Why ‘news values’ do not explain news selection

Why ‘news values’

do not explain

news selectionAndreas Anastasiou

[email protected]

IAMCR Conference – Leicester, 28 July 2016

Overview

1. Do news select themselves?

2. Do ‘news values’ guide journalists?

3. When not, is it an exception?

4. Is there an alternative explanation of news selection?

5. How do we investigate the alternative explanation?

6. Comparing journalists’ professional values

7. Comparing news selection in different contexts

8. Concluding remarks

Andreas Anastasiou, IAMCR, Leicester, 28 July 20162




Journalists explain selection by evoking:

Journalistic gut feeling

Sense of newsworthiness

A nose for news

Knowing what the public is interested in

News sense

Flair and chance

4 Andreas Anastasiou, IAMCR, Leicester, 28 July 2016

Academics refer to the concept of ‘news values’:

Lists of criteria of ‘newsworthiness’

the fulfilment of which

makes ‘events’ get selected

and become ‘news’

Longer lists and shorter lists of ‘news values’Schulz (1982)StatusValenceRelevanceIdentificationConsonanceDynamics

Westerståhl and Johansson(1994)ImportanceProximityDramaAccessIdeology

Donsbach (2004)Perceptional validationStabilising predispositions

Galtung & Ruge (1965)FrequencyThresholdUnambiguityMeaningfulnessConsonanceContinuityCompositionReference to elite nationsReference to elite peopleReference to personsReference to something negativeUnexpectedness

Östgaard (1965)SimplificationIdentificationSensationalism

Rosengren (1974)Economic, political and ideological variables as basic predictors of newspaper coverage. News factors as secondary intervening variables.

Harcup & O'Neill (2001)Power eliteCelebritiesEntertainmentSurpriseBad newsGood newsMagnitudeRelevanceFollow upNewspaper agenda

Golan & Wanta (2001)ImportanceProximityDeviancePolitical event factors

Harcup & O'Neill (2009)Acknowledging Westerståhl and Johansson

Bednarek & Caple (2014)Back to Galtung & Ruge


Two of them are by far the most influential*Galtung & Ruge (1965)FrequencyThresholdUnambiguityMeaningfulnessConsonanceContinuityCompositionReference to elite nationsReference to elite peopleReference to personsReference to something negativeUnexpectedness


* Most cited


‘News values’ citations per author

Authors July 2016

Galtung & Ruge, 1965 3366

Harcup & O’Neill, 2001 777

Östgaard, 1965 449

Schultz, 2007 + Willig, 2013 217

Westerståhl and Johansson, 1986 + 1994 191

Rosengren, 1974 185

Staab, 1990 123

Allern, 2002 77

Andreas Anastasiou, IAMCR, Leicester, 28 July 2016Source: Google Scholar


‘News values’ citations per author & year

Authors July 2014 July 2016

Galtung & Ruge, 1965 2437 3366

Harcup & O’Neill, 2001 453 777

Annual average

Galtung & Ruge: 1965-2014 50 | 2014-2016 465

Harcup & O’Neill: 2001-2014 35 | 2014-2016 162


Let us compare themGaltung & Ruge (1965)FrequencyThresholdUnambiguityMeaningfulnessConsonanceContinuityCompositionReference to elite nationsReference to elite peopleReference to personsReference to something negativeUnexpectedness



There is some correspondenceGaltung & Ruge (1965)FrequencyThresholdUnambiguityMeaningfulnessConsonanceContinuityCompositionReference to elite nationsReference to elite peopleReference to personsReference to something negativeUnexpectedness

Harcup & O'Neill (2001)

Magnitude

Relevance

Follow upNewspaper agendaPower elite IPower elite IICelebritiesBad newsSurpriseGood newsEntertainment


As a matter of fact, they are very similarGaltung & Ruge (1965)FrequencyThresholdUnambiguityMeaningfulnessConsonanceContinuityCompositionReference to elite nationsReference to elite peopleReference to personsReference to something negativeUnexpectedness


Magnitude

Relevance



Yes, very similar!Galtung & Ruge (1965)FrequencyThresholdUnambiguityMeaningfulnessConsonanceContinuityCompositionReference to elite nationsReference to elite peopleReference to personsReference to something negativeUnexpectedness


Magnitude

Relevance



2. Do ‘news values’ guide journalists?


Galtung & Ruge criticise... Galtung & Ruge!

• The article “hypothesises rather than demonstrates

the presence of [their twelve suggested] factors

[of newsworthiness]” (Galtung and Ruge, 1965: 85).

• “No claim is made for completeness of the list of

factors” (ibid: 64).

• “Much remains to be done in terms of refinement of the

hypothesis” (ibid: 80).

• “We leave this for future research” (ibid: 81).

15Andreas Anastasiou, IAMCR, Leicester, 28 July 2016

Harcup & O’Neill criticise Galtung & Ruge

• The factors suggested by G&R were:

– “hypothetical,

– limited to the reporting of foreign news,

– primarily concerned with the reporting of events” (p. 262).

• “Notwithstanding the narrow focus of their paper, G&R’s

study has become part of the canon of news values in general”

(p. 267).

• “No content analysis can show us which possible news items

were rejected or not even noticed by the news selectors” (p.

269).

• “G&R's taxonomy appears to ignore the majority of news

stories” (p. 276)


Harcup & O’Neill criticise Galtung & Ruge• “Many items of news are not reports of events at all, but

'pseudo-events', free advertising or public relations spin” (p.

276).

• “The media themselves may also be responsible for the

prominence of many apparently manufactured stories” (p.

277).


Harcup & O’Neill criticise... Harcup & O’Neill!

• “Our list is worded slightly different” (p. 277).

• “We cannot explain why so many events and issues are

excluded from the news agenda, even when fulfilling some

of the criteria we put forward” (p. 262).

More points of criticism

• Tunstall (1971: 21): G&R's “paper concentrated on three

crises, ignoring day-to-day coverage of 'lesser' events.

• McQuail (1994: 270): “G&R's gatekeeping approach appears

to assume that there is a given reality 'out there' which the

news gatherers will either admit or exclude”.

• Hall et al. (1978: 54): Lists of news factors explain some

formalities of news selection but not its ideological

implications.

• Hartley (1982: 80): “Certain stories achieve copious coverage

without fulfilling any of G&R's news factors in any obvious way”.

• Hartley (1982: 79): The lists in discussion can possibly explain

“how stories are covered than why they were chosen”.



• Zelizer (2004: 55): “The work needed to remain open to

inquiry rather than be seen as a closed set of values

for journalism in all times and places”.

• Zelizer (2004: 55): “Attempts in Germany to replicate the study

received mixed results”.

• Peterson (1981: 153): "The results of testing for the role of

individual news factors were mixed. In some cases, the

evidence does not support the hypotheses. In others, the

findings are contradictory”.

• Golding and Elliott (1978: 114): “Far greater importance and

allure than they merit” has been given to news values, as they

were no more than “working rules explaining and guiding

newsroom practice”.



• Rosengren (1970; 1974): G&R’s factors led to an unfalsifiable

tautology, supposedly assessing qualities of events, while in

fact they were only describing attributes that editors had

given to the news stories.

• Staab (1990: 438): News factors are “characteristics of news

stories, rather than specific qualities of events”.

• Staab (1990: 438): News factors are also considered as

effects of decisions to cover certain events”.

• Staab (1990: 439): “The concept of news factors is not so

much a theory to explain news selection but rather a model to

describe and analyse structures and relationships in

media reality”.



• Allern (2002: 139): G&R‘s number one news factor,

“threshold”, is a relational term, greatly affected by what

news stories happen to be available on any specific

day, or by other trivial, pragmatic or technical factors.

• Allern (2002: 150): There can be “sharp conflicts”

between the professional, editorial priorities and “the

demands of actors in the finance market”.


3. Are ‘news values’ failures exceptional?




‘Patriotic’ values beat journalistic values

“Journalists generally handle any tensions between their

journalistic values and the need to meet national ends by

having a belief system such as patriotism” (Nossek, 2004: 347-

348).

The government’s interest beats journalistic values

Home Secretary Leon Brittan “stated that screening the Real

Lives programme was contrary to the national interest”

(Schlesinger, 1987: xx).

The PM’s personal interest beats journalistic values

On 24 February 2014 tapped phone calls directly connecting

the Turkish prime minister to a huge bribing scandal were

uploaded on the social media. The event fulfilled all criteria

set by G&R, but was found nowhere in next day’s press!



Defaming political opponent beats journalistic values

All oppositional media in Greece, in mid-May 2016, gave top

priority for a whole week to a three-year-old ‘news’ story,

because the way they presented it looked as if the current PM

(then opposition leader) had covered up an ambassador’s

unethical behaviour.

Perpetuating stereotypes beats journalistic values

In July 2016, the Greek media praised the heroism, and were

proud about the Greekness, of a victim of a terrorist attack;

however, they did not publish his name, because it showed

his Turkish ethnic decent and Muslim religion.



Employer’s financial interest beats journalistic values

When independent

media show

thousands of people

protesting

peacefully...

The contractor’s media

allege that protesters

attacked the police...



Serving double standards beats journalistic values

There is information that Syrian forces targeted journalists in

2012. The British media imply, or openly state, that Assad is a

criminal of war.

In 1999, UK-supported NATO forces targeted journalists in

Serbia. The British media apparently accepted Blair’s

reasoning that they were a ‘legitimate target’.

4. Is there an alternative explanation

of news selection?

27


of news selection?


Allern (2002: 137):

“Editorial practices should not be analysed in purely journalistic

terms, but as efforts to combine journalistic norms with market

objectives”.

“The news media represent a societal institution that is ascribed

a vital role in relation to such political values as freedom of

expression and democracy”, while on the other hand “they are

businesses that produce commodities – information and

entertainment – for a market”.

Östgaard's (1965) account of the news process has received

much less attention than G&Rs (1965) taxonomy, although the

former presented a more complete and balanced explanation

by the inclusion in his analysis of external factors, namely

political and economic ones.


of news selection?


Willig (2013: 372): “Reflexive sociology offers a research

strategy for simultaneously studying journalistic

practices and the structures that enable and constrain

them”.

Benson (1998: 479): “Field theory has its strength in

taking into consideration the relations between the

newsroom and the journalistic field and between the

journalistic field and the field of power. In this way, field

theory contributes to 'explaining how external forces are

translated into the semi-autonomous logic of the

journalistic field”.

5. How do we investigate

the alternative explanation?








6. Comparing journalists’

professional values


United Kingdom:

Facts only

Greece:

Facts mixed with interpretation

Sweden:

Facts and distinct interpretation

7. Comparing news selection

in different contexts


United Kingdom:

Multiple sources / ‘Neutral’ perspective

Greece:

Single source / Arbitrary perspective

Sweden:

Multiple sources / Argued perspective

8. Concluding remarks

‘News values’ may play some role

in many not-so-important, routine cases,

but are totally ignored in cases that

really matter to the ones in power.


ReferencesAllern, S. (2002). “Journalistic and Commercial News Values: News Organizations as

Patrons of an Institution and Market actors”, Nordicom Review, 23 (1-2): 137-152.

Donsbach, W. (2004). “Psychology of News Decisions: Factors Behind Journalists'

Professional Behavior”. Journalism, 5 (2): 131-157).

Galtung and Ruge, M. (1965). “The Structure of Foreign News”. Journal of Peace

Research, 2 (1): 64-91.

Golding, P. and Elliott, Ph. (1979). Making the News. London: Longman.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the

Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.

Harcup, T. and O' Neill, D. (2001). “What Is News? Galtung and Ruge revisited”,

Journalism Studies, 2 (2): 261-280.

Hartley, J. (1982). Understanding News. London: Methuen.

Lippmann, W. (1997). Public Opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers

(Originally published: New York: Macmillan, 1922).

McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication Theory: An introduction (Third edition).

London: Sage.

Nossek, H. (2004). “Our News and Their News: The Role of National Identity in the

Coverage of Foreign News”. Journalism, 5 (3): 343-368.

O'Neill, D. and Harcup, P. (2009). News Values and Selectivity. In Wahl-Jorgensen, K.

and Hanitzsch, T. (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies (161-174). Oxon: Routledge.


More referencesÖstgaard, E. (1965). “Factors Influencing the Flow of News”. Journal of Peace Research,

2 (1): 39-63.

Rosengren, K. (1970). “International News: Intra and Extra Media Data”, Acta

Sociologica, 13 (2): 96-109.

Rosengren, K. (1974). “International News: Methods, Data and Theory”, Journal of

Peace Research, 11 (2): 145-156.

Schlesinger, Ph. (1987). Putting 'Reality' Together: BBC News. London: Constable.

Schultz, I. (2007). “The Journalistic Gut Feeling”. Journalism Practice, 1 (2): 190-207.

Schulz, P.J., Hartung, U. and Fiordelli, M. (2012). “Do Journalists' Opinions Affect News

Selection in a Low-Key Conflict? Newspaper Coverage of the Discussion of Smoking

Bans in Switzerland”. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89 (3): 414-430.

Staab, J. (1990). “The role of news factors in news selection: A theoretical

reconsideration”, European Journal of Communication, 5: 423-443.

Tunstall, J. (1971). Journalists at Work. London: Constable.

Westerståhl, J. and Johansson, F. (1986). “News ideologies as moulders of domestic

news”, European Journal of Communication, 1 (2): 133-149.

Westerståhl, J. and Johansson, F. (1994). “Foreign news: News values and ideologies”,

European Journal of Communication, 9 (1): 71-89.

Zelizer, B. (2004). Taking Journalism Seriously: News and the Academy. London: Sage.


T h a n k y o u !


Date post:	09-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	leicester
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Why ‘news values’ do not explain news selection

Documents