Critical but co-operative – Netizens evaluating journalists in social media

Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, ol.8 - nº4 (2014), 001-016 1646-5954/ERC123483/2014 001 Copy igh © 2014 (Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka). Licensed unde he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion- NonComme cial Gene ic (cc by-nc). A ailable a h p://obs.obe com.p C i ical bu co-ope a i e – Ne izens e alua ing jou nalis s in social media Elina Noppa i*, A i Heinonen**, Eliisa Vainikka*** *Resea che a Tampe e Resea ch Cen e o Jou nalism, Media and Communica ion, FI-33014 Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland. (elina.noppa i@u a. i) ** P o esso o Jou nalism, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Kale an ie 4, Tampe e, Finland. (a i.a.he[email p o ec ed]) *** Resea che a Tampe e Resea ch Cen e o Jou nalism, Media and Communica ion, FI-33014 Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland. (eliisa. ainikk[email p o ec ed]) Abs ac This a icle looks in o he ela ionship be ween p o essional jou nalis s and ac i e Web use s in he sphe e o social media 1 . Ou explo a ion in o jou nalis s’ social media pa icipa ion is app oached h ough wo “clashes o cul u es” be ween he online con ex and he wo ld o jou nalism, namely anonymi y and anspa ency. The esea ch, which is based on in e iews wi h jou nalis s and expe s and a su ey o he web use s, pe mi s he conclusion ha he ela ion be ween jou nalis s and public is augh wi h suspicion and con lic . News ooms should be mo e open as ega ds jou nalis ic p ac ices, bu equen ly hey a e no accessible o he public. Keywo ds: Jou nalis s, social media, ne izens, c owdsou cing 1. In oduc ion Social media and ne wo ked online spaces ha e ecen ly occasioned change in he ways o doing jou nalism such ha one has begun o speak o jou nalism among o he hings as se ing he public (A wick, 2013), as ambien (He mida, 2010), as dialogue (Gillmo , 2004) o blu “nex jou nalism” (Ko ach and Rosen iel, 2010). All hese e ms e e o he In e ne as a complex communica ion en i onmen in which web use s hemsel es w i e, ecommend, sha e and commen on con en , p oducing also pa allel publici ies ha challenge jou nalism, which has adi ionally domina ed he public agenda. Nick Could y (2009) claims ha he adi ional mass communica ion pa adigm is unde going change as he public a e g adually becoming ac i e sende - ecei e hyb ids and Manuel Cas ells (2009) e e s o he same de elopmen by alking abou mass sel -communica ion, in which anyone can a ge a la ge ollowing wi h he help o pee ne wo ks. Social media a e, acco ding o And eas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein (2010), a g oup o In e ne applica ions ha build bo h he ideological and echnological base o Web 2.0, and allow he c ea ion and exchange o use -gene a ed con en . Wi h he a i al o ne wo k jou nalism (Hein ich, 2008) he oles o bo h he public and he jou nalis s ha e changed. The public ha e mo e oppo uni ies han be o e o choose how and whe e 1 The a icle is based on a esea ch p ojec which looked in o he online p esence and c edibili y o jou nalis s in social media and was conduc ed in 2012–2013. 002 Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) hey consume jou nalis ic p oduc s and many news i ems i s ci cula e in he social media be o e ending up in he adi ional media (Heinonen, 2011; He mida, 2010). News ooms ha e gene ally eac ed o hese changes by encou aging jou nalis s o be use s o social media. F om he pe spec i e o jou nalism, social media ha e been pe cei ed as signi ican , pa icula ly as a acili a o and enable o in e ac ion wi h he public. Media en e p ises may s i e o su i e amid in ensi ying compe i ion by using co-c ea ion, c owdsou cing and open dialogue and by building audience communi ies and an g oups. The web is also a po en ial sou ce o subjec s o s o ies and backg ound in o ma ion and inc easingly a channel o he jou nalis s' sel -b anding and p omo ion. Social media is all he mo e o en used o p esen one’s own wo k achie emen s and he e o e one’s own pe sonali y is also o eg ounded (e.g. Hedman and Dje -Pie e, 2013; Leh onen, 2013; Nogue a- Vi o, 2013). Al hough all jou nalis s ha e access o easy- o-use echnologies, using social media akes mo e in es men han me ely egis e ing o ce ain se ices. In o he wo ds, c ea ing a blog o a Facebook p o ile does no ye mean ha he jou nalis is ope a ing in social media in a p o essionally p oduc i e manne . Fo e e y popula blog he e a e coun less un ead blogs and a pe son casually going online seldom succeeds in ini ia ing wo hwhile in e ac ion. The In e ne a la ge can be concei ed o as a peculia ype o publici y whe e audience mechanisms di e om hose o he adi ional, o -line media. In o de o unc ion pu pose ully in social media, a jou nalis mus achie e c edibili y by being p esen in he web as a genuine pa icipan . In his a icle we use empi ical da a o sc u inize wha he ac ions o jou nalis s seem like in p ac ice and in wha endea ou s and how p oduc i ely hey a e p esen in he a ious social media en i onmen s. Jou nalism and he web bo h en ail a cul u e and pa lance buil on ce ain p ac ices. Jou nalism, buil on he adi ional, one-way dissemina ion o in o ma ion, has emphasized he signi icance o he ins i u ion as an impa ial and u h-seeking p oduce o in o ma ion, whe eas on he Web he no ms sp ing om an opposing line o hough and s ill o his day e lec he p inciples o hacke cul u e. An impo an pa o he jou nalis s’ p o essional iden i y is he no ion o hem being no only independen p o essionals bu also ep esen a i es o he public and wa chdogs o hose in powe . T adi ional jou nalism es s on au ho ized and hie a chical sou ces and emphasises he quali y o i s own wo k (Helbe ge , Leu dijk & de Munck, 2010; Ö neb ink, 2008). A he hea o jou nalism lies he no ion o he jou nalis as a ga ekeepe (Singe , 2008). The no ms o he In e ne emphasise eedom o in o ma ion and oppose any a emp o egula e people’s access o sou ces o in o ma ion o o limi hei ac i i ies on he Web. Opposi ion owa ds au ho i y, e.g. he s a e, academia o a comme cial ac o , equen ly a ises online. The co e alues on he web a e di ec democ acy, eedom o speech, igh s o he indi idual and anspa ency o go e nance. (Ge baudo, 2012; Le y, 2010.) In he In e ne anonymi y has adi ionally been a alue o be ehemen ly de ended, as i is seen o ensu e equali y. Achie ing a high ank in an online communi y is no necessa ily based on adi ional social ca ego ies, as is o example p o essional s a us, bu by in es ing in he good o he communi y in a way ha he communi y app o es o (c . G een and Jenkins, 2011; Kollock, 1999). In his a icle we con empla e how well he iews o jou nalis s and ne izens coincide in he use o social media. A e he jou nalis s’ p ac ices in he In e ne such ha hey would mo i a e ac i e web use s o commi o be an audience communi y, o in e ac and co-ope a e wi h jou nalis s? And a e he web use s o jou nalis s Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka 003 ac ually inclined o such co-ope a ion? Ou p elimina y hypo hesis is ha a “clash o cul u es”, de elops as jou nalis s and ne izens come ac oss each o he in a ious online spaces. This clash o cul u es, o lack o sha ed unde s andings, esul s in di e ences in ideologies and ac ions. In jou nalism s udies, mos esea ch (Leh onen, 2013; Nikunen, 2011) has ocused on jou nalis s’ pe cep ions o hei social media use o he con en ound on jou nalis ic web si es. In ou s udy we also wan ed o look a jou nalis s' appea ance in social media om he pe spec i e o hose who mee hem online: ac i e web use s, he so-called ne izens. The online p esence o jou nalis s and hei ac ions in social media we e p esen ed o web use s o assessmen in he hope o a i ing a a new pe spec i e ha would complemen ea lie esea ch on jou nalis s’ own iews and ac ions and he use o social media con en in jou nalism. Fi s , we p esen he me hods and da a used in his a icle, and hen we p oceed o look in o he wo illus a i e examples o “clashes o cul u es” 2 in jou nalism and online communica ion. We s udy how bo h jou nalis s and web use s assess jou nalis s’ ac ions in social media. Finally we conside wha all his may signi y o jou nalism and o he p o essional iden i y o jou nalis s al oge he . 2. Me hods and da a The da a used in his a icle was ga he ed in a s udy o jou nalis s´ online p esence and social media use conduc ed in 2012–2013. An anonymously comple ed online su ey (n = 248) was dis ibu ed bo h h ough he esea che s’ own Facebook p o iles and also di ec ly o 19 Finnish In e ne discussion o ums. The su ey posed open-ended ques ions and mul iple-choice ques ions on he Finnish mains eam media, social media, jou nalis s and he In e ne cul u e. The esponses o he open-ended ques ions we e analysed coding he eme ged hemes by sub hemes and ca ego ies. Ou aim was o ob ain as many di e en esponden s as possible by dis ibu ing he su ey link o o ums p esumably a ac ing di e en use g oups. Ne e heless i should be bo n in mind ha he esponden s, e e ed o he e as ne izens, we e a e all p edominan ly male (74 % o esponden s), wi h di e ing educa ional backg ounds and om di e en age g oups. We a e awa e ha he e m ne izen is p oblema ic o some deg ee, as a pa o he ocabula y o digi al cul u e, and has los some o i s meaning in he ecen yea s. He e, by e e ing o ne izens, we mean hose indi iduals who ha e posi ioned hemsel es as ac i e Web use s. They we e hea y In e ne use s: nine pe cen used he web as much as en hou s pe day. They we e also i mly in a ou o eedom o in o ma ion wi h libe al concep ions o eedom o speech. The su ey was dis ibu ed mos ly in anonymous online communi ies and hus i can be assumed ha he esponses o his g oup e lec speci ically he no ms and concep ions o an anonymous In e ne cul u e. The e o e he concep ions o he esponden s may di e om he s udies conduc ed in non-anonymous en i onmen s, such as Facebook o Twi e , whe e he indi idual is emphasised. The su ey esponden s a e no a e age media use s and hei opinions a e no gene alizable as such, bu hey ep esen hose especially ac i e indi iduals 2 Ins ead o “clash o cul u es”, we may use he e m “clash o discou ses” because jou nalis s ope a e in he Web no only as p o essionals, bu also as p i a e indi iduals, hey may belong o he same communi ies as hei audience and hus become ne izens hemsel es. 004 Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) who jou nalis s encoun e when ope a ing online, and hus hei concep ions o jou nalis s' online p esence a e ele an . In addi ion o he su ey we in e iewed jou nalis s (n=10) and social media p o essionals (n=7) in bo h Finland and he UK, six and ou jou nalis s, espec i ely. We selec ed o he in e iews so-called ea ly adop e s who a a ela i ely ea ly s age made p o essional use o social media se ices. The in e iews we e ansc ibed and analysed by coding he o iginal hemes o smalle subca ego ies. 3. Illus a i e examples o cul u al clashes: Anonymi y The “clashes o cul u es” be ween jou nalism and he cul u e o he Web can be app oached h ough wo concep s, anonymi y and anspa ency, which we e p esen bo h in he pa lance o he ne izens and he jou nalis s. Tensions be ween jou nalis s and ne izens equen ly moun a ound he issue o anonymi y. Fo he media companies anonymi y on he web equen ly poses a p oblem whe e anonymous w i ing undeniably in ol es misconduc . Jou nalis s seldom a ach much wo h o anonymous w i ing, le alone ha hey would hemsel es pa icipa e in anonymous online discussions (Heinonen, 2008). Acco ding o Bill Reade (2012), jou nalis s o en see anonymous online discussion as ” il h” and as a ehicle o bullying and olls, which a e equen ly mo e bo he han bene i o media b ands. In Finland, also, he jou nalis s’ a i ude o he discussion o ums o hei own medium o online discussions in gene al is con adic o y. Jou nalis s conside online discussion o be hos ile and i ele an (Nikunen, 2011). The commen sec ions o online news ha e been said o also p o ide he public wi h a place as an audience, when hese commen s do no ac ually pose a h ea o he p o essional iden i y o he jou nalis (Domingo e al., 2008; Reich, 2011; Thu man and He mida, 2008). Ou esea ch con i med he esul s o p e ious s udies, as he jou nalis in ou s udy desc ibed a nega i e discussion a mosphe e in he discussion o ums as ollows: I is somehow so i ing, he e in ou discussion o ums. I egula ly succumb o going he e, hinking ‘now i ’s a good ime o ha e some con ac wi h he eade s’, bu i ( he agg essi e discussion) always manages o kill he en husiasm and I always swea ha I will no go he e again, le hem shou he e by hemsel es. (Jou nalis in e iewee, male, Finland) The in e ac ion be ween us and eade s is minimal [--] e e y ime I go o ou discussion o um, I emembe ‘no, don’ do his again’, because i always s a s an aw ul up oa and i ’s somehow eally agg essi e, he c owd he e. (Jou nalis in e iewee, male, Finland) People can lea e commen s on ou s o ies and he idea is ha he jou nalis s would be able o alk back and jus i y he s o ies and ge in ol ed in a deba e bu hey don’ end o do ha . You know, qui e o en he jou nalis s will ge c i icized and i would be g ea i he jou nalis s could go on and de end hei s ance and explain i , because hen he use is ge ing such a mo e ich expe ience, bu i ’s jus di icul because usually, once a jou nalis ge s c i icized hey’ll jus swi ch he commen s o and hink hey’ e a bunch o idio s… (Jou nalis in e iewee, male, UK) Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka 005 Some jou nalis s a e e y ca e ul in wha hey say o do online, because o he agg essi e commen a o s, as his emale UK jou nalis explains: ‘I hink i goes back o no adding oo much pe sonali y, oo much opinion – jus epo ing. Because I hink ha hings can ge miscons ued online and once you pu i ou he e, you can’ ake i back’. Many media companies ha e igh ened he mode a ing p ac ices o hei web pages and may ha e p e en ed anonymous commen s in o de o comply wi h he equi emen s o he legisla ion, he e hical guidelines, o imp o e he quali y o he discussions o o p o ec hei b and. (Binns, 2012; Heikkilä, Ah a, Siljamäki & Val onen, 2012.) Among he ne izens, howe e , his is equen ly iewed as p oo ha he discussion has been supp essed and e en as an a emp a censo ship. (c . Haa a, 2012; Masip, Diaz Noci, Domingo, Lluís Micó & Ruiz, 2010; T ygg, 2012.) Fo hose suppo ing an anonymous and uninhibi ed Web he mains eam media do easily ep esen a ga ekeepe o ee discussion mo i a ed by he pu sui o inancial gain and hand in glo e wi h he powe ul in socie y. The aim o he mains eam media is ne e se iously unde mine o de in socie y o o p o oundly u he socie al change (McQuail, 2005), bu i can be seen as a pa o he sys em o au ho i y sus aining he s a us quo , and his should be ega ded wi h suspicion. O ou su ey esponden s 78 pe cen said ha hei own online communi ies app oach issues om mains eam media wi h suspicion o c i icism. Ou su ey esponden s highly a ou ed he op ion o anonymi y – i was linked bo h o he eedom o he indi idual and o he ealiza ion o democ acy. O he esponden s 92 pe cen hough ha anonymous w i ing enables a ee discussion and c i ical speech agains powe s uc u es, and 87 pe cen we e o he opinion ha ega dless o anonymi y he web o e ed oppo uni ies o app op ia e discussion o high quali y. Anonymi y is equen ly associa ed wi h he downsides o he In e ne and o many i is synonymous wi h bad beha iou , o ensi e mode o exp ession, ha e speech, olling and down igh c ime (e.g. Ba nes, 2003; Pöyh ä i, Haa a & Rai ila, 2013; Shi ky, 1995). The posi i e side o anonymi y is ha i enables discussion on sensi i e and poli ically deba able subjec s. Anonymous communi ies a e equen ly c ea i e and inno a i e as when w i ing unde pseudonyms he e is no ea o ailu e which would inhibi idea ion and w i ing. (Be ns ein e al., 2011; S ome -Galley and Wichowski, 2011.) 4. T anspa ency as a alue and as a concep Openness and anspa ency we e concep s ou esponden s, bo h jou nalis s and ne izens, o en e e ed o as being impo an alues in he social media. As a concep anspa ency is abs ac , i is necessa y o gi e i a close look. The s udy by Richa d Van De Wu and Klaus Schönbach s essed anspa ency as a new jou nalis ic no m in he epo ing p ocess (2011, p. 412, 417). Acco ding o José Manuel Nogue a Vi o (2013) he e a e se e al examples o how wi h Twi e he news oom becomes mo e anspa en and con ac wi h he public has accele a ed. Fo example, edi o s-in-chie solici opinions in Twi e on headlines and subjec s o a icles. Michael Ka lsson (2010) p oposes ha he concep anspa ency should be ende ed comp ehensible by spli ing i in o mo e conc e e “ anspa ency i uals”, which could be used in news oom wo k. Ka lsson uses disclosu e anspa ency o e e o openness on he pa o newsmake s wi h e e ence o selec ion c i e ia and 006 Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) p oduc ion. Pa icipa o y anspa ency o i s pa is used o e e o he ac ha he public has he op ion o pa icipa ing in he news p ocess and i s a ious s ages. (Ibid., p. 537.) T anspa ency migh mean ha in bo h inside and ou side o he jou nalism ins i u ion, people migh be gi en an oppo uni y o moni o , c i icize, check and e en in e ene in he jou nalis ic p ocess. Axel B uns (2004) akes he iew ha a use should be able o in e ene in e e y s age o he news p oduc ion p ocess, om he idea ion o subjec and collec ion o publica ion, analysis and discussion. Fo example, he “ u h” p oduced in blogs is based on dialogue which ins an ly sel -co ec s and complemen s he o iginal ex (Ka lsson, 2011, p. 284). In wo k by Dominic Laso sa, Se h Lewis and A e y Hol on (2012), jou nalis s also used Twi e as an oppo uni y o p o ide accoun abili y and anspa ency. In hei wee s jou nalis s discuss hei wo k, ha e con e sa ions and sha e links. Howe e , hey don´ usually open he jou nalis ic p ocess in Twi e o hose ou side o jou nalism. Acco ding o José Manuel Nogue a Vi o (2013) achie ing us and c edibili y is one o he jou nalis ’s i s challenges in Twi e . In o de o c ea e a good ela ionship wi h he public and he eby o ob ain ips and de i e bene i om social media, jou nalis s should, acco ding o Nogue a Vi o, o e in Twi e some hing o he han me ely ei e a ing news headlines. The social media expe s we in e iewed spoke in a ou o a simila app oach: jou nalis s should build a dis inc i e and easily app oachable online p esence and p e e ably c ea e a p o ile as a specialis in a ce ain a ea o expe ise. The pionee jou nalis s in social media s essed in he in e iews he impo ance o answe ing o he public and he abili y o ake and u ilize nega i e eedback, o example, in de eloping a jou nalis ic p oduc . The social media expe s also exp essed he hope ha jou nalis s migh be able o pa icipa e mo e in c i ical discussion on hei wo k. Jou nalis s should he e o e accep bo h posi i e and nega i e eedback and o openly decla e he ole as a jou nalis when ishing o in o ma ion in he In e ne . Openness was seen as one means by which o cul i a e a good epu a ion in he web. The in e iews we conduc ed e eal ha anspa ency is a cen al alue wi hin he sphe e o social media. Heikki Heikkilä and Ja i Väli e onen (2013), howe e , make he poin ha in spi e o ample alk abou anspa ency and accoun abili y, li le has been done in Finnish news ooms o he de elopmen o p ac ices suppo ing anspa ency. They s ess ha he no m o anspa ency should be sc u inized in p ac ice in h ee sepa a e s ages: 1) ac o anspa ency ( o example e hical p inciples and owne ship ela ions and jou nalis ic objec i es), 2) p oduc ion anspa ency (in e nal decision-making o p ocesses o newsga he ing) and 3) esponsi eness ( he p ac ices a e publica ion, such as eac ions o e o s and eedback and pa icipa ing in discussion). In hei s udy only a li le o e hal (57 %) o jou nalis s we e, o example, in a ou o making public he in e nal guidelines o he media o ganiza ion. (Ibid.) Ou da a also includes an example o ailed p oduc ion anspa ency in which a Finnish jou nalis ecoun ed ha ing been subjec ed o a ep imand by he edi o -in-chie on epo ing oo much in Twi e abou a ce ain edi o ial decision. In ( he edi o -in-chie ’s) opinion i was an ex emely bad idea, “ he eade s hey ask all so s o hings, bu he e’s no need o always go and explain”, and so hen hey we e ne e answe ed. (Jou nalis in e iewee, male, Finland) Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka 007 In ou su ey he ne izens spoke s ongly o eedom o in o ma ion and o exp ession. The jou nalis s we in e iewed and he ne izens we e hus unanimous ha anspa ency was he way o jou nalism o ope a e h ough social media. Howe e , he esponses o web use s se ed o con i m he obse a ions o Heikkilä and Väli e onen (2013) ha openness is cu en ly mo e o a slogan han a social media p ac ice guiding he wo k o jou nalis s. The ne izens emphasized ha news ooms should g ea ly inc ease hei anspa ency a all s ages o he jou nalis ic p ocess. A he le el o ac o anspa ency hey emphasised ha he media companies ough o be mo e open abou hei policies and he alues and opinions o indi idual jou nalis s. O he esponden s 52 pe cen we e o he opinion ha jou nalis s should clea ly indica e in he social media o example hei poli ical posi ion. The ne izens conside ed ha being ank abou one’s poli ical posi ion was a sign o c edibili y, as many o he esponden s did no seem o belie e in he no ion o an impa ial p o essional jou nalis . The membe s o he public hoped ha in he p oduc ion s age jou nalis s would openly p esen hei wo k p ocesses, he sou ces hey used and, o example, p o ide links o he o iginal ma e ials. On he Web he o e all pic u e o an e en is o en buil by piecing oge he agmen al bi s o in o ma ion. The e is o en also alse in o ma ion included, as in he case whe e Reddi use s ied o collec i ely ack down he Bos on Ma a hon bombe s in Ap il 2013. In hese cases he solu ion, and all he s eps leading o i , a e publicly a ailable and o people who a e accus omed o his kind o dissemina ion o in o ma ion, so an i em o news wi hou any links o addi ional in o ma ion abou he sou ces may eel dubious. (The e ough o be) links o he o iginal sou ces o he in o ma ion: o esea ch, epo s, minu es o mee ings, o iginal in e iews / w i en con ibu ions, memos. In subjec wi h a g ea deal o subs ance he media always ha e o make hings banal and simpli y hem, bu in an online discussion one can del e deepe and eally ge in o i . (Response o an open-ended ques ion) The quo e abo e shows how in a ious online communi ies he e is a g ea desi e o engage in in es iga i e wo k on he subjec s add essed in he media (c . Jenkins, 2008, p. 28–29), and also o e alua e he con ibu ion o he jou nalis . Acco ding o Van De Wu and Schönbach (2011) he public should be o e ed an oppo uni y o asce ain whe he he in o ma ion p o ided by he media is co ec o no . People in es a lo o ime and e o online in ollowing hemes ha in e es hem. The su ey esponden s de o ed ime o seeking in o ma ion on he subjec s ha in e es hem in o he places han he adi ional media and, o example, in in e na ional subjec s hey o en elied on o he sou ces han hei domes ic media. 5. C i ical oices om he Web I should be bo n in mind ha he esponden s o ou su ey a e no a e age media use s, bu ypically hey o m c i ical publics (see Table 1). This becomes appa en among o he places in he ex en o which hey used adi ional media as a sou ce o news o how hey equen ly sough al e na i e pe spec i es on he news p esen ed by mains eam media. They ob ain in o ma ion om agmen ed sou ces and he au ho i y posi ions on which jou nalism adi ionally elies, easily disin eg a e in he In e ne . O e 80 pe cen o esponden s 008 Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) 020 40 60 80 100 Finnish mains eam media is my p ima y news sou ce I ind in e es ing news ia Facebook o Twi e I ind in e na ional s o ies om o he sou ces han domes ic media Social media con e sa ions o news in e es me mo e han he o iginal news I compa e mains eam media news o o he sou ces I us online sou ces a leas as much as mains eam media 14 3 37 18 52 44 34 16 30 44 34 37 31 26 26 22 8 13 21 54 4 7 5 5 1 3 9 1 1 % Ag ee comple ely Somewha ag ee Somewha disag ee Disag ee comple ely I don´ know epo ed, o example, elying jus as much on uno icial online sou ces known o hem o be good as on he news p esen ed by mains eam media. 3 They enjoy assuming he posi ion o he wa chdog’s wa chdog (c . Coope , 2006) o he “ i h es a e” (Du on, 2009): many discussion o ums ha e sepa a e a eas ocused on di e en issues o he media in which use s discuss news and p ac ices o adi ional media. Table 1. A web su ey o ac i e ne izens showing ha au ho i y posi ions shi easily on he In e ne 4 To sum up he ne izens a i udes owa ds jou nalism, in he su ey esponses web use s conside ed mains eam media jou nalis s social media lu ke s mo e han ac i e pa icipan s. Acco ding o he ne izens he main challenge as ega ds jou nalis s’ use o social media would appea o be ha hey do indeed use he se ices o social media o di e en pu poses bu seldom spend enough ime in hem o lea n, o example, o ac acco ding o he ules o he communi y. Ce ainly his is connec ed no only o he jou nalis s’ p o essional a i udes and p ac ices bu also o media economy, and o he ac ha many news ooms ha e su e ed d as ic cu s in pe sonnel. One esponden desc ibed he jou nalis s as si ing in he social media g ands and, om which hey hen easily make misin e p e a ions. Fo hese easons jou nalis s may misjudge he con ex and one o online discussions, and ail, o example, o ecognize i ony, sa i ical ex o olling. The esponden s o he 3 The g oup o esponden s clea ly di e om he Finnish mains eam as he Finnish media ha e succeeded ai ly well in e aining hei c edibili y among media use s. Acco ding o Ka ppinen, Jääsaa i & Ki iku u, 2010, p. 41–46) a ew yea s ago some 95 pe cen o Finns conside ed YLE (Finnish B oadcas ing Company) news o be eliable and 81 pe cen we e o he opinion ha he equi emen o e aci y was me in Finnish mass-communica ion ei he well o ai ly well. Howe e , he eliabili y o social media has been conside ed ai ly poo (Ma ikainen, 2010). 4 I is in e es ing o no ice ha as news-dis ibu ion channels Twi e and Facebook a e no signi ican . We p opose ha hese special g oups o use s ge in o ma ion mainly om hei own anonymous online communi ies o which hey a e commi ed o. Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka 009 20 35 33 12 25 9 51 23 35 43 36 20 34 12 38 29 22 13 17 26 24 27 6 26 21 7 8 37 12 50 3 21 2 2 6 5 5 2 2 1 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 F om a discussion o um wi h egis a ion F om an open discussion o um F om Twi e o a celeb i y F om Twi e o a p i a e pe son F om he Facebook p o ile o a celeb i y F om he Facebook p o ile o a p i a e pe son F om a blog o a celeb i y F om a blog o a p i a e pe son % Comple ely ag ee Somewha ag ee Somewha disag ee Comple ely disag ee I don' know ques ionnai e ci ed examples in which Finnish jou nalis s had, o example, publicized ake Twi e p o ile upda es in he name o a public igu e as genuine. Al hough he web use s deemed i a good hing ha jou nalis s should y o seek in o ma ion and new pe spec i es om a ious o ums, hey poin ed ou ha jou nalis s should make hei p esence known and eques pe mission o publish hings. This demand may be conside ed somewha inconsis en , as he use s hemsel es wish o emain anonymous, whe eas hey hope o he jou nalis s o come o wa d as media p o essionals. A s udy on BBC jou nalis s ound ha he jou nalis s equen ly ega ded he con en p oduced by ne izens as aw ma e ial (Wa dle and Williams, 2010). This does no go down well wi h web use s: hey s ess ha e en hose w i ing in he anonymous o ums a e indi iduals who in es e o in he ac i i ies o hei pseudonyms . The si ua ion o social media midway be ween p i a e and public o i s pa gi es ise o ensions be ween web use s and jou nalis s in sea ch o in o ma ion. Many social media pla o ms p omise p i acy, and an a emp is made o c ea e a sense o being a home and people a e encou aged o exp ess hemsel es eely (Sloop and Gunn, 2010). Howe e , hey may be on iew o a su p isingly ex ensi e numbe o people. Thus jou nalis s may, o example, use in o ma ion om Facebook, possibly conside ed p i a e by he sou ce he /himsel , as Facebook is o en pe cei ed as a p i a e and pe sonal a ea (c . boyd, 2008). The ne izens c i icized how news picked up om social media emphasize scandals and he jou nalis s a e emp ed o eso o lazy poli ical jou nalism, o example, by ”exposing” poli icians’ o o he public igu es’ con o e sial o p i a e social media upda es. Table 2. Be ween p i a e and public. Wha ypes o in o ma ion seeking ne izens deem accep able in he social media en i onmen / Accep ance o in o ma ion e ie al om social media The ne izens’ c i icism e y o en a e all alls on he adi ional jou nalis ic alues and hei abandonmen . This inding is simila o ha in he s udy by Vos, C a & Ashley (2012), in which blogge s c i icized he con en ional media o inaccu acy and a lack o independence. The blogge s also ound cause o complain in he jou nalis s’ conside a ion o news, sensa ionalism and lack o a p o essional app oach. 016 Elina Noppa i, A i Heinonen and Eliisa Vainikka Obse a o io (OBS*) Jou nal, (2014) Ö neb ink, Hen ik. (2008). The Consume as P oduce – O wha ? Use -gene a ed abloid con en in The Sun (UK) and A onblade (Sweden). Jou nalism S udies 9(5), 771–785. Da e o submission: May 12, 2014 Da e o accep ance: Oc obe 1, 2014