Posted on 08/06/2020 11:23:20 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Usher and Ng, journalism professors at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, identified nine clusters of journalists or "communities of practice" in their study, published online by the journal Social Media + Society.
Their "elite/legacy" cluster was the largest, including about 30% of the journalists covered in the study, with The Washington Post, NBC News, NPR and The New York Times among the major newsrooms represented.
A congressional journalism cluster included another 20%. The other clusters centered around CNN, television producers, local political news, regulatory journalists, foreign affairs, long-form/enterprise reporting and social issues.
In leading the study, Usher said she wanted to "describe the contours of what political journalism in Washington looks like and of the process of making news unfold." Another goal was to better understand how journalists connect to and learn from each other and establish conventional knowledge.
Twitter seemed an ideal way to do that, given its unique role among journalists as a virtual water cooler, Usher said. "Most of the time, what happens on Twitter does not reflect the real world. But in the case of political journalism and political elites, generally speaking, what happens on Twitter is reality." It's an online reflection of their offline lives and work, she said, and plays a significant role in agenda-setting.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
If you talk only to those who agree with your points of view, you will get a very skewed perspective...............
Great data!
Thanks for posting.
the process of making news unfold
establish conventional knowledge
plays a significant role in agenda-setting
So, they don't just report news, they "make it unfold." They don't think for themselves, they ascribe to groupthink, "conventional knowledge." They aren't reporting, they are setting agendas.
And the people doing the study apparently think this is all appropriate.
And always remember, use data responsibly.
Even further, the review appears to say that the social media ‘journalists’ don’t even talk to the ‘policy-wonk’ journalists, so they don’t even know the actual subject matter.
They live in echo chambers. When they leave the chamber, they are shocked that other people don’t parrot the same things they hear in the echo chamber. Astonished. Bewildered. Then they become angry. They become suspicious of facts and data. They long to be back in the safe confines of the echo chamber.
I am so ancient and obsolete.
In the old days reporters did their own research and conducted their own interviews. Then they published and let the reader decide what it meant.
Now they don’t have to leave their desks - they and their peers decide what happened, what it all means, and how it fits the agenda.
If it doesn’t fit, then it never happened.
Water cooler or echo chamber?
It is why I always cringes when I hear people use the term ‘expert opinion.’ and ‘consensus.”
bkmk
Would it be impolite to point out that that’s (more or less) exactly what we’re all doing here?
If you talk only to those who agree with your points of view, you will get a very skewed perspective...............
Twitter segregates users by opinion. If someone politically disagrees with a tweeter their replies are buried under another click or two. Twitter made that change right after Trump won.
‘Here’ is the ONE place I can talk freely, not having to be afraid of liberal co-workers, relatives and neighbors going postal and getting in my face, slashing my tires, keying my car or throwing dog poop in my yard.................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.