comparing them to opinions on news selected by editors and journalists. It also examines factors influencing these views, variations across countries, and changes over time. (Russell Smith.(Jan. 4, 2021) Published 11:19, Sep. 8, 2020, https://thewalrus.ca/how-algorithms-are-changing-what-we-read-online/)
- Scepticism Toward Algorithmic News Selection
To gauge attitudes toward algorithmic news selection, respondents were asked whether they agreed with the statement: “Having stories automatically selected for me based on what I have consumed in the past or what my friends have consumed is a good way to get news.” A similarly worded question was asked about news selection by editors and journalists to provide a point of comparison.
The findings reveal a high level of scepticism across all forms of news selection. Only 19 percent of respondents across surveyed countries agreed that automatic selection based on what their friends consumed is a good way to receive news, while 42 percent disagreed. Slightly more respondents (30 percent) viewed automatic selection based on their past consumption positively, but an equal proportion disagreed.
Surprisingly, this slightly exceeds the positive views of news selection by editors and journalists, with only 27 percent agreeing that it is a good method. This widespread scepticism across all methods of news selection is referred to as “generalised scepticism” (Fletcher and Nielsen, 2018).
One reason for this generalised scepticism is strongly associated with people’s attitudes toward all methods of news selection. This underscores the need to understand and address audience concerns in an era of evolving media consumption.
Individuals who believe editorial selection is a good method often feel similarly about algorithmic selection, and vice versa. While journalists, researchers, and industry professionals frequently perceive these methods as fundamentally different, audiences do not view them in such binary terms.
These findings highlight a nuanced landscape of public attitudes toward algorithmic news selection. While platforms may diversify news exposure, scepticism remains pervasive across all forms of news selection, whether by humans or algorithms. Recently, the focus of discussions has shifted from merely addressing the symptoms of journalism’s so-called crisis to exploring deeper issues in digital journalism, particularly the evolving nature of journalism itself (Broersma & Peters, 2013, p. 2). This shift has given rise to what can be termed a “fourth wave” of digital journalism research. Building on earlier normative, empirical, and constructivist approaches (Domingo, 2008), this wave seeks to reimagine the field beyond traditional journalistic institutions and frameworks. It delves into concepts such as the “news ecosystem” (Anderson, 2010), the “news landscape” (Peters & Broersma, 2013), and emerging forms like “ambient journalism” (Hermida, 2010) and “networked journalism” (Heinrich, 2011; Russell, 2013), largely shaped by practices rooted in social media.
As the number of social media users rises so does the menace from the insidious content, which is masquerading as news and information and wreaking havoc on people’s lives which overspills onto society. This vitiates journalism and erodes citizens’ trust in news.
Consequently, making them prejudiced against traditional or mainstream news that drives them to abandon it for the infamous social media platforms, a fertile ground for dis/mis/mal-information.
- Citizen Journalism
The gathering and reporting of news by people who are not trained as professional journalists.(Hermans, L., Vergeer, M.and D’Haenens, L. 2009)
The integration of citizen journalism into mainstream media as a hotly contested issue, has instigated a polemical disorder in both the academia and the digitally transformed media ecology. This phenomenon raises critical, ethical and practical dilemmas for professional journalists and citizen journalists, highlighting both the merits and demerits of a potential partnership or interplay.
Pros and Cons of Cultivating a Working Relationship with News Influencers
Pros:
- Expanded Reach and Engagement: Collaborating with news influencers allows journalists and media outlets to tap into segmented, loyal audiences that traditional platforms might not reach. Influencers excel at relatability and can help amplify stories to new demographics.
- Enhanced Relatability and Trust: Influencers build personal connections with their audiences, which can make the content shared by journalists more approachable and trustworthy when filtered through these channels.
- Opportunities for Collaboration: Influencers often use storytelling techniques that are informal and digestible, providing journalists with insights into new formats that resonate in a fast-paced, attention-scarce media environment.
- Combating Misinformation: Partnering with credible influencers can help journalists inject fact-checked, accurate information into the influencer ecosystem, counteracting the spread of misinformation on these platforms.
- Cross-Promotion of Content: Engaging with influencers can extend a story’s lifespan and reach through podcasts, newsletters, TikToks, and other emerging platforms, giving stories second and third waves of visibility.
Cons:
- Lack of Editorial Standards: News influencers are not bound by traditional journalistic ethics, which can lead to the misrepresentation or sensationalising of shared stories, potentially undermining credibility.
- b. Risk of Diluting Journalistic Identity: Adopting influencer-style tactics, such as personal branding or overly casual presentation, might blur the lines between credible journalism and entertainment, eroding the perceived authority of traditional media.
- Overdependence on Secondary Sources: Relying too heavily on influencers for distribution risks diminishing the autonomy of journalists, as influencers may prioritise their own angles or agendas over journalistic integrity.
- Potential Conflicts of Interest: Partnerships with influencers could expose journalists to accusations of bias or favoritism, especially if the influencers are perceived as ideologically driven or unbalanced in their views.
- Misinformation and Reputation Damage: Collaborations with influencers who later spread misinformation or engage in unethical practices could harm the reputation of the partnering journalist or media organisation.
While news influencers present challenges, cultivating a working relationship with them offers significant opportunities to adapt journalism to the post-truth, digitally convergent era. By leveraging their storytelling skills while maintaining journalistic ethics, reporters can amplify their reach and relevance. However, these collaborations require clear boundaries to ensure the credibility and autonomy of journalism are not compromised.
This shift is not a threat but a call to evolve, ensuring that the foundational values of journalism remain vital in a fragmented and rapidly changing media landscape.
- Expanded Reach and Engagement: Collaboration allows journalists and media outlets to tap into segmented, loyal audiences that traditional platforms might not reach. Influencers excel at relatability and can help amplify stories to new demographics:
- Enhanced Relatability and Trust: Influencers build personal connections with their audiences, which can make the content shared by journalists more approachable and trustworthy when filtered through these channels.
- Opportunities for Collaboration: Influencers often use storytelling techniques that are informal and digestible, providing journalists with insights into new formats that resonate in a fast-paced, attention-scarce media environment.
- Combating Misinformation: Partnering with credible influencers can help journalists inject fact-checked, accurate information into the influencer ecosystem, counteracting the spread of misinformation on these platforms.
- Cross-Promotion of Content: Engaging with influencers can extend a story’s lifespan and reach through podcasts, newsletters, TikToks, and other emerging platforms, giving stories second and third waves of visibility.
- Demerits and Ethical Concerns: The reliance on citizen-generated content exposes individuals to physical, psychological, and legal risks, often without adequate protection or compensation from media organisations. Many citizen journalists lack the training, safety gear, or legal awareness necessary for responsible reporting. Furthermore, their content may conflict with ethical standards related to privacy, accuracy, and objectivity. The psychological toll on both citizen journalists and media staff consuming distressing content is another significant concern. [NEXT –Journalism Training Program for Citizen Journalists.