How journalism adapted the Internet in Germany: Results of six newsroom surveys (1997–2014)

IF 2.7 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Christoph Neuberger
{"title":"How journalism adapted the Internet in Germany: Results of six newsroom surveys (1997–2014)","authors":"Christoph Neuberger","doi":"10.1177/14648849241234445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on six newsroom surveys, this article analyzes the history of digital German journalism. The surveys cover a period of 17 years (1997–2014). Periodizing the history of digital journalism into three phases, this article considers the interplay between journalism and journalism research. The results show how journalistic digital media define their role in the relationships between old media and the Internet, digital media and other outlets, and digital media and their audiences. Furthermore, the results substantiate how digital editorial staff define their journalistic identities regarding tasks, rules, and skills. During the first period (surveys conducted in 1997 and 2000), the view from old mass media to the Internet dominated, also in scholarship where the mass media paradigm was extended to the Internet. The second period (surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007) was characterized by clarifying the relationships between journalism and newly emerged outlets. These studies focused on how participative formats (such as Wikipedia and blogs) and search engines could be used for journalistic purposes without compromising quality. These new outlets were not regarded then as much of a threat. This attitude did not change during the third period (surveys conducted in 2010 and 2014). In this phase, too, the studies focused on how editorial staff utilized the ever-increasing number of social media. The six surveys’ different research interests reveal that the reviewed journalism research primarily addressed changing demands in journalistic practice. Therefore, exogenous factors (“the sector”) had a greater impact than endogenous factors (the “scholarship”) on research interests.","PeriodicalId":51432,"journal":{"name":"Journalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241234445","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Based on six newsroom surveys, this article analyzes the history of digital German journalism. The surveys cover a period of 17 years (1997–2014). Periodizing the history of digital journalism into three phases, this article considers the interplay between journalism and journalism research. The results show how journalistic digital media define their role in the relationships between old media and the Internet, digital media and other outlets, and digital media and their audiences. Furthermore, the results substantiate how digital editorial staff define their journalistic identities regarding tasks, rules, and skills. During the first period (surveys conducted in 1997 and 2000), the view from old mass media to the Internet dominated, also in scholarship where the mass media paradigm was extended to the Internet. The second period (surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007) was characterized by clarifying the relationships between journalism and newly emerged outlets. These studies focused on how participative formats (such as Wikipedia and blogs) and search engines could be used for journalistic purposes without compromising quality. These new outlets were not regarded then as much of a threat. This attitude did not change during the third period (surveys conducted in 2010 and 2014). In this phase, too, the studies focused on how editorial staff utilized the ever-increasing number of social media. The six surveys’ different research interests reveal that the reviewed journalism research primarily addressed changing demands in journalistic practice. Therefore, exogenous factors (“the sector”) had a greater impact than endogenous factors (the “scholarship”) on research interests.
德国新闻业如何适应互联网:六项新闻编辑室调查结果(1997-2014 年)
本文以六项新闻编辑室调查为基础,分析了德国数字新闻业的发展历程。调查时间跨度为 17 年(1997-2014 年)。本文将数字新闻业的历史划分为三个阶段,探讨了新闻业与新闻研究之间的相互作用。结果显示了新闻数字媒体如何在旧媒体与互联网、数字媒体与其他渠道以及数字媒体与受众之间的关系中确定自己的角色。此外,研究结果还证实了数字编辑人员如何在任务、规则和技能方面界定自己的新闻身份。在第一阶段(1997 年和 2000 年进行的调查),从旧大众媒体到互联网的观点占主导地位,在学术界也是如此,大众媒体的范式被扩展到互联网。第二阶段(2006 年和 2007 年进行的调查)的特点是厘清新闻业与新兴媒体之间的关系。这些研究的重点是如何在不影响质量的前提下将参与式形式(如维基百科和博客)和搜索引擎用于新闻报道。当时,这些新媒体并没有被视为太大的威胁。这种态度在第三阶段(2010 年和 2014 年进行的调查)没有改变。在这一阶段,研究的重点也是编辑人员如何利用日益增多的社交媒体。六项调查的不同研究方向表明,所审查的新闻学研究主要针对新闻实践中不断变化的需求。因此,外在因素("行业")比内在因素("学术")对研究兴趣的影响更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journalism
Journalism COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
10.30%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Journalism is a major international, peer-reviewed journal that provides a dedicated forum for articles from the growing community of academic researchers and critical practitioners with an interest in journalism. The journal is interdisciplinary and publishes both theoretical and empirical work and contributes to the social, economic, political, cultural and practical understanding of journalism. It includes contributions on current developments and historical changes within journalism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信