No abstract

Social media are by now an established presence in both journalism and politics, setting up the 2016 U.S. presidential election as a fruitful time to test theories of journalistic normalization and professionalization. In studying reporters' use of social media during the U.S. presidential elections of 2012, scholars suggested that journalists are mapping old norms onto new technology while in some ways challenging them (Molyneux, Mourão & Coddington. 2016). Research also demonstrated evidence of tension between journalists, their audiences, their sources, and their employers, as these groups sought attention and control over newly important social media spaces (Lewis, 2012; Tandoc & Vos, 2016). Since then, however, the technology has proven more flexible than the profession, as social media platforms added new features and forms of interaction. As such, it's important to follow these earlier studies with an understanding of how processes of normalization and professionalization occur over time and how these processes respond to changes in the media ecosystem. Journalistsalready under intense economic and cultural stress as the public collectively re-evaluates the importance of their workmust continually adapt to a changing online environment that is becoming a primary platform for presenting their work and also a primary place in which they encounter audience members (Canter, 2015; Belair-Gagnon, 2015). How have journalists adapted to platform-specific changes that are beyond their control? Have these new tools led to different interactions between journalists and their audiences? Perhaps more to the point: Are journalists even interacting with their audiences, or are they living in social media echo chambers as Pope (2016) suggested?

During the 2012 presidential election, Twitter emerged as a key reporting tool for journalists on the campaign trail. Through a textual analysis of over 5700 tweets from 430 political journalists, this study sought to understand how the platform was used as a channel for community building during the first 2012 presidential debate. Building upon Zelizer’s definition of journalists as interpretive communities and Goffman’s dramaturgical model, results reveal that journalists used the online tool for constructing narratives. In addition, online interactions uncover facets of campaign reporting previously confined to backstage regions. Narrative-building, interpretive community discourses, and backstage behaviors were found in tweets in which journalists gave opinions about the political process and used humor to construct the traits of a professional group. Findings suggest that Twitter coverage helps establish new professional boundaries for political communication.

In today’s media landscape, people are encouraged to verify the news and information they encounter. Using an online experiment, this study explores audience’s intent to verify a news headline by manipulating whether the headline is true or false, from a source that varies in credibility, and perceived to be congruent or incongruent with participants’ partisanship. Results show that participants exhibit a higher intent to verify when they believe the headline is true, which is predicted by perceived congruency with preexisting ideological leanings. We discuss these findings in terms of the normative limitations of audience verification.

This study examines audience relationships to fact-checking sites in the United States. Focus is placed on predictors of audience awareness of, attitudes toward, and visits to such sites within a stage model framework drawn from the persuasive message literature. Analysis of survey data from a U.S. sample shows that liberals and liberal/mainstream news consumers are more aware of, positive toward, and likely to report using fact-checking sites. Conservatives are less positive and conservative news consumers see such sites as less useful to them. Findings indicate that while specific combinations of predictors of awareness, attitudes, and behavior vary, fact-checking sites have a particular appeal to liberals and liberal/mainstream news consumers. Results point to U.S. fact-checking sites being absorbed into wider ideological discourses and patterns of ideological news consumption.