This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]

On: 05 August 2013, At: 09:59

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Digital Journalism
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdij20

THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSIONAL

VARIABLES ON JOURNALISTS’ USES AND
VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
a
Agnes Gulyas
a
Department of Media, Art and Design, Canterbury Christ Church
University
Published online: 02 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Agnes Gulyas (2013) THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSIONAL VARIABLES ON
JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA, Digital Journalism, 1:2, 270-285, DOI:
10.1080/21670811.2012.744559

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2012.744559

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSIONAL
VARIABLES ON JOURNALISTS’ USES AND
VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
A comparative study of Finland, Germany,
Sweden and the United Kingdom

Agnes Gulyas

This article explores the uses of social media by journalists and their views about these tools
in four European countries. It examines how professional variables, namely media sector,
length of professional career and size of organisation, influence use of and views about social
media. The analysis is based on findings from a questionnaire survey of journalists in Finland,
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It demonstrates that patterns of uses and opin-
ions, while sharing some features, do vary across the four countries, with UK journalists being
the most avid users of social media and those with the most positive attitudes towards these
tools. The findings also reveal that influences of the examined professional variables vary and
they do not explain overall patterns in social media use and attitudes. Thus, these variables do
affect practices in some contexts, but they do not provide an overall explanation of social
media appropriation in professional practices. The article argues that journalists, similar to
audiences, are increasingly fragmented and their professional practices are influenced by a
myriad of different variables.

KEYWORDS comparative study; journalistic practices; journalists in Europe; professional

variables and social media

Introduction
Social media and the internet in general, are having dramatic impacts on journal-
ism (Deuze 2007; Sarrica et al. 2010). Traditional practices of newsgathering, verifying
stories and reporting are transforming (Bruno 2011) and with that the profession of
journalism itself is perceived to be changing fundamentally. This paper presents the
results of an online survey on social media and journalism which mapped patterns of
social media use by journalists and examined their views about their impacts. The sur-
vey was carried out in Finland, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). Such
an exploratory study is valuable since there is limited empirical research in this area
and very little which contrasts practices in different countries. An international compar-
ative approach is particularly useful in identifying general trends, and has “the capacity
to render the invisible visible” (Blumler and Gurevitch, quoted in Hallin and Mancini
2004, 2). The general aims of the paper are to compare social media use and views

Digital Journalism, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2013, 270–285

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2012.744559
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
 JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA 271

about them in the four countries and to explore how professional variables influence
these patterns. The analysis focuses on three professional variables: media sector,
length of professional career and size of organisation. Historically, these three variables
have dominated the discourse on technological adaptations in the profession and have
been considered as key factors in explaining differences in journalistic practices in
national settings. Their perceived importance is also highlighted by the fact that
journalism training and professional support have been based around these features.
The specific research questions this article explores are:
RQ1: Does social media use by journalists vary in Finland, Germany, Sweden and the
UK?
RQ2: Does media sector, length of professional career and size of organisation have
an effect on patterns of social media use among journalists in Finland, Germany,
Sweden and the UK?

RQ3: Do views about social media vary among journalists in Finland, Germany,
Sweden and the UK?

RQ4: Does media sector, length of professional career and size of organisation have
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

an effect on views of journalists in Finland, Germany, Sweden and the UK about

the impacts of social media?

Journalism and Web 2.0 Technologies

In its broadest sense, social media are a collection of internet-based applications
based on the foundations of Web 2.0 technologies (Kaplan and Heinlein 2010) enabling
interactive dialogue, social interaction, and the creation and exchange of user-gener-
ated content. The underlying logic of such technologies, as well as digital media and
culture in general, is openness and participation (Lewis 2012, 840). A key feature of
these technologies is that they do not merely represent a technological phenomenon,
but also a cultural one (Jenkins 2006), where the “end-users feel enabled and encour-
aged to participate in the creation and circulation of media” (Lewis 2012, 853). This also
means that previous rationales for control over media creation are challenged as
authority in the social media world is dispersed and shared. The implications of this on
journalism are significant as it could herald fundamental shifts in the profession.
There is an agreement in the literature that new media forms have led to signifi-
cant changes in the profession and that in recent years there has been an explosion of
social media use by journalists (Bruno 2011; Hermida 2011; Messner, Linke, and Eford
2011; Newman 2009). The impacts of these tools on the profession are often analysed
as part of the discourse on Web 2.0 technologies. These technologies are judged to
have changed “newsroom culture and the professionals involved” and they “challenge
perceptions of the roles and functions of journalism as a whole” (Deuze and Paulussen
2002, 216). But scholars continue to debate exactly how journalism as a profession is
changing and about the impacts of new technologies such as social media (Lasorsa,
Lewis, and Holton 2012). Discussion of the impact of these technologies has centred on
three main issues: changes in relationships with the audience, changing journalistic
practices and changes in professional values.
 272 AGNES GULYAS

Web 2.0 technologies are seen to redefine the relationship between journalists
and their audience. Interactivity is a key feature in this regard, as these tools enable
feedback from audiences to journalists as well as with each other (Larsson 2011; Deuze
and Paulussen 2002). Increased interactivity, crowdsourcing and other user-generated
content are significant because of their implications for democracy and the potential
for increased involvement of citizenry (Goode 2009; Bruno 2011). Some suggest that
new forms of user engagement will eventually lead to the demise of journalism as a
profession as we know it (Deuze 2007). There are concerns that “gate opening” which
fosters user participation undermines content selection associated with traditional gate-
keeping tasks of journalists (Boczkowski 2004; Singer et al. 2011). The issue here is that
in an information-saturated environment traditional roles of journalists, such as agenda-
setting, gate-keeping and the watchdog role, are becoming less important, while new
roles, such as the “guide-dog” role, associated with less analysis and explanation, are
gaining prominence (e.g. Deuze and Paulussen 2002; Bruno 2011). However, others
emphasise that despite the growth of user-generated content, journalists are still seen
as the defining actors in the process of creating news and to have retained control over
the most important stages of news production (Hermida 2011). This is because the pro-
fession offers added value which is judgment, analysis and explanation (Sambrook,
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

quoted in The Digital Content Blog, The Guardian, September 18, 2009).
So far as the impacts of Web 2.0 technologies on professional practices are
concerned, one of the focal points of debate and research has been about the
increased speed of communications. The collapse of traditional news cycles led to the
dominance of “high-speed news” (Mitchelstein and Boczkowski 2009). Commentators
argue that the TV based 24 hour news-cycle was replaced by the social media 1440-
minute news-cycle (Bruno 2011). There is a concern that this trend has increased the
pressure on journalists to carry out multiple tasks across different media platforms and
demonstrate multimedia skills. These added pressures then could undermine journalists’
ability to undertake their craft (Mitchelstein and Boczkowski 2009). For some (e.g. Sayre
et al. 2010), it also means that definitions of news are changing because social con-
struction of news, news values and news criteria are transforming. Increased speed of
communication and new technologies, however, are also perceived to have positive
impacts on journalistic practices. Journalists can work more efficiently and communicate
more easily. These technologies have provided journalists with an array of new tools
for sourcing information, publishing stories and monitoring “what is going on”. A great
advantage of social media use is that it allows journalists to gather first-hand material
from the ground; this is especially advantageous if the journalist is physically remote
from the scene. It can enhance the degree of authenticity, as it takes journalists closer
to where the story is actually happening. A further advantage of social media sources is
that it allows journalists to enrich their stories and amplify scope of coverage (Bruno
2011).
A further central issue in the debate about these new technologies is their impact
on professional values. Some are concerned (Messner, Linke, and Eford 2011; Lasorsa,
Lewis, and Holton 2012) that new practices undermine traditional journalistic values,
such as accuracy and objectivity. There is a constant tension between speed and
accuracy, as well as between efficiency and quality. The use of microblogging sites,
such as Twitter, illustrates this well. The “tweet first, verify later” approach is a great
help for source diversification and leads to richer coverage (Bruno 2011), but it weakens
 JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA 273

the emphasis on traditional values such as accuracy and objectivity. The changing
values represent the reshaping of journalism itself, where the traditional construct of
the journalist as the verifier of information is being refashioned with a more iterative
and collaborative approach to reporting and verifying news (Hermida 2012).

Professional Variables and Journalistic Practices

Journalists in the four surveyed countries, and in general in Western Europe, have
fundamentally similar practices and share basic values about their profession (Preston
2008; Weaver 1996; Örnebring 2009). However, these practices and values are in
constant negotiation with a number of influencing factors (Saricca et al. 2010). These
factors can be categorised in three groups: national variables (such as national culture,
media market structures, size of country); professional variables (such as type of media
sector, length of professional career and size of organisation) and individual variables
(such as socio-demographic characteristics, education, individual values).
In the pre-digital era, professional variables were perceived as particularly
important in influencing professional practices. Type of media sector determined the
day-to-day work of journalists due to their specific technological features (Allan 2004).
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

Different media sectors have varied in terms of their products, modalities, sensory expe-
rience, ways of dissemination and consumption, and even in their perceived credibility
among audiences (Reich 2011, 285). Apart from technological and organisational
requirements, sector-specific laws and regulation also shaped differences between prac-
tices of journalists in various media sectors. However, sectoral differences are perceived
to be receding as a result of convergence (Deuze 2007), although not disappearing
completely. Many recent studies have focused on the differences between online and
offline journalists (Singer et al. 2011; Steensen 2011; Deuze 2007; Quandt et al. 2006),
but there is no agreement in the literature concerning the extent to which their profes-
sional practices are different. Some emphasise that online journalists do not work in
the traditional way (Deuze 2007), while others point out similarities and argue that the
differences lay in unique packaging and distribution of similarly obtained information
(Reich 2011).
Most empirical studies about journalists and their practices consider age rather
than length of professional career as a variable. These studies often found that age is
an important factor in influencing professional practices and attitudes. Deuze (2007),
for example, argues that there is a difference between young media professionals and
their more senior counterparts in relation to work styles. For the former this is mainly
consistent with a portfolio work-life, while for the latter it involves a more top-down
career, largely established through lifelong participation in vertically structured institu-
tions. In a portfolio work-life journalists are involved in constant network socialisation,
reskilling, “preparing for the next job, coupled with an all-encompassing emphasis on
creating, sustaining, and mining personal knowledge networks” (Deuze 2007, 100). In
general, age is often perceived as an important variable influencing uses of new
communication technologies. Studies on the population at large point out that younger
people tend to use new technologies, such as social media, more extensively and these
tools are more entrenched in their everyday lives (e.g. Ofcom 2011).
Size of media organisations is another professional variable that resurfaces in the
literature as an influencing factor in journalistic practices. It is perceived to be
 274 AGNES GULYAS

significant because how technologies are used and how they are embedded in
professional practices is influenced by available resources and structures in an organisa-
tion which are in turn affected by size (Kung 2008). Reflecting on the changes of the
last decades in the media and creative industries, Deuze (2007, 61) notes the emer-
gence of an “hourglass effect” in the distribution of employment with people increas-
ingly working in either a relatively small number of large companies or in the growing
multitude of small enterprises including freelancers, loose networks of collaborating
professionals and small companies. Örnebring (2009) also emphasises the broader
changes in work and labour structures that are pushing journalists into self-employ-
ment as freelancers and atypical labour arrangements, while Massey and Elmore (2011)
raise concerns about the rise of atypical workers in journalistic communities. The under-
lying issues behind these concerns, and in general behind size of organisation as an
influencing factor, are related to available resources, organisational support, workload,
increased pressures on journalists and impact on quality of media content.

Method
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

The online survey used in this exploratory study was conducted in June and July
2011. The questionnaire consisted of 14 multiple choices and one open-ended
question, and examined patterns of social media use and journalists’ perceptions about
the impacts of these tools. Questions about uses focused on four areas: frequency of
use, diversity of tools used, preferences for particular social media tools and purposes
of use. Questions about journalists’ perceptions asked for their views about the impacts
of social media on the relationship with the audience, on professional practices and on
professional values. Social media is an umbrella term referring to sites with various
purposes, functions, content and services (Kaplan and Heinlein 2010) and, as a result,
categorisations of these tools vary. This study identified social media forms according
to their wider functions in relation to journalism (Table 1). Categorisation was based on
how these tools provided use for the following journalistic tasks: sourcing a story,
verifying information, publishing, networking and monitoring.
The survey collected data from self-selected groups of journalists in the UK,
Germany, Sweden and Finland. These countries provide an interesting case study,
because they are at similar levels of economic and technological developments, thus in
their comparison macro variables like that are controlled. The countries are also from
the same geographical area and their journalistic communities and cultures share basic
features. The four particular countries were chosen because access to their journalist
communities was made available. The sample was drawn from Cision Point Media Data-
base, a global commercial communications database holding 1.5 million contacts of
media professionals worldwide and circa 150,000 unique journalist contacts from the
four countries. The database is not representative of the whole journalistic communities
in individual countries, however, but given its large size it does provide access to about
two-thirds to fourth-fifths of journalists in the four surveyed countries. (It is difficult to
be precise, partly because the exact sizes of the database for each country are not pub-
lic and partly because reliable figures for total number of journalists are not available.)
From the available database a random sample was then selected for each country. The
survey was piloted with a group of 100 contacts in the UK and following amendments
 JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA 275

TABLE 1
Categorisation of social media forms relevant to the professional practices of journalists

Journalistic tasks
which it is mainly
Example They facilitate relevant to
Blogs Personal blogs Dissemination and/or access to Publishing and
personal views and promoting content,
interpretations monitoring, sourcing
Content Wikipedia, Collaborative content Sourcing, verifying,
communities and Digg, Yahoo provisions, reference guides, monitoring
crowdsourcing answers, information and knowledge
sites Gutefrage.net dissemination by group of
individuals or organisations
Microblogs Twitter, Fast information exchange and Publishing and
Tumblr, Jaiku dissemination promoting content,
sourcing, monitoring
Professional social LinkedIn Professional networking; ease Networking,
networking sites of communication among monitoring
individuals in a profession
Social networking Facebook, General networking; ease of Networking,
sites MySpace, communication among monitoring,
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

Xing individuals connected through publishing and

social relations promoting content,
sourcing
Audio-visual sharing YouTube, Exchange and dissemination of Publishing and
sites Flickr, images, video or audio sourcing video/photo
UStream content, monitoring

translations into the languages of the other three countries were made by native
speakers. Invitation to the online survey was sent out in an email to 36,000 journalists
(12,000 in both the UK and Germany, and 6000 in both Finland and Sweden). A remin-
der was sent after two weeks to improve response rates. Results, with an overall 4.2
per cent response rate, are based on 1560 completed replies (Finland, N = 448;
Germany, N = 189; Sweden, N = 256; UK, N = 667).
Statistical analysis, which was based on a 95 per cent confidence interval, exam-
ined differences and similarities between sub-populations of respondents. Three profes-
sional variables were included in the study and applied in the statistical testing. These
were: media sector, length of professional career and size of organisation. The first was
categorised in three groups: print, broadcasting and online. Respondents in the survey
were asked to identify in which media most of their professional content appeared and
then they were categorised accordingly. Length of career was grouped into three cate-
gories: in professional career for more than nine years, four to nine years, and less than
four years. In terms of size of organisation, four categories were set up (on the basis of
Companies House 2012): numbers of employees more than 250 (large), 50–249
(medium), 1–49 (small) and freelance journalists.
This was an online survey and as such may produce bias. Respondents who par-
ticipate in online surveys generally have more experience with the internet. However,
internet penetration and professional uses of online tools are generally high in the four
countries, which compensate such bias. Checks for representativeness were carried out
for each country, but because of the sampling method, full representativeness is not
 276 AGNES GULYAS

claimed here. Nevertheless, given the relatively large sample size and that each
subgroup is represented, the findings of the survey are arguably valuable and provide
a baseline for future studies into social media and journalism.

Results
Patterns of Social Media Use Among Journalists in Finland, German,
Sweden and the UK
Social media use was measured in four areas: frequency of use, diversity of tools
used, preferences for particular social media tools and purposes of use. The survey
revealed that the use of social media is widespread among journalists in the four coun-
tries. The vast majority (96 per cent) of the respondents used some form of social
media for their work in a typical week. The level of those who did not use these tools
varied somewhat between the countries: 3.1 per cent in the UK and Sweden, 4.2 per
cent in Finland and 8.5 per cent in Germany. This reflects variations in social media use
in general fluctuating between 90 per cent among online users in Germany to 98 per
cent in the UK (ComScore 2012). UK journalists were also the ones who used the most
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

types of social media tools (see Figure 1).

Further examination showed that the effects of professional variables on journal-
ists’ use of social media varied. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) indicated that there were
no statistically significant relationships between number of types of social media used
and professional career length: similarly, no relationships exist between number of
types of social media used and size of organisation. This means that neither of these
two variables had a significant impact on the number of social media used by journal-
ists in any of the four countries. However, the type of media sector variable did
produce significant relationships, albeit only in the UK and Finland, not in Sweden or
Germany. In the former two countries, there were statistically significant differences
between journalists in different media sectors in terms of the number of types of social
media tools they used in a typical week (F(2, 661) = 11.427, p = 0.000 in the UK and

FIGURE 1
Number of social media tools used by journalists in a typical working week
 JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA 277

F(2, 447) = 11.635, p = 0.000 in Finland). The relationship was not significant in Ger-
many (F(2, 188) = 0.555, p = 0.575) and Sweden (F(2, 255) = 3.519, p = 0.31). Employing
a Bonferroni post-hoc test on the Finnish and UK data, significant differences were
found between print journalists and broadcasting journalists (p = 0.000) and between
print journalists and online journalists (p = 0.000). There was no significant difference
between broadcasting and online journalists (p = 1). The results showed that print
media journalists used fewer types of social media compared to their colleagues in
broadcasting and online. In the UK, for instance, 32.5 per cent of print journalists
reported they used one or two types of social media in a typical week, while 13.1 per
cent said they used five or six different categories of the tools. The figures for online
journalists were 22.4 and 23.6 per cent, respectively, and for broadcasters 18.8 and 19.5
per cent, respectively. The pattern in differences between journalists in different media
sectors was similar in Finland.
The preferences of UK journalists for particular social media tools varied from
those of their counterparts in the other three countries, which shared broadly the same
patterns (Table 2). In Britain, the most popular social media tools were microblogs, con-
tent communities and crowdsourcing sites, as well as social networking sites; while in
the other three countries, the most popular tools were content communities and
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

crowdsourcing sites followed by social networking sites. The uses of microblogs and
professional social networking sites varied the most between the countries, with the UK
registering the highest uses. Reasons for differences are multifold, but arguably a key is
the role of a more commercially and competitively oriented journalistic culture in the
UK, which other studies also found significant in the adaptation of new technologies
by journalists (e.g. Singer et al. 2011).
Sectoral differences were also significant in relation to preferences for particular
social media tools but again only in the UK and Finland (Table 3). Online and broadcast
journalists were the most active users of blogs and print journalists the least active.
Blogs are particularly important for online and broadcast journalists (Hermida 2009) to
publish and promote their own content as they have limitations in other platforms.
Online journalists were also the most avid users of microblogs as well as professional
social networking sites. Interestingly, online journalists used content communities and
crowdsourcing sites less than their colleagues did in the other two sectors. Not surpris-
ingly, broadcast journalists used audio-visual sharing sites the most. More interestingly,
broadcast journalists used social networking sites as well as content communities and
crowdsourcing sites the most in both countries, which could indicate that for them

TABLE 2
Percentage of respondents who use a particular type of social media in a typical working
week, with mean and standard deviation

Germany UK Finland Sweden Mean SD

Blogs 39.7 57.9 50.2 59.0 51.7 8.9
Microblogs 29.1 69.6 17.4 39.8 39.0 22.4
Professional social networking sites 24.3 53.4 20.3 25.4 30.9 15.2
Social networking sites 62.4 66.7 70.1 69.9 67.3 3.6
Audio-visual sharing sites 46.0 54.9 46.9 44.9 48.2 4.6
Content communities and 78.8 67.8 83.7 82.8 78.3 7.3
crowdsourcing sites
 278 AGNES GULYAS

TABLE 3
Uses of social media in a typical working week according to media sector in the UK and
Finland (% of respondents)

UK Finland
Print Broadcasting Online Print Broadcasting Online
Blogs 50.9 55.7 74.3 46.0 56.1 63.9
Content communities and 67.6 76.3 62.0 84.3 87.8 79.5
crowdsourcing sites
Microblogs 60.2 79.4 81.0 12.7 26.8 31.3
Professional social 54.5 39.7 61.5 17.3 17.1 33.7
networking sites
Social networking sites 63.9 72.5 69.3 66.7 82.9 77.1
Audio-visual sharing sites 43.8 73.3 63.7 41.0 68.3 59.0

these tools are particularly important for exchanging multi-media content. Print journal-
ists had the lowest levels of uses for most social media tools, which suggest that they
rely more on traditional methods of information exchange and communication com-
pared to their colleagues in the other two sectors.
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

Although the size of organisations did not affect significantly the number of
social media types used, it was influential in the uses of microblogs and blogs. In all
four countries, blogs were more popular among freelance journalists compared to their
colleagues in small, medium and large organisations. (In the case of the UK, the figures
were 70.2, 43.6, 51.4 and 62.8 per cent, respectively.) Blogs particularly fit well with the
demands of freelance work with the importance of self-promotion, hence their popular-
ity among them is not surprising. Interestingly, the most avid users of microblogs were
journalists in large organisations, followed by their counterparts in medium-sized com-
panies, freelancers and their colleagues in small companies. (Figures for the UK were
75.6, 71.8, 66.7 and 54.5 per cent, respectively.) The specific feature of microblogs is
that they facilitate fast information exchange and they are at the forefront in breaking
news. Historically, large organisations have dominated mainstream news agenda
because of industry structures and organisational resources (Allan 2004). The high ratio
of microblog users in large organisations reflects this domination. It was also notable
that journalists in small organisations used microblogs and blogs the least. Arguably,
reasons for this are specific organisational pressures including limited resources and
organisational services supports.
The survey also asked journalists about the purposes of their social media use.
Other studies have found that social media are primarily used for publishing and promot-
ing own content (e.g. Messner, Linke, and Eford 2011; Blasingame 2011). The results of
this survey support that publishing/promoting is a key function of social media for jour-
nalists. When asked about the importance of social media for specific professional tasks,
publishing and promoting own content received the highest figures (mean = 3.92 overall,
on the Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = not important at all and 5 = very important). It
was followed by networking (mean = 3.83), monitoring (mean = 3.81), primary news
source (mean = 3.49) and finally verifying information (mean = 3.12). This pattern was the
same in all four countries, albeit figures for the UK were generally higher than in the other
countries.
 JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA 279

Preferences for particular social media tools for particular professional tasks also
varied between the countries. Table 4 shows that UK journalists used different types of
social media tools for publishing and promoting their own content compared to their
counterparts in the other three countries. While in the UK, microblogs were the most
popular social media tools for this task, in the other three countries social networking
sites were. The influence of the three studied professional variables on how respon-
dents used social media for publishing and promoting varied. The ANOVA showed that
the media sector variable resulted in significant differences in the UK (F(2, 661) =
22.169, p = 0.000) and Finland (F(2, 447) = 11.855, p = 0.000), but not in Germany (F(2,
188) = 3.141, p = 0.046) or Sweden (F(2, 255) = 2.077, p = 0.127). The Bonferroni post-
hoc test again indicated that print journalists used social media for publishing and pro-
moting less than their colleagues in the other two sectors. In relation to length of pro-
fessional career, there were statistically significant differences in Germany (F(2, 188) =
7.567, p = 0.001) and Finland (F(2, 447) = 8.131, p = 0.000), but not in the UK (F(2, 657)
= 2.739, p = 0.065) and Sweden (F(2, 255) = 1.589, p = 0.206). Data in the former two
countries indicate that journalists who were in the profession less than four years used
social media more for publishing and promoting compared to their colleagues who
were in the profession longer than nine years. There were no significant differences in
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

relation to size of organisations (for the UK: F(3, 655) = 0.554, p = 0.654; for Finland: F
(2, 447) = 2.735, p = 0.043; and for Sweden: F(3, 255) = 0.485, p = 0.693) with the
exception of Germany (F(3, 188) = 5.185, p = 0.002). Here freelance journalists and
journalists in small organisations perceived social media to be much more important
for publishing and promoting own content compared to their colleagues in large
organisations.
In terms of sourcing information and news, there were again differences between
the four countries. The most popular social media tool as primary news source were
microblogs in the UK, social networking sites in Finland and Sweden, and content
communities and crowdsourcing sites in Germany (Table 5). The influence of the three
studied professional variables on how respondents used social media for sourcing infor-
mation varied too. The media sector variable resulted in significant differences in the UK
(F(2, 661) = 12.600, p = 0.000) and Finland (F(2, 447) = 11.781, p = 0.000), again with print
journalists using social media less as primary news source than their colleagues in the
other two sectors; while in Germany (F(2, 188) = 0.220, p = 0.803) and Sweden (F(2, 255)
= 1.755, p = 0.175) the media sector variable did not show a significant difference. In
relation to length of professional career, there were no statistically significant differences

TABLE 4
Uses of social media tools for publishing and promoting own content in a typical week
(% of respondents)

Germany UK Finland Sweden

Blogs 23.8 37.5 27.5 30.1
Microblogs 25.4 65.5 16.5 32.8
Professional social networking sites 16.4 28.8 14.1 11.7
Social networking sites 52.4 55.8 67 63.3
Audio-visual sharing sites 21.7 19.3 20.3 14.8
Content communities and crowdsourcing sites 28.0 5.2 19.0 8.6
 280 AGNES GULYAS

TABLE 5
Uses of social media tools for sourcing stories in a typical week (% of respondents)

Germany UK Finland Sweden

Blogs 20.6 38.2 36.8 42.6
Microblogs 12.2 48.1 14.3 30.9
Professional social networking sites 14.8 19.6 7.1 12.1
Social networking sites 32.3 34.3 46.0 50.0
Audio-visual sharing sites 22.2 18.6 21.9 16.0
Content communities and crowdsourcing sites 68.3 22.3 45.3 26.2

in any of the countries (UK: F(2, 657) = 4.351, p = 0.013; Germany: F(2, 188) = 1.314, p =
0.271; Finland: F(2, 447) = 2.921, p = 0.055; Sweden: F(2, 255) = 0.864, p = 0.423). The only
country where there were significant differences in relation to size of organisation was
Germany (F(3, 188) = 4.390, p = 0.005) where freelance journalists and journalists in small
organisations perceived social media to be much more important as primary news source
compared to their colleagues in larger organisations (UK: F(3, 655) = 1.569, p = 0.191;
Finland: F(3, 447) = 0.570, p = 0.635; Sweden: F(3, 255) = 0.092, p = 0.964).
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

Bearing in mind the limitations of this study, some general points about patterns
of social media use can be noted. First, there are differences even between countries of
similar economics and technological developments in terms of how and to what extent
social media tools are embedded in journalists’ practices. Second, that the three studied
professional variables have some impact in some context but they do not explain over-
all social media use patterns. Third, that out of the three studied professional variables,
media sector is the factor most affecting how journalists use social media. Fourth,
professional career length is a weaker explanatory factor of social media use compared
to age in the general population.

Journalists’ Views About the Impacts of Social Media

Apart from patterns of use, the survey also asked journalists about their views
concerning social media. To measure attitudes, respondents were asked to judge 12
statements using a five-point Likert-type scale. The statements focused on three main
issues that have been emphasised in the literature: changes in relationships with the
audience, impacts on professional practices and impacts on professional values. For
instance, respondents were asked to rate statements such as “Because of social media I
am more engaged with my audience” and “Social media encourages opinion-orientated
journalism” (Table 6). Overall attitudes towards social media were then measured
against the 12 statements together. Scores were calculated on a scale from 1 (negative
attitudes towards social media tools and their impacts in all 12 statements asked in the
survey) to 5 (positive attitudes towards social media tools and their impacts in all 12
statements asked in the survey). UK journalists, who used social media the most, had
the most positive attitudes towards social media (overall mean = 3.11). German journal-
ists had the most negative attitudes (overall mean = 2.82) and Swedish (overall mean =
3.01) and Finnish (overall mean = 2.94) journalists were mainly ambivalent.
Increased interactivity is seen as a key feature of social media tools (Deuze and
Paulussen 2002, 242) and indeed one of the main reasons for introducing them. When
 JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA 281

TABLE 6
Journalists’ views about the impacts of social media (mean)

Germany UK Finland Sweden

Social media and audience relationship
“Because of social media I am more engaged with my 3.69 4.10 3.77 3.92
audience”
“Crowdsourcing and other user-generated content 2.77 3.05 2.77 3.15
improves quality of journalism”
Social media and professional practices
“Social media have improved the productivity of my 3.07 3.39 3.05 3.26
work”
“It is important to separate my professional and private 3.90 4.00 3.72 3.96
use of social media”
“Use of social media enhances my credibility as a 2.44 3.21 2.82 2.98
journalist”
“I publish information on social media that I would 2.72 3.22 3.24 2.74
not publish/broadcast through traditional news
channels”
Social media and the profession
“Social media are unreliable tools for sourcing a story” 3.11 3.29 3.01 3.39
“Accuracy is the biggest problem with social media” 4.15 4.17 4.04 3.72
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

“News stories break first via social media” 3.55 3.77 3.69 3.46
“Social media encourages opinion-orientated 3.41 3.85 3.73 3.71
journalism”
“Social media encourages a focus on ‘soft’ news as 3.61 3.27 3.77 3.32
opposed to ‘hard’ news”
“Social media will lead to a demise in the journalism 2.14 2.43 1.88 1.69
profession”

Mean scores for individual statements are on scales from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neither agree
nor disagree), 4 (agree), 5 (strongly agree). Means scores for overall attitude are on scales from 1 (negative
attitude towards social media tools and their impacts in all 12 statements asked in the survey) to 5 (positive
attitude towards social media tools and their impacts in all 12 statements asked in the survey).

asked about the relationship with audiences, journalists tended to agree that they were
more engaged with their audience as a result of using social media (Table 6). Crowd-
sourcing and user-generated content is often seen in a positive light in the literature
because of its potential to enhance democratic participation (Singer et al. 2011; Goode
2009). However, survey respondents were unsure about the impacts of user-generated
content in journalism, with UK and Swedish journalists being ambivalent and German
and Finnish having a more negative view (Table 6). This corresponds with results of
other studies which found that journalists were often wary about crowdsourcing and
user-generated content as they saw them challenging traditional journalistic norms
and regarded them to be low quality (Thurman and Hermida 2010; Lasorsa, Lewis, and
Holton 2012).
In terms of the impact of social media on journalists’ practices, respondents
tended to be ambivalent. A key rationale for embedding social media in the work of
journalists has been that they enhance efficiency and improve productivity through
easier forms of communication, networking and information exchange (Hermans, Verg-
eer, and D’Haenens 2009). However, in the survey most journalists were unsure whether
these tools have indeed improved the productivity of their work (Table 6) and this was
the case in all four countries. Respondents were even less positive about whether the
 282 AGNES GULYAS

TABLE 7
ANOVA of overall attitudes towards social media according to the three professional
variables

ANOVA according ANOVA according to length ANOVA according to

to media sector of professional career size of organisation
UK F(3, 661) = 24.104, F(3, 657) = 16.094, F(3, 655) = 1.141,
p = 0.000 p = 0.000 p = 0.332
Germany F(2, 188) = 1.780, F(2, 188) = 7.526, F(3, 188) = 2.703,
p = 0.171 p = 0.001 p = 0.047
Finland F(2, 447) = 12.786, F(2, 447) = 13.797, F(2, 447) = 2.106,
p = 0.000 p = 0.000 p = 0.099
Sweden F(2, 255) = 3.408, F(2, 255) = 2.097, F(2, 255) = 0.494,
p = 0.035 p = 0.125 p = 0.687

Bold figures show statistically significant differences in relation to variable.

use of social media enhances their professional credibility. Most of them, however, were
in agreement that it was important to separate their professional and private use of
social media.
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

In relation to the impacts of social media on the profession, journalists held more
mixed views but many remained ambivalent. Social media is perceived to play an
increasing role in how news breaks (Mitchelstein and Boczkowski 2009) and indeed this
is one of the reasons for using social media. Interestingly, respondents in the survey
were not sure whether news stories broke early and first via social media (Table 6).
They were somewhat more likely to agree with this statement than not, but there was
also a considerable number who were uncertain or disagreeing. Respondents, however,
tended to agree that accuracy was the biggest problem with social media. Journalists
generally shared concerns in the literature (e.g. Deuze and Yeshau 2001; Messner, Linke,
and Eford 2011) about the impacts of social media on traditional journalistic values.
They were more likely to agree than disagree that social media encouraged opinion-ori-
ented journalism, as well as that it encouraged a focus on soft news as opposed to
hard news (Table 6). However, respondents tended to disagree that social media will
lead to any decline in the profession.
Patterns of views about social media varied according to the three examined
professional variables in the four countries (Table 7). The media sector variable resulted
in significant differences in the UK and Finland, with print journalists having more
negative views compared to their colleagues in broadcasting and online. There were no
significant differences in relation to size of organisations. In terms of length of
professional career, there were statistically significant differences in the UK, Germany
and Finland. Journalists with shorter professional career length (less than four years)
had a more positive outlook on the impacts of social media compared to their
colleagues who were in the profession for longer than nine years.

Discussion
This study found that while there are common trends, there are also differences
among journalists in the four study countries in relation both to patterns of use of
social media tools and patterns of views about them. The article set out to answer four
 JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA 283

specific questions. In terms of differences between the four countries (RQ1 and RQ3),
the findings show that journalists in the UK used social media more extensively and
they held a more positive attitude towards the tools compared to their counterparts in
the other three countries. Patterns of social media use in Sweden, Finland and Germany
were largely similar. However, there were more differences between these three
countries in relation to journalists’ views about social media. Notably, respondents in
Germany were more negative about their impacts than their counterparts in the other
two countries. Reasons for these dissimilarities are multifold, but arguably the prevailing
journalistic culture and media system play a key role in the speed and the ways in
which social media are adopted.
In terms of the three professional variables (RQ2 and RQ4), the study found that
they had significant impact in some contexts but not in others. The media sector vari-
able had an important effect on patterns of use and views about the impacts of social
media in the UK and Finland but not in the other two countries. Results also showed
that length of professional career had varying influence on specific uses of social media,
but it did significantly affect views about the impacts of social media. Size of
organisation was not a significant factor influencing overall patterns of uses and atti-
tudes. However, the study also found that the characteristics of specific groups/sectors
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

lend themselves to particular social media use. For instance, video/photo exchange
sites were particularly important for broadcast journalists. Online journalists were the
most active users of blogs, for whom these tools were key for publication and promo-
tion of their work. In terms of the size of organisations, blogs were most frequently
used by freelance journalists reflecting the need for self-promotion of their work. On
the other hand, microblogs were the most popular among journalists in large organisa-
tions, reflecting their dominance of the news agenda in traditional media.
When considering overall patterns of uses and views in the four countries,
however, the three professional variables did not have a strong influence. Bearing in
mind the limitations of the study, this suggests that these factors do not provide an
overall explanation of social media appropriation in professional practices. It also sug-
gests that there are a myriad of factors at play in the adaptation of these new technol-
ogies and that the integration of social media tools in journalistic practices is not
determined by the technological innovation solely, but it is a social process of appropri-
ation. The findings also show that how social media are integrated in the work of jour-
nalists indicates increased fragmentation and segmentation in the profession along the
lines of a myriad of different variables. The three examined professional variables are
part of this complex picture and they affect practices in some contexts in some places,
but they do not offer clear demarcations to explain social media use and views about
them. Further research is needed to explore how social media are embedded in profes-
sional practices of journalists and what factors influence this process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work in this article has benefited greatly from the input of Kristine Pole who
participated in conducting the survey. The research was supported by Cision Europe
who provided access to their database and covered the costs of administering the
online survey.
 284 AGNES GULYAS

REFERENCES
Allan, Stuart. 2004. News Culture. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Blasingame, Dale. 2011. “Twitter First: Changing TV News 140 Characters at a Time.” Paper
presented at the 12th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX, April
1–2. http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2011/papers/Dale2011.pdf.
Boczkowski, Pablo J. 2004. Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Bruno, Nicola. 2011. “Tweet First, Verify Later? How Real-time Information Is Changing the
Coverage of Worldwide Crisis Events.” Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper, Reuters Insti-
tute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, Oxford. http://reutersinstitute.
politics.ox.ac.uk/about/news/item/article/tweet-first-verify-later-new-fell.html.
Companies House. 2012. “Small Companies and Medium Sized Companies Accounts.”
Companies House. Accessed January 20. http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/
gbhtml/gp2.shtml#Ch6.
Comscore. 2012. “European Digital Trends—Shifting Consumption Habits.” ComscoreReport.
http://www.comscore.com/press_events/presentations_whitepapers/2012/euro-
pean_digital_trends-shifting_consumption_habits.
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

Deuze, Mark. 2007. Media Work. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Deuze, Mark, and Steve Paulussen. 2002. “Research Note: Online Journalism in the Low
Countries: Basic Occupational and Professional Characteristics of Online Journalists in
Flanders and The Netherlands.” European Journal of Communication 17 (2): 237–245.
Deuze, Mark, and Daphna Yeshua. 2001. “Online Journalists Face New Ethical Dilemmas:
Lessons from The Netherlands.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16 (4): 273–292.
Goode, Luke. 2009. “Social News, Citizen Journalism and Democracy.” New Media & Society
11 (8): 1287–1305.
Hallin, Daniel, and Paulo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hermans, Liesbeth., Maurice Vergeer, and Leen D’Haenens. 2009. “Internet in the Daily Life
of Journalists: Explaining the Use of the Internet by Work-related Characteristics and
Professional Opinions.” Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 15 (1): 138–157.
Hermida, Alfred. 2009. “The Blogging BBC: Journalism Blogs at ‘The World’s Most Trusted
News Organisation’.” Journalism Practice 3 (3): 268–284.
Hermida, Alfred. 2011. “Tweet the News: Social Media Streams and the Practice of Journal-
ism.” In The Routledge Companion to News and Journalism, 2nd ed, edited by Allan Stu-
art Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hermida, Alfred. 2012. “Tweets and Truth: Journalism as a Discipline of Collaborative Verifica-
tion.” Journalism Practice. doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.667269.
Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Kaplan, Andreas, and Michael Heinlein. 2010. “Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and
Opportunities of Social Media.” Business Horizons 53 (1): 59–68.
Kung, Lucy. 2008. Strategic Management in the Media. Los Angeles: Sage.
Larsson, Anders O. 2011. “Interactive to Me— Interactive to You? A Study of Use and Appreciation
of Interactivity on Swedish Newspaper Sites” New Media & Society 13 (7): 1180–1197.
Lasorsa, Dominic L., Seth C. Lewis, and Avery E. Holton. 2012. “Normalizing Twitter: Journal-
ism Practice in an Emerging Communication Space.” Journalism Studies 13 (1): 19–36.
 JOURNALISTS’ USES AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA 285

Lewis, Seth C. 2012. “The Tension between Professional Control and Open Participation:
Journalism and Its Boundaries.” Information, Communication & Society 15 (6): 836–866.
Massey, Brian L., and Cindy J. Elmore. 2011. “Happier Working for Themselves?” Journalism
Practice 5 (6): 672–686.
Messner, Marcus, Maureen Linke, and Asriel Eford. 2011. “Shoveling Tweets: An Analysis of
the Microblogging Engagement of Traditional News Organizations.” Paper presented
at the 12th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX, April 1–2.
http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/papers.php?Year=2011.
Mitchelstein, Eugenia, and Pablo J. Boczkowski. 2009. “Between Tradition and Change: A
Review of Recent Research in Online News Production.” Journalism 10 (5): 562–578.
Newman, Nic. 2009 “The Rise of Social Media and Its Impact on Mainstream Journalism.”
Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Uni-
versity of Oxford, Oxford. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/news/item/arti-
cle/tweet-first-verify-later-new-fell.html.
Ofcom. 2011. “Communications Markets Report.” http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-
data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr11/Downloads/.
Örnebring, Henrik. 2009. “The Two Professionalisms of Journalism: Journalism and the
Changing Contest of Work.” Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper, Reuters Institute for
Digital Journalism 2013.1:270-285.

the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, Oxford. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.

ac.uk/publications/.
Preston, Pascal. 2008. Making the News: Journalism and News Cultures in Europe. London:
Routledge.
Quandt, Thorsten, Martin Löffelholz, David H. Weaver, Thomas Hanitzsch, and Klaus-Dieter
Altmeppen. 2006. “American and German Online Journalists at the Beginning of the
21st Century.” Journalism Studies 7 (2): 171–186.
Reich, Zvi. 2011. “Comparing Reporter Work across Print, Radio, and Online.” Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly 88 (2): 285–300.
Sarrica, Mauro, Leopoldina Fortunati, John O’Sullivan, Aukse Balcytiene, Phil Macgregor, Vallo
Nuust, Nayia Roussou, Koldobika Meso, Xosé Pereira, and Federico De Luca. 2010. “The
Early Stages of the Integration of the Internet in EU Newsrooms.” European Journal of
Communication 25 (4): 413–422.
Sayre, Ben, Leticia Bode, Dhavan Shah, Dave Wilcox, and Chirag Shah. 2010. “Agenda-setting
in the Digital Age”. Policy & Internet 2 (2): Article 2. www.policyandinternet.org.
Singer, Jane B., Alfred Hermida, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten
Quandt, Zvi Reich, and Marina Vujnovic. 2011. Participatory Journalism. Guarding Open
Gates at Online Newspapers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Steensen, Steen. 2011. “Online Journalism and the Promises of New Technology.” Journalism
Studies 12 (3): 311–327.
Thurman, Neil, and Alfred Hermida. 2010. “Gotcha: How Newsroom Norms Are Shaping Par-
ticipatory Journalism Online.” In Web Journalism: A New Form of Citizenship, edited by
Garrett Monaghan and Sean Tunney, 46--62. Eastbourne, UK: Sussex Academic Press.
Weaver, David H. 1996. “Journalists in Comparative Perspective.” The Public 3 (4): 83–891.

Agnes Gulyas, Department of Media, Art and Design, Canterbury Christ Church
University. E-mail: [email protected]