Who Retweets Whom: How Digital And Legacy Journalists Interact on Twitter

Funded by The Tow Foundation and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

Tow Center for Digital Journalism A Tow/Knight Report WHO

RETWEETS WHOM?

HOW DIGITAL AND LEGACY JOURNALISTS INTERACT ON TWITTER

MICHAEL L. BARTHELRUTH MOONWILLIAM MARI

Series Editor: Philip N. Howard

Michael L. Barthel, Ruth Moon, and William Mari. (2015). Who Retweets Whom? How Digital and Legacy Journalists Interact on Twitter. Tow Center for Digital Journalism. Tow/Knight Report 030520151. 21 pp. New York, New York. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial - Share Alike 4.0 International License.

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Collaboration and Tribalism in Journalism . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Technology and News Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Changing News Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Twitter Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Who Retweets Whom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Digital Journalists May Be Forming Their Own Circles of Attention . 18

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Columbia Journalism School | TOW CENTER FOR DIGITAL JOURNALISM

1

Introduction

Since bloggers and citizen journalists became a fixture of the U.S. media environment, they have found themselves in conflict with traditional jour-nalists. At first, bloggers initiated this conflict, establishing themselves in opposition to the mainstream media, which—in their depiction—was poi-soning American politics. But as citizen contributors and bloggers began to break stories online and attract sizeable audiences, traditional print journal-ists had their own critique of them: as unprofessional, unethical, and overly dependent on the very mainstream media they criticized. In a 2013 poll of journalists, 51 percent agreed that citizen journalism is not real journalism.1

Such conflict is hardly novel within journalism as a professional realm. Throughout the history of news work, the emergence of any significant new journalistic role has resulted in conflict between the old guard and prac-titioners of the new style. TV news was regarded as a lesser medium than print journalism; its visual emphasis made it seem less substantial than the printed word,2 and its journalists were, consequently, afforded less pres-tige by their colleagues in print. This lesser status persisted, arguably, until online journalism came along to replace TV news as journalism’s bête noire (or, perhaps, enfant terrible).

But competition is not the only way journalists interact. Media organiza-tions have long collaborated on newsgathering and news production activi-ties. Outlets rely on wire services’ news articles to supplement their own original reporting, or even run wire stories with little alteration. As seen in such classic studies of news production as Michael Schudson’s Discovering

Who Retweets Whom? How Digital and Legacy Journalists Interact on Twitter

2

the News (1978), the institutional nature of journalism seems to require a certain amount of collaboration. Journalists, even while competing, have always needed each other, if only to corroborate what is important enough to be labeled news.

The digital environment would seem to offer exciting new opportunities for both competition and collaboration. Twitter, in particular, has served as a platform for journalists to gain visibility, credibility, and prestige indepen-dent of existing organizations, as well as to collaborate in newsgathering and production. Twitter provides new affordances and constraints that gov-ern different patterns of interaction than seen in print journalism.3 Twitter abounds with examples of reporters publicizing their newsgathering in real time, showing not only what information they consider important, but also where the information comes from.

Digital journalists in particular might be expected to thrive in a professional environment where first-line newsgathering and news distribution occurs, in whole or in part, online. But these longstanding divisions between tradi-tional and digital journalists seem to persist. Research has found that while digital journalists link to both online and traditional content, those from traditional news organizations tend to limit their links to stories from other traditional news organizations.4 Is this pattern replicated on Twitter? Do digital and traditional journalists mainly retweet information from their own parts of the media landscape? If we see robust connections between traditional and digital journalists, we could conclude that Twitter has helped to lower professional barriers and has opened up traditional journalists to the validity of their online colleagues’ work. But if we see few connections, it would indicate that differences in prestige and awareness persist, even as the barriers to the free flow of information have been reduced.


3

Collaboration and Tribalism in Journalism

While the popular image of journalists, especially as seen in films, is one of rugged individualists,5 the reality is much more cooperative. While jour-nalists often compete directly and aggressively with one another, working on deadline to scoop rivals or to get details their counterparts missed, news workers from different organizations have also historically shared information, even working together on the same story. Within a given news organization, especially one structured around collaborative news-rooms, journalists have enthusiastically embraced the notion of sharing tasks and sources.6

But they have also embraced a persistent tribalism—tending to associate more readily with fellow journalists who write or produce material for the same medium (print with print, TV and radio with other TV and radio reporters, and now digital with digital-based news workers). On some level these internal communities of labor within journalism have existed since its inception. Even within the same medium, reporters writing for different audiences, from blue collar populists to white-collar elites, have typically been most comfortable collaborating within their own sub-sets.

Collaboration, then, is bound by differences among journalists, and always has been. In her classic newsroom ethnography, sociologist Gaye Tuchman described how individual reporters, even those from rival organizations, exercised their autonomy in an ecosystem of collegial relationships.7 One of the ways they marked this space was through the act of sharing information with one another. But there were parameters to this process: Readily avail-


4

able information was freely exchanged, and privately developed information was rarely shared.8 The development of a positive professional reputation, and accompanying occupational mobility, went hand in hand with a willing-ness to judiciously share facts with rivals. Herbert Gans, in his ethnographic study of newsrooms during the same time period (the 1970s), found similar processes of shared news production and the formation of journalistic val-ues at work. He observed that journalists used each other as sources, both for ideas and as measures of what was important, within and without their own news organizations.9

This deeply ingrained practice of cautious collaboration, hedged as it is by journalists’ tendency to associate with news workers of similar specializa-tions and audiences, continues into the 21st century.


5

Technology and News Work

Technology has radically changed how news is gathered, produced, and dis-seminated, but news workers still turn to one another for inspiration and support, even as they tend to cluster more with journalists who are like themselves. This is not so much a paradox as simply a continuation: The Internet has only accelerated and enhanced habits that date to the origins of journalism in the U.S.

One of the biggest changes in journalism in recent years has been the mer-gence of the social networking and microblogging platform Twitter as a means for gathering, distributing, and discussing news. As a relatively new technology, Twitter serves as an experimental playground for journalists trying to engage with readers and other journalists in ways not possible a decade ago.

Early research into journalistic use of Twitter has examined the platform as an efficient distribution tool, as an aggregation and reporting tool and as a marketing, researching and fact-checking tool.10 However, most research has focused on the interactions between journalists and consumers, as opposed to the study of inter-journalist tweeting.

There is some evidence that journalists embrace inertia, in spite of the enticements of new technology, and many newsrooms treat the Internet and its interactivity, in particular, as a problem to navigate rather than an oppor-tunity for change.11 However, many journalists embrace the affordances of the new medium. These journalists are likely to express opinions on Twitter, pursue transparency by noting personal information, engage in discussions,


6

and relinquish their gatekeeping role by linking to external news sites—all atypical behaviors in traditional newsrooms.12 A general shift from a physi-cal-industrial mindset to a virtual, post-industrial mindset is pushing jour-nalists, even the reluctant ones, to embrace participatory and collaborative journalism in ways newly made possible by network technology.13

Past research shows that journalists engage with social media differently depending on how they perceive their own role in the media ecology; elites are more likely to hold to traditional news work standards, while non-elites at smaller news organizations are more likely to relinquish gatekeeping roles and pursue collaborative journalism, reported Lasorsa and his col-leagues.14 Following this finding, one question this project seeks to answer is whether there is a divide in online behavior between different types of news organizations.


7

The Changing News Environment

But how to delimit those different types of news organizations? While Twit-ter has been changing journalism, technological and economic shifts have been changing the media environment in which news work occurs, blur-ring the boundaries of existing divisions between “digital” and “traditional.” Although digital technologies are allowing these categories to collapse, at the moment we still observe distinctiveness. It is therefore practical to use the classification scheme developed by Gilad Lotan and colleagues to analyze tweeting patterns during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolu-tions. They differentiated between “mainstream news organizations,” which publish both online and through traditional forms, and “new media orga-nizations,” which publish solely online.15 We will use this straightforward differentiation in deciding whom to study. But with an additional category; the “hybrid organization” – primarily digital but with much smaller ana-logue channels. We defined these organizations as any whose online audi-ence (defined as Twitter followers or website visitors) exceeded their print circulation or broadcast audience by a factor of nine or more.

This slow convergence of the online and offline media spheres is particularly notable given that these two professional realms have been roundly sepa-rate in the past, with the mainstream media (unsurprisingly) in the superior position. A 2009 study by Sharon Meraz found that, while blogs frequently linked to traditional media, mainstream outlets did not reciprocate, link-ing mainly to one another. Similarly, the landmark 2009 study by Leskovec, Backstrom, and Kleinberg found that online news sources tended to cover stories later (albeit only slightly later) than did mainstream media outlets.16


8

At issue here would seem to primarily be considerations of organizational and occupational prestige. Since its inception, online journalism has been derided as a lower form of work than traditional journalism. For evidence, we need only look at the depiction of bloggers in popular culture, where they are portrayed as dishonest, self-interested, self-aggrandizing gossip-mongers—or in the press itself, where articles about the dangers of opin-ionated bloggers have been a standard since the form’s emergence. It is not surprising that traditional media organizations, already under assault from declining audiences and revenues, would seek to wall off what Gawker founder Nick Denton has sarcastically called “barbarians”17 to preserve the major advantage mainstream news outlets still have over their online competitors—prestige.

What remains unclear is the impact on Twitter on this relationship. Have the events of the last several years served to bring mainstream and digi-tal journalists closer together, as decreased boundaries between these two realms and increasing professional crossover have made them less function-ally separable? Or have they been driven farther apart, as online journalists seek to establish their own professional identity with qualities and prestige distinct from traditional journalism?


9

Twitter Analysis

To start answering these questions, we undertook a preliminary analysis of the Twitter use of journalists from these three types of organizations. As we were interested in the interactions between journalists at different organi-zations, we examined retweeting behavior.

Our analysis is based on a human examination of a moderate number of tweets as opposed to a computational analysis of a large data set. We favored the deeper holistic view this manual approach brings over a wider automated process. Later studies may be able to convert our process into an algorithmic approach and examine a bigger set of data.

At each organization, we identified the five political journalists whose Twit-ter accounts had the highest number of followers, and analyzed 50 retweets from each. While non-politics journalists are sometimes the most followed writers at certain publications (such as New York Times technology reporter David Pogue), given that the bulk of our interest here was in so-called “hard” news, we limited our analysis to political journalists. After selecting a tradi-tional, new, and hybrid media organization (see below), we collected a total of 750 retweets.

After visiting each journalist’s Twitter page and loading past tweets until 50 retweets were visible, we saved the results as a PDF file, which preserved an archive of the tweets in the context they originally appeared rather than as abstracted data on a spreadsheet—while still allowing researchers to click on links and easily access Twitter bios. The tweets were downloaded on a Saturday (October 19, 2013) in order to avoid the cascade effect of a week-


10

day’s major news event and reasonably mimic “normal” Twitter activity. In our analysis, we found that our sample of tweets included one major news event (the end of the October 2013 shutdown of the federal government), but as major news events such as this occur with some regularity this fur-ther enhanced the normalcy of our selection. The tweets were analyzed within two weeks of the data being downloaded, ensuring that our use of real-time data was likely to mimic what was online when the tweet was originally posted.

For each tweet, we recorded several qualities. First, we copied the URL of the tweet; if the tweet was a so-called “manual” retweet (i.e., appeared as “RT @ [tweet]” rather than a direct representation of the original tweet with “Retweeted by [journalist]” at the bottom of the tweet) we attempted to base our analysis on the original tweet as sent by the account being retweeted. We then recorded the identity of the account being retweeted. This identity fell into one of six categories: traditional, hybrid, or digital news organization; or traditional, hybrid, or digital journalist, which we classified as individuals who self-identified as employees of an organiza-tion with the organization’s category serving as the deciding factor for the journalist. For those who did not work for a media organization, we used “other.” Thus, a Washington Post employee would be classified as a traditional media journalist, while a tweet from Salon’s Twitter account (@Salon) would be classified as a new media organization. We also recorded the number of retweets each tweet received, as well as whether the retweet was by someone in the same organization to which the retweeter belonged. In all cases, we used the Twitter account’s bio section as the final arbiter: Whichever organization an individual identified as her primary employer in the bio was used as her primary occupational identity.

For the traditional media organization, we selected the New York Times. While there are well recognized problems with basing an analysis of U.S. journalism off perhaps its least representative case, our interest here was not in being representative, but in tracing the vanguard. As such, the Times is widely seen as having a forward-thinking digital strategy for a tradi-


11

tional U.S. media organization.18 To determine which of its political report-ers were the most followed on Twitter, we used the online tool Muckrack, which aggregates the Twitter feeds of journalists by a number of categories, including their employers. As noted above, the Times employees with the most followers were rarely politics reporters; it was necessary to venture 23 slots down on Muckrack’s list—past bloggers, media critics, columnists, and technology writers—before reaching a political reporter’s account. The five Times reporters admitted to our sample were Jonathan Martin (a differ-ent Jonathan Martin works for Politico), John Harwood, David Leonhardt, Nicolas Confessore, and Declan Walsh.

For a new media organization, we selected BuzzFeed. Since 2011, BuzzFeed has built a sizable stable of political reporters, beginning with its hire of blogging wunderkind Ben Smith from Politico. Since then, the site has added a number of other well regarded reporters (like McKay Coppins, who moved from Newsweek) as well as up-and-coming digital journalists (like Rosie Gray). As its politics section lists only 11 staffers, we examined each reporter’s Twitter account (listed, sometimes alongside their IM name or even phone number, on the BuzzFeed Politics homepage) and identified the five with the highest number of followers. These were Andrew Kaczynski, McKay Coppins, Rosie Gray, Chris Geidner, and John Stanton.

Finally, for our hybrid media organization, we picked Politico. The out-let publishes a print product up to five times a week while Congress is in session and once a week while it is in recess, distributing copies for free in Washington and Manhattan. As such, its print circulation was around 40,000 as of 2012, while its organizational Twitter account (@Politico) is fol-lowed by over 600,000 users and its website receives over six million visitors per month. We consulted the Politico masthead for a list of its reporters and cross-referenced this with Twitter to find the five with the highest number of followers. As a result, we examined the Twitter accounts of Mike Allen, Blake Hounshell, Maggie Haberman, Alex Burns, and Dylan Byers.


12

We should note, with regret, that only two of the reporters we examined were woman. Additionally, no one in our sample appeared to identify as a person of color, or at least did not do so in the public statements we observed. We very much rue this paucity of underserved voices in our analysis, and would only note that this mirrors the low number of female and minority employees in newsrooms. That few members of these populations showed up in our sample of the five most-followed journalists at three of the most prominent media organizations in the United States primarily reflects a flaw in hiring practices, rather than our sampling method. These organizations are not hiring or promoting women or people of color into the most vis-ible positions, especially in the “prestige” realm of political reporting. (The journalists from the New York Times included in our sample, for instance—all male, all but one white—have fewer Twitter followers than a number of colleagues who are female, gay, or Asian- or African-American, but these journalists work in areas such as business, technology, health, fashion, or for the New York Times Magazine.) As our concern here is with the nature of journalism as a practice, we must regrettably reflect the primarily white and male nature of news work in the present cultural and historical context.


13

Who Retweets Whom?

The results of this preliminary analysis both confirmed and confounded our expectations. As has been widely reported in the past, traditional journalists’ online interactions primarily focus on others from their professional sector. Times journalists retweeted traditional media organizations and journalists 63 percent of the time, while retweeting digital journalists and organiza-tions in only 10 percent of cases, and hybrid in 8 percent. Reading through these traditional journalists’ tweets felt a little like listening in on newsroom chatter—reporters kibitzed about sports, complimented one another’s work (almost everyone retweeted a laudatory Times review of a colleague’s book about the George W. Bush administration), and traded commentary about political events. While there was certainly some reaching across publications, this was limited to places like the Washington Post or ABC News. It would appear, then, that for traditional political journalists, little has changed: they are primarily interested only in other high-prestige, traditional reporters.

Table 1: Whom journalists from traditional, hybrid, and digital media organizations retweet

Type of journalist/

organization being retweeted

Type of Journalist

Traditional Hybrid Digital Overall

Traditional 63% 40% 32% 45%

Hybrid 8 19 6 11

Digital 10 24 45 26

Other 19 16 16 17

Note: Both traditional journalists and digital journalists mostly retweet journalists from their own sector, while hybrid journalists retweet journalists from other sectors. Traditional journalists retweeted other traditional journalists in 63% of cases, and 45% of digital journalists’ retweets were of other digital journalists. Only 19% of hybrid journalists’ retweets were of other hybrid journalists. Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.Source: Authors’ calculations based on the Twitter accounts of 15 journalists observed on October 19, 2013.


14

This was manifestly not the case, however, for digital journalists. In the past, digital journalists primarily took their cues from the mainstream media. In our data, however, the trend has reversed. Digital journalists most fre-quently retweeted other digital journalists, and while they did so at a lower rate than traditional journalists retweeted one another (45 percent versus 63 percent for traditional), this still represents a marked turnaround from pre-vious trends. BuzzFeed reporters retweeted mainstream journalists around a third of the time, and hybrid only 6 percent, an indication, perhaps, that there was an interest in keeping the energy within their own sector. The talk here felt considerably more focused than it did for the Times reporters: While there was still a decent amount of cross-talk (jokes about pictures of coworker McKay Coppins, for instance, were frequently retweeted), even the casual talk seemed more angled toward creating a consistent image than gratifying their own needs. Compare, for instance, this retweet from the Times’ most-followed political reporter, Jonathan Martin of Fox News, of Weekly Standard reporter Stephen Hayes:

To this retweet by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski:

Martin’s tweet is a chummy, old-boys-club sort of socialization across media organizations, suggesting an image of himself and his fellow reporters as still grounded in a populist American culture (the Midwest, football, drinking) while traveling the world, reinforcing the mid-century ideal of journalists as blue-collar intellectuals. Kaczynski’s tweet, on the other hand, makes a joke grounded in Web (and youth) culture (“YOLO”) while retweeting his own organization. It sends the message that a tweet about an Internet service


15

provider from BuzzFeed’s own account is of interest to followers of political news, and that being on the Internet both in the literal and cultural sense is vital to BuzzFeed’s brand of political reporting. Where Martin’s reinforces the old, Kaczynski’s is intensely insular, insisting on a new idea of what good political reporting consists of: not being in Greece, but being online.

What emerges is a portrait of a professional sector trying assiduously to assert itself and its particular set of values and norms. For those who get their news online, to follow BuzzFeed reporters is to see a world where digi-tal journalism is the primary source of information. And to be a news worker on Twitter and follow BuzzFeed reporters is to see a professional domain where digital journalists collaborate, interact, and praise one another—when they’re not engaging in robust professional feuds. The virtual newsroom depicted through digital journalists’ retweets is populated by very different people than the one depicted by Times political reporters’ feeds.

Figure 1: Percentage of journalists’ retweets that are of journalists from their own sector, journalists from other sectors, and non-journalists

Same type of journalist Other type of journalist Non-journalist

Traditional

Hybrid

Digital

63 18 19

19 64 16

45 38 16

Note: Both traditional journalists and digital journalists mostly retweet journalists from their own sector, while hybrid journalists retweet journalists from other sectors. Traditional journalists retweeted other traditional journalists in 63% of cases, and 45% of digital journalists’ retweets were of other digital journalists. Only 19% of hybrid journalists’ retweets were of other hybrid journalists. Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.Source: Authors’ calculations based on the Twitter accounts of 15 journalists observed on October 19, 2013.


16

This is reinforced by our analysis of how many retweets went to members of the same organization. While traditional journalists primarily retweeted other traditional journalists, they were the least likely to retweet those in their own organization: Only 21 percent of their retweets of journalists or news organizations (i.e., all but “other”) went to fellow Times reporters, or the Times itself. For digital journalists, however, over a third of their retweets of news workers or organizations went to fellow BuzzFeed employ-ees. As a traffic-generating strategy, this is a bad idea: Retweets of coworkers received, on average, 18 retweets total, while those of other organizations received 45 total retweets, on average. But as a strategy to simultaneously build professional and organizational prestige, it seems to have merit.

Table 2: How often journalists retweet accounts associated with the organization at which they work

Being retweeted

Type of Journalist

Traditional Hybrid Digital Overall

Same Organization 21% 25% 36% 23%

Different Organization 79 75 64 77

Note: Columns show digital journalists are more likely than other types of journalists to retweet members of their own media organization. While 21% of traditional journalists’ retweets were of their co-workers, this was true of 36% of digital journalists’ retweets. Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.Source: Authors’ calculations based on the Twitter accounts of 15 journalists observed on October 19, 2013.

Hybrid journalists displayed a pattern that would seem to justify the hybrid appellation. They retweeted traditional journalists and organizations more than digital journalists did and less than traditional journalists did (43 per-cent), and vice versa for digital journalists and organizations (24 percent). They sat between the existing and emerging professional sectors and, as it were, bridged the gap. They do not seem tremendously interested in grow-ing the prestige of their own sector, however: While hybrid journalists retweeted hybrid journalists and organizations more than any other jour-nalists did (19 percent), this was still far less than other journalists’ atten-tion to their own sectors (63 percent for traditional, 45 percent for digital).


17

In part, of course, this is because there are relatively fewer hybrid media organizations to retweet. But it makes sense with our understanding of this emerging media model. Their interest is not in forging something new, but borrowing the economic advantages of digital media while maintaining the status of traditional media.


18

Digital Journalists May Be Forming Their Own Circles of Attention

Our findings suggest that digital journalism, as a professional realm, may have entered a new phase. Previous work concluded that digital work was dependent on broadcast and print journalism for everything from content to career advancement. In our preliminary analysis of digital news work-ers’ Twitter activity, however, we saw two clearly separate realms emerge. No longer are digital journalists trailing behind mainstream news outlets’ stories or looking to prestigious journalists for leadership. Instead, sites like BuzzFeed have formed their own separate professional network, albeit one that also incorporates selected mainstream journalists with strong online presences, especially bloggers at outlets like the Washington Post, New York Times, and ABC News. At the same time, however, traditional journalists have not gone very far in embracing the new wave of online journalists, pre-ferring primarily to interact with others in their sector. While digital jour-nalism is undoubtedly innovating, those innovations are, for the journalists we observed, staying mainly within the digital sector.

What stands to bridge the gap between these two sectors are a group of pub-lications we call hybrid media organizations. Outfits such as Politico publish a small-circulation print product but have an online audience nine or more times higher than their offline audience. Journalists at these organizations behave as if they have one foot in the traditional sector and one foot in digital journalism, retweeting journalists from other sectors more so than they do their own. As more media companies move into this realm, it may prove to


19

be an important area of innovation. Yet our findings suggest less change than evolution: Hybrid organizations’ journalists, despite their larger online pres-ence, still pay more attention to traditional than digital publications.

Indeed, despite the heartening finding that digital journalists have become more independent, our reporting suggests other ways in which the prom-ise of online journalism is not being fulfilled. Some have suggested that digital journalism represents not just an alternative to traditional journal-ism, but a fundamental challenge, one toward which traditional journalism must adapt. We see little evidence that this is occurring. While traditional media companies are incorporating online ventures into their portfolios, these seem to remain walled off from the professional environment of tra-ditional reporters. Instead, they use Twitter in much the same way as other journalists do: to publicize the stories of their colleagues and comment on what others have said. And despite the robust history of collaboration in journalism, little of this seems to be occurring on Twitter, at least not through retweets.

Nevertheless, the overall picture that emerges from our research is a posi-tive one. The history of journalism shows that establishing any area as a separate professional domain has been difficult. If digital journalists have managed to do so only two decades after the form came into existence, this is no small achievement. While vanguard practitioners will undoubtedly continue to make innovations, the question of whether digital journalism can be self-sufficient no longer seems to be up in the air.


21

Endnotes

1 Oriella, “The New Normal for News: Have Global Media Changed Forever?” 2013, www.oriellaprnetwork.com/sites/default/files/research/Brands2Life_ODJS_v4.pdf.

2 Doris Graber, “Seeing is Remembering: How Visuals Contribute to Learning from Television News, Journal of Communication, 40(3), 1990, 134–156.

3 D. L. Lasorsa, et al., “Normalizing Twitter: Journalism Practice in an Emerging Communication Space,” Journalism Studies, 13(1), 2012, 19–36.

4 Sharon, Meraz,“Is There an Elite Hold? Traditional Media to Social Media Agenda Setting Influence in Blog Networks,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 2009, 682–707.

5 Matthew C. Ehrlich, Journalism in the Movies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006).6 Kevin Barnhurst and John Nerone, “U.S. Newspaper Types, the Newsroom, and the Division

of Labor,” Journalism Studies, 4(4), 2003, 435–449.7 Gaye Tuchman, Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality (New York: Free Press, 1978), 74.8 Ibid 75.9 Herbert Gans, Deciding What’s News: A Study of the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News,

Newsweek, and Time (Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 2005), 126.10 Nic Newman, “The Rise of Social Media and its Impact on Mainstream Journalism,” Working paper,

Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2009.11 David Domingo, “Interactivity in the Daily Routines of Online Newsrooms: Dealing with an

Uncomfortable Myth,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 2008, 680–704.12 Lia-Paschalia Spyridou, et al., “Journalism in a State of Flux: Journalists as Agents of Technology

Innovation and Emerging News Practices,” International Communication Gazette, 75(1), 2013, 76–98.

13 John Pavlik, “The Impact of Technology on Journalism,” Journalism Studies, 1(2), 2000, 229–237.14 D. L. Lasorsa, S.C. Lewis, and A. Holton, “Normalizing Twitter: Journalism Practice in an

Emerging Communication Space,” Journalism Studies, 13(1), 2012, 19–36.15 Gilad Lotan, Erhardt Graeff, Mike Ananny, Devin Gaffney, Ian Pearce, and danah boyd,

“The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows During the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutons,” International Journal of Communication, 5, 2011, 1375-1405.

16 Jure Leskovec, Lars Backstrom, and Jon Kleinberg, “Meme-tracking and the Dynamics of the News Cycle,” Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2009, 497-506.

17 Ben McGrath, “Search and Destroy: Nick Denton’s Blog Empire,” The New Yorker, 18 Oct. 2010, 50–61.

18 Joshua Benton, “The leaked New York Times innovation report is one of the key documents of this media age,” Nieman Journalism Lab, May 15, 2014, www.niemanlab.org/2014/05/the-leaked-new-york-times-innovation-report-is-one-of-the-key-documents-of-this-media-age/.

Who Retweets Whom: How Digital And Legacy Journalists Interact on Twitter

Documents

Transcript of Who Retweets Whom: How Digital And Legacy Journalists Interact on Twitter