Presentation by Wiebke Loosen & Julius Reimer held at the International Communication Association's annual conference (ICA 2016), June 9th 2016, in Fukuoka, Japan.

1. Between proximity and distance:
The balance in the (transforming) journalism-audience rela8onship
as a criterion for media quality?
Wiebke Loosen & Julius Reimer
@Wloosen |@juliusreimer
ICA preconference Media Performance and Democracy | June, 9th 2016 | Fukuoka, Japan

2. Introduc5on
• Having ‘an audience’ is cons8tu8ve for journalism.
• Discussions about journalism’s (in)ability to meet the demands
and needs of its audience are at the heart of any discussion on
media performance, the quality of news, and the func8on of
journalism in democra8c socie8es.
• Coverage is the visible output of journalism and the yards8ck of
its performance.
• But focusing on content alone is not enough to determine media
quality (from the audience’s perspec8ve) (Costera Meijer &
Bijleveld, 2016).
• We also have to consider the on-going transforma8on of the
media environment and of the journalism-audience rela8onship.
2

3. Our ques5ons/perspec5ve
⇒ How can we measure and compare journalists’ and audiences’
ideas of media quality/performance?
⇒ Are journalists’ and audiences’ ideas of media performance
expanded by new par8cipa8on-, dialog-, and transparency-
oriented aspects?
⇒ Should we think of proximity and distance of expecta8ons as a
criterion for media quality?
⇒ And if so, what is the ‘right’/a func8onal ra0o of proximity and
distance in the journalism-audience rela8onship?
3

4. The journalism-audience rela5onship
Audience Journalists
4
audience’s
expecta8ons
about what
journalists should
and will deliver
(Scholl &
Weischenberg, 1998:
pp. 120)
expecta8ons of
journalists about
what the
audience should
and will receive
Generally speaking, the rela8onship between journalism
and its audience is mainly structured by …

5. Based on: Loosen & Schmidt, 2012: 874, figure 1
The project “(Re-)Discovering the Audience”
Audience
Inclusion performance Inclusion performance
(Expected) inclusion expecta5ons
Journalists
Inclusion level
Inclusion distance
5
Inclusion level
(Expected) inclusion expecta5ons
3. Assumed importance of
par8cipatory func8ons
Importance of par8cipatory
func8ons
2. Self image of journalis8c role External image of journalis8c role
1. Assumed mo8va8ons
Mo8va8ons for par8cipa8on
4. General assessment of
par8cipa8on
General assessment of
par8cipa8on

6. Case studies
TV / online Print / online
Informa5on
oriented/
daily
Newscast
Tagesschau
(Loosen et al. 2013a)
Na8onal daily
Süddeutsche Zeitung
(Heise et al. 2014b)
Debate
oriented/
weekly
Poli8cal TV talk
ARD-Polihalk
(Loosen et al. 2013b)
Na8onal weekly
Der Freitag
(Reimer et al. 2015)
6
Based on: Schmidt & Loosen, 2015: 261, table 1

7. 1. To have journalists present (and responsive) on
social media
2. To be able to provide own material (text,
pictures, videos) for news repor8ng
3. To have a plaiorm for discussing the quality of
news repor8ng (agenda, form, tone etc.)
4. To get informa8on on editorial rou8nes/
prac8ces/decisions
5. To be able to forward/recommend journalis8c
content quickly and easily to friends and family
6. To be able to suggest topics for repor8ng
7. To be able to comment on/rate journalis8c items
8. To make transparent how many other people
view/comment certain stories***
9. To be able to contact/discuss with editorial staff
directly
10. To discuss the topics of news repor8ng***
11. To publicly show their/my ahachment to the
Tagesschau***
12. To get addi8onal informa8on on the sources of a
journalis8c item***
13. To be taken seriously by journalists***
14. To have editorial staff introduced to them/me***
15. To be able to interact and/or make contact with
other viewers/users (and exchange opinions)***
7
(Assumed) importance of par5cipatory func5ons
Based on: Heise et al., 2014a: 418, table 2
- Addressability of newsroom members:
items 1 & 9
- Community building: items 11 & 15
- Dialogue-orienta8on of newsroom and
audience members: items 3, 7 & 10
- Par8cipatory openness: items 2 & 6
- Shareability: item 5
- Transparency of journalis8c actors,
newsroom processes and audience
behavior: items 4, 8, 12 & 14

8. 1. To have journalists present (and responsive) on
social media
2. To be able to provide own material (text,
pictures, videos) for news repor8ng
3. To have a plaiorm for discussing the quality of
news repor8ng (agenda, form, tone etc.)
4. To get informa8on on editorial rou8nes/
prac8ces/decisions
5. To be able to forward/recommend journalis8c
content quickly and easily to friends and family
6. To be able to suggest topics for repor8ng
7. To be able to comment on/rate journalis8c items
8. To make transparent how many other people
view/comment certain stories***
9. To be able to contact/discuss with editorial staff
directly
10. To discuss the topics of news repor8ng***
11. To publicly show their/my ahachment to the
Tagesschau***
12. To get addi8onal informa8on on the sources of a
journalis8c item***
13. To be taken seriously by journalists***
14. To have editorial staff introduced to them/me***
15. To be able to interact and/or make contact with
other viewers/users (and exchange opinions)***
5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant” to 5 = ”Very important”;
6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calcula0on of mean). // *** p < .001 (t-test)
n journalists= 57-59; n audiences= 4641-4667
8
(Assumed) importance of par5cipatory func5ons
case study Tagesschau
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5 4
3
2
1
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Actualimportanceforusers
Importance for users as assumed by journalists
Based on: Heise et al., 2014a: 418, table 2

9. 1. To have journalists present (and responsive) on
social media
2. To be able to provide own material (text,
pictures, videos) for news repor8ng
3. To have a plaiorm for discussing the quality of
news repor8ng (agenda, form, tone etc.)
4. To get informa8on on editorial rou8nes/
prac8ces/decisions
5. To be able to forward/recommend journalis8c
content quickly and easily to friends and family
6. To be able to suggest topics for repor8ng
7. To be able to comment on/rate journalis8c items
8. To make transparent how many other people
view/comment certain stories***
9. To be able to contact/discuss with editorial staff
directly
10. To discuss the topics of news repor8ng***
11. To publicly show their/my ahachment to the
Tagesschau***
12. To get addi8onal informa8on on the sources of a
journalis8c item***
13. To be taken seriously by journalists***
14. To have editorial staff introduced to them/me***
15. To be able to interact and/or make contact with
other viewers/users (and exchange opinions)***
5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Completely unimportant” to 5 = ”Very important”;
6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calcula0on of mean). // *** p < .001 (t-test)
n journalists= 57-59; n audiences= 4641-4667
9
(Assumed) importance of par5cipatory func5ons
case study Tagesschau
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5 4
3
2
1
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Actualimportanceforusers
Importance for users as assumed by journalists
Based on: Heise et al., 2014a: 418, table 2

10. Different journalism, different democra5c models?
Different understandings or facets of (journalism’s func8on for) democracy
(Josephi, 2016):
• Journalism’s tradi8onal orienta8on towards informa8on supply and demand
represents the pluralis8c-representa8ve model.
• “Hos8ng the public discourse” (Braun & Gillespie, 2011) adds delibera8ve
aspects.
• Journalism models allowing the co-selec8on of topics and co-crea8on of
content emphasise par8cipatory facets.
• Start-ups and crowd funded ini8a8ves which understand the audience as
partners or members par8cipa8ng in the development of the whole news
outlet relate to direct democracy.
10

11. • Phrasing items in a comparable way while taking into account that…
• … not every audience member is knowledgeable, capable, or willing to express
aptudes towards professional journalis8c prac8ces to the same degree
• … professional norms (e.g., neutrality, verifica8on) mean different things to
journalists and audience members (Tsfa8 et al., 2006)
• Comparing…
• … groups of different homogeneity and size (editorial staff vs. disperse audience)
• … online- and TV-journalists and online-only audience
• … individual self-assessment with assessment of groups of others
• Considering…
• … absolute differences of means
• … if audience and journalists both tend towards agreement or disagreement
• … rela8ve rankings of one bahery‘s items
11
Methodological challenges

12. A repertoire-oriented approach
• Journalism is mul8channel communica8on: Typically, journalists and
audiences use a number of (social) media in parallel and for different
purposes and informa8on needs (Hasebrink & Hölig, 2013; Neuberger et al.,
2014).
• From an audience perspec8ve not all media are evaluated by the same
criteria, and quality flaws of one medium are likely to be compensated by
another one.
• In order to adequately evaluate the media quality a user is confronted with a
repertoire-oriented approach (Hasebrink & Popp, 2006; Hasebrink &
Domeyer, 2012) would:
• take into account all the media a ci8zen uses,
• measure the different quali8es of content and of par0cipatory features they
provide,
• weight these quali8es by the importance the user ascribes to them in rela8on to
specific informa0on needs, and
• add them up to a comprehensive index of media quality.
12

13. Proximity and distance: What is the right balance?
• How should a medium balance the differing or even contradic8ng
expecta8ons of the different segments of the “mul8ple
audience” (Hasebrink, 2008; own transla8on)?
• What is “the appropriate or func8onal degree of proximity and distance
between journalism and its audience” (Loosen & Schmidt, 2016)?
• A perfect match of expecta8ons is most likely not func8onal since it (only)
stabilises pre-exis8ng structures (Görke, 2014) and might reduce
- journalism’s urge to innovate and adapt in a constantly changing (media)
environment and
- audiences’ openness for new informa8on, perspec8ves, opinions,
serendipity.
• Not fully mee8ng the assumed demands and expecta8ons of audiences could
be a sign of media quality.
13

14. References
Braun, J./Gillespie, T. (2011): Hos8ng the public discourse, hos8ng the public. When online news and social media
converge. In: Journalism Prac0ce, 5(4), 383–398.
Costera-Meijer, I./Bijleveld, H. P. (2016): Valuable journalism. Measuring news quality from a user’s perspec8ve. In:
Journalism Studies (online first), URL: hhp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1175963.
Görke, A. (2014): Vom Hasen und vom Igel – oder warum der Journalismus sein Publikum stets erfolgreich und
folgenreich verfehlen darf. In: Loosen, W./Dohle, M. (eds.): Journalismus und (sein) Publikum: Schni[stellen
zwischen Journalismusforschung und Rezep0ons- und Wirkungsforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 35–51.
Hasebrink, U. (2008): Das mul8ple Publikum. Paradoxien im Verhältnis von Journalismus und Mediennutzung. In:
Pörksen, B./Loosen, W./Scholl, A. (eds.): Paradoxien des Journalismus. Theorie – Empirie – Praxis. Festschri`
für Siegfried Weischenberg. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschayen, 512–530.
Hasebrink, U./Domeyer, H. (2012): Media repertoires as paherns of behaviour and as meaningful prac8ces: a
mul8method approach to media use in converging media environments. In: Par0cipa0ons. Journal of Audience
& Recep0on Studies, 9(2), 757–783. URL:
hhp://www.par8cipa8ons.org/Volume%209/Issue%202/40%20Hasebrink%20Domeyer.pdf.
Hasebrink, U./Hölig, S. (2013): Conceptualizing audiences in convergent media environments. In: Karmasin, M./
Diehl, S. (eds.): Media and Convergence Management. Berlin: Springer, 189–202.
Hasebrink, U./Popp, J. (2006): Media repertoires as a result of selec8ve media use. A conceptual approach to the
analysis of paherns of exposure. In: Communica0ons: The European Journal of Communica0on Research, 31(3),
369–387. URL: hhp://dx.doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN.2006.023.
Heise, N./Loosen, W./Reimer, J./Schmidt, J.-H. (2014a): Including the audience. Comparing aptudes and
expecta8ons of journalists and users towards par8cipa8on in German TV news journalism. In: Journalism
Studies, 15(4), 411–430. URL: hhp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2013.831232.
14

15. References
Heise, N./Reimer, J./Loosen, W./Schmidt, J.-H./Heller, C./Quader, A. (2014b): Publikumsinklusion bei der
Süddeutschen Zeitung. Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt „Die (Wieder-)Entdeckung des Publikums“.
Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-Ins8tut (Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Ins8tuts Nr. 26). URL:
hhp://www.hans-bredow-ins8tut.de/webfm_send/1050.
Josephi, B. (2016): Digital journalism and democracy. In: Witschge, T./Anderson, C.W./Domingo, D./Hermida, A.
(eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism. London et al.: SAGE, 9–24.
Loosen, W./Schmidt, J.-H. (2016, forthcoming): Between proximity and distance: including the audience in
journalism (research). In: B. Franklin & S. Eldridge II (eds.): The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism
Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Loosen, W./Schmidt, J.-H. (2012): (Re-)discovering the audience. The rela8onship between journalism and audience
in networked digital media. In: Informa0on, Communica0on & Society, 15(6), 867–887. URL:
hhp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.665467.
Loosen, W./Schmidt, J.-H./Heise, N./Reimer, J./Scheler, M. (2013a): Publikumsinklusion bei der Tagesschau.
Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt „Die (Wieder-)Entdeckung des Publikums“. Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-
Ins8tut (Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Ins8tuts Nr. 26). URL:
hhp://www.hans-bredow-ins8tut.de/webfm_send/709.
Loosen,W./Schmidt, J.-H./Heise, N./Reimer, J. (2013b): Publikumsinklusion bei einem ARD-Poli[alk.
Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt „Die (Wieder-)Entdeckung des Publikums“. Hamburg: Hans-Bredow-
Ins8tut (Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Ins8tuts Nr. 28). URL:
hhp://www.hans-bredow-ins8tut.de/webfm_send/739.
Neuberger, C./Langenohl, S./Nuernbergk, C. (2014): Social Media und Journalismus (Band 50). LfM-Dokumenta8on.
Düsseldorf: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Wesialen (LfM).
15

16. References
Reimer, J./Heise, N./Loosen, W./Schmidt, J.-H./Klein, J./Ahrodt, A./Quader, A. (2015): Publikumsinklusion bei Der
Freitag. Fallstudienbericht aus dem DFG-Projekt „Die (Wieder-)Entdeckung des Publikums“. Hamburg: Hans-
Bredow-Ins8tut (Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Ins8tuts Nr. 36). URL:
hhp://www.hans-bredow-ins8tut.de/webfm_send/1115.
Schmidt, J.-H./Loosen, W. (2015): Both sides of the story. Assessing audience par8cipa8on in journalism through
the concept of inclusion distance. In: Digital Journalism, 3(2), 259–278. URL:
hhp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.930243.
Tsfa8, Y./Meyers, O./Peri, Y. (2006): What is good journalism? Comparing Israeli public and journalists’
perspec8ves. In: Journalism, 7(2), 152–173.
16

17. Between proximity and distance:
The balance in the (transforming) journalism-audience rela8onship
as a criterion for media quality?
Wiebke Loosen & Julius Reimer
@Wloosen |@juliusreimer
ICA preconference Media Performance and Democracy | June, 9th 2016 | Fukuoka, Japan