Civic and Citizen Demands of News Media and Journalists - Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

Journalism & Mass
Communication
Quarterly
http://jmq.sagepub.com/
Civic and Citizen Demands of News Media and Journalists: What Does the
Audience Expect from Good Journalism?
Richard van der Wurff and Klaus Schoenbach
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 2014 91: 433 originally published online
20 June 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1077699014538974
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/91/3/433
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication
Additional services and information for Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly can be found
at:
Email Alerts: http://jmq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jmq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com at b-on: 00800 Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa on November 24, 2014
>> Version of Record - Aug 18, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 20, 2014
What is This?
538974
research-article2014
JMQXXX10.1177/1077699014538974Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterlyvan der Wurff and Schoenbach
New Challenges to Credibility
Civic and Citizen

Demands of News Media
and Journalists: What
Does the Audience Expect
from Good Journalism?
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

2014, Vol. 91(3) 433451
2014 AEJMC
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077699014538974
jmcq.sagepub.com
Richard van der Wurff1 and Klaus Schoenbach2
Abstract
What do citizens in the Netherlands expect from journalism? A large-scale survey
shows that many audience expectations align fairly well with what experts and
journalists consider important democratic functions of the press. We refer to these
expectations as Civic Demands. In addition, more at odds with the professions view, the
audience wants journalism to take Citizen Demands into account: the complaints and
wishes of citizens. We explore how these demands relate to audience characteristics
and news media use. Findings suggest that journalists and citizens could very well
cooperate in securing a future for high-quality journalism.
Keywords
audience analysis, journalism, media and society, quality of reporting, role conceptions
The current media environment is characterized by intense competition, commercialization, declining news media trust, and increasing opportunities for user participation.
It challenges journalists to reconsider the delicate balance between professional autonomy, social responsibility, and public demands.1 Reactions to these challenges fluctuate between the claim that listening to what the public wants is the duty of a responsive
journalism and the warning that this would actually mean a sell-out to the audience,
resulting in a (further) decline of news media quality.2 In other words, audience
1University
of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

University in Qatar, Doha, Qatar
2Northwestern
Corresponding Author:
Richard van der Wurff, Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of
Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, NL1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: r.j.w.vanderwurff@uva.nl
434
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)
members are perceived either as consumers, primarily interested in infotainment and

horse-race reporting about politics, or as knowledgeable and discerning citizens,
appreciating high-quality journalism.3
To place this debate on firmer empirical grounds, we investigatefor the first time
with a large population surveywhat the public in a whole country (the Netherlands)
actually expects from its news media and from the journalists working for those media,
in terms of journalistic roles and professional standards, and in terms of what news
media should cover.
Our findings reveal two main audience orientations toward news media. One of
them is very much in line with journalists own professional understanding of their
role in society. The other orientation is less geared toward the good of society as a
whole, but more interested in the individual needs of the audience itself. We conclude,
though, that audience members do not exclusively subscribe to one of these orientations. Actually, very much like journalists, the audience has a more complex view of
the roles of news media in society. Our findings show that there is a considerable common ground for journalists and audiences to cooperate in shaping a better future for
high-quality journalism.
The Netherlands
Our case is the Netherlands, a typical example of the democratic-corporatist model of
journalism.4 This model is also represented in Scandinavia, Belgium, Germany,
Austria, and Switzerland. It combines a high level of professionalization with some
political parallelism. Individual journalists in the Netherlands are slightly politicized,
that is, lean in their reporting to one or the other political direction, but ultimately they
are obliged to the common good of society. The audience, in turn, is relatively strongly
interested in news about public affairs, as is shown by a still-high newspaper circulation. Public broadcasting has a considerable market position, too, and contributes to a
strong tradition of substantive reporting in the Netherlands.5 Public trust in news
media, albeit on a downward trend, is still relatively high, compared to other
countries.6
Journalism between Public Interest and the Audience

Research on audience perceptions and demands of news journalism is scarce and fragmented. In contrast, scholars have been extensively and continuously tracking what
journalists themselves think about their role in society, the standards they should
observe, and the news they should provide.7 This is why we use this body of research
as a source of inspiration for our inquiries into the views of the audience.
Journalistic Role Conceptions

In the United States, following the pioneering work of Johnstone, Slawski, and
Bowman,8 Weaver and his colleagues have explored regularly and systematically how
van der Wurff and Schoenbach
435
journalists perceive their roles.9 In their research, they have defined four journalistic
role conceptions. From the 1980s till the beginning of the twenty-first century, approximately 60% of U.S. journalists have embraced the so-called interpretive role.10 It
implies that, in their news reporting, journalists analyze problems, discuss policies,
and investigate government claims. The disseminator role has become less important
over time. It demands that journalists get factual information as quickly as possible to
as large an audience as possible. This role was strongly supported by about half of the
U.S. journalists in the 1980s and 1990s, but only by 16% in 2002.11
Adversarial journalism confronts the government and big business and, thus, in the
view of Weaver and Wilhoit, implies active participation of journalists in political
affairs.12 The populist mobilizer instead aims to involve ordinary people in public discoursea role model advocated since the 1990s by the public journalism movement
in the United States. These two roles have remained much less popular among U.S.
journalists. The adversarial role has been supported by less than a fifth of them.
Agreement with the populist mobilizer role is even lowereven though it almost doubled from 6% to 10% between 1992 and 2002.13
In practice, few journalists subscribe exclusively to one role. Most of those who
endorse the adversarial or populist mobilizer roles, for example, also adopt the interpretive one, and more than half of the journalists with an interpretive role also see
themselves as disseminators, and vice versa.14
Although the United States is a typical representative of the liberal model of journalism,15 the four role conceptions identified by American scholars can also be found outside
that country.16 For instance, as many as about half of the journalists in twenty-one countries
around the world consider reporting the news quickly (characteristic of the disseminator
role) extremely important, as well as providing analysis and interpretation (an important element of the interpretative role). Providing access for the public, on average, is less
crucial, but still considered extremely important by about a third of journalists. Providing
entertainment, in contrast, is not a major goal for most journalists. A mere fifth of all journalists in twenty-one countries find this role very important.17
In the democratic-corporatist Netherlands, too, many journalists have called their
most important tasks to provide analysis and interpretation (considered very important by 44% in 1999 and still 37% in 2006) and to get information to the public
quickly (43% in 1999, 33% in 2006). Investigating government claims and providing
the public with an opportunity to express itself were less popular among Dutch journalists (25% and 29%, respectively, in 1999, 18% and 13% in 2006). Providing entertainment and creating a good environment for advertisers, finally, were regarded as the
least important (11% and 5% in 1999, 8% and 4% in 2006).18
Journalistic Values
To fulfill their roles in society appropriately, most journalistsespecially in western
democraciesfeel that they should closely follow joint professional values.19 They
agree on the importance of hard evidence and reliable sources in their reporting and on
keeping ones own beliefs and convictions out of it.20
436
In the Netherlands, too, a large majority (more than 60%) of the journalists in 2006
considered autonomy, objectivity, hearing both sides, and fact-checking very important journalistic values. Neutrality was next (45%). In addition, 50% of journalists in
the Netherlands found it very important to consider who my audience isbut not
too extensively: Serving the audience went too far for most of them; no more than
19% called this important.21
In a 2010 Dutch Delphi study, sixty experts of journalism (editors-in-chief, journalism
professors, leaders of journalism organizations, and media lawyers) even claimed that
adhering to journalistic values ultimately distinguishes journalists from other, non-journalistic, providers of topical information on public affairs.22 Very much in agreement with
the journalists, the experts named fact-checking and hearing both sides as crucial values
to be observed by all journalists and news media. Equally important for the experts were
the clear separation of editorial and commercial content, the full disclosure of sources,
transparency in general (i.e., showing the audience how news is produced), not lying to
get information, and reporting in an understandable language. The support for these values was so unanimous among the sixty participants of that Delphi study that these norms
could be considered the core standards of journalistic ethics in the Netherlands.23
Responding to audience demands, in contrast, was named by the expertsagain much
like the journalists in 2006as the least important value for journalism.
In sum, at least in 2006, journalists in the Netherlands emphasize their interpretive
and disseminator roles and subscribe to journalistic values supporting those roles.
Their ultimate raison dtrein their self-perceptionis to provide good public service to democracy. This certainly includes accountability to the audience, for example,
by clearly identifying the sources of stories and explaining the production of news.
However, providing entertainment and closely responding to audience demands do not
belong to the journalists standard role conception.24
The View of the Audience

Compared with the evidence on journalists ideas about the features and purposes of their
products, research on what the audience thinks about journalistic roles and norms for
news production is scarce. We know what people use the news forthat is, the gratifications they seek: information, entertainment, opinion formation, and social utilityand
how this affects news media use25 and types of stories selected.26 We also know a bit about
news characteristics that make it more likely that audiences indeed obtain the gratifications they are looking forfor example, the variety and immediacy of news.27
Other studies of the audience have focused on the declining trust in news media.
Systematic survey research, conducted in the United States, for example, shows that the
percentage of people with little to no trust in news media grew from 26% in 1976 to 60%
in 2012.28 For Europe, the Eurobarometer survey suggests more stability during the last
fifteen years.29 In the Netherlands, 35% did not trust the media in 1997 and 33% in 2010.
This is a considerable part of the population but still smaller than in Denmark (50% in
1997 and 51% in 2010), Germany (51% and 45%, respectively), and particularly the
United Kingdom (80% and 79%).30
437
A number of studies from different time periods give some indication of what the
U.S. audience considers good journalism.31 Citizen complaints registered between
1973 and 1983 at the National News Council in the United States suggest that at least
those who complain expect journalists to perform their disseminator role well. They
demand that journalists transmit all the facts, without bias, to the public.32 In the early
1980s, citizens found it important that newspapers keep them informed about not only
local, but also national and global, events. Explaining events is the third most important characteristic of good news for the audience. Journalists, on the other hand, consider explaining news, as well as the traditional watchdog role, the most important.33
Ten years later, in the early 1990s, readers and editors in the United States agree on
the importance of many standards of newspaper excellence,34 such as integrity, independence, and accuracy. But readers emphasize decency and a lack of sensationalism
more than editors.35 Investigative reporting in general is appreciated by the audience,
but specific research techniques (e.g., journalists concealing their identity) raise more
eyebrows, especially of those citizens who perceive news media to be inaccurate,
biased, and excessively critical anyway.36
Again ten years later, the American audiencewhen interviewed about local
newsfound it very important that news is accurate, unbiased, and presents a diversity of viewpoints.37 The traditional roles of being a watchdog and reporting instantaneously (traditionally important to U.S. journalists) were less appreciated by the
public. Instead, the audience more strongly supported the public journalism or populist
mobilizer function of providing a community forum.38
In Germany, in 2007, 61% of the citizens said they respected journalists, but
strangely enoughonly 35% trusted them.39 On the positive side, a majority praised
journalists as independent and hardworking. But they were also perceived to be less
considerate, tolerant, social, and respectful to other people than the public wants them
to be. No surprise, then, that a large minority was not satisfied with the news that these
journalists deliver: Between 30% and 40% thought that the news is manipulated, too
prosaic, too sensational and frivolous.40 Small-scale qualitative research,41 in addition, suggests that German citizens want news media to critically follow government
and other powerful institutions, to make people aware of important issues, and to provide objective coverage with a clear separation of facts and opinionwhich seems to
point at supporting a mix of the interpretive and disseminator roles.
A third country on which we could find some data is Israel. Although this country
certainly differs from the United States and Germany, the available evidence suggests
once more that the public and journalists have partly different expectations: The public
wants factual news, whereas journalists find it more important to provide analysis and
interpretation.42
Audience Interest in News Topics

Several studies have compared audiences preferences for news topics with those of
the journalists. The results are ambiguous.43 Some suggest that the majority of the
audience resembles journalists in their preference for serious, hard news about public
438
affairs.44 Other studies indicate that most people seek entertainment and soft news, for
example, on sports and crime. These conflicting results may simply be caused by conflicting demands depending on what is happening in society at a given moment. When
there are important political or economic developments, audience preferences seem to
align more closely with those of the journalists for public-affairs news, while at less
critical times, journalists and audience preferences may diverge.45 For example, young
people in the Netherlands like infotainment programs on TVfully aware that these
do not provide serious news. At the same time, they insist that high-qualityalbeit
boringnews media offerings should be available for consultation once important
events unfold.46
Research Questions
Our literature review shows little systematic knowledge on how the audience looks at
news media. The central aim of our study is to explorefor the Netherlands as an
example of a democratic-corporatist media systemwhat the audience actually
expects from its news media and the journalists working for those media.
Based on the scarce evidence so far and our more extensive knowledge of what journalists themselves think, our study focuses (1) on how audience members in the
Netherlands see the roles of journalism in society, (2) on the norms that, according to the
Dutch population, should guide journalists in their news production, and (3) on what
kind of news they typically should cover. In addition, we explore how audience demands
are related to age, gender, education, and social classpersonal characteristics that plausibly influence what one expects from news mediaand to news media use.
Method
Our results are based on a large-scale survey, representative of all adult citizens (18
years and older) in the Netherlands. It was conducted between October 19 and
November 1, 2011a calm period in terms of discussions about the medias role in
society and its quality. The survey was commissioned by the Dutch Media Ombudsman
Foundation and paid for by the Netherlands Press Fund, a tax-funded but independent
organization to advance the quality of news media in the Netherlands. For the sample,
we used the online panel of the opinion research company TNS NIPO, with about
20,000 members, representative of the adult population of the Netherlands. In this
country, as many as 94% of the population were online in 2011.47 So, possible bias
caused by omitting people without Internet access is probably very small. From the
online panel, 4,308 persons were randomly selected and asked via email to participate,
and 3,203 respondents completed the twenty-minute questionnaire, a response rate of
74%.48 To increase the representativeness of the findings, the data are weighted by
gender, age, education, region, family size, and vote at the last national election.
The survey items were derived from the sources cited in our literature review, in
particular from the Weaver and Wilhoit studies on journalistic role conceptions, and
from our own Delphi study on journalism in the Netherlands. Some items were slightly
439
rephrased to make them more comprehensible for a Dutch lay audience.49 Although
this step was necessary to ensure valid responses, it suggests caution when comparing
journalist and audience responses.
Measurement of Audience Demands

To assess what the audience expects from Dutch news media, respondents got a list of
twenty-one statements on journalistic role conceptions and values and indicated on a
scale from 1 (= totally unimportant) to 5 (= very importantscores 2, 3, and 4 were
not verbalized) how important it is to them personally that news media in the
Netherlands subscribe to these conceptions and values.50
The list of role concepts included ten items that were randomly rotated in our questionnaire. Two items described tasks traditionally associated with the disseminator
role (e.g., get news to the public as quickly as possible). Three were used to gauge
the populist mobilizer role (e.g., give ordinary people a chance to express their
view). Two items covered the interpretative role (e.g., explain social issues). Two
other items represented the more critical aspects of the interpretative role in combination with the adversarial role (e.g., critically follow government). The final item
expressed the entertainment and relaxation function of news media.51
Next, we included four statements designed to address traditional journalistic
values (e.g., separate facts and opinion), three on accountability (e.g., explain
how news items come about), and four on news media responsiveness to the audience (e.g., respond to audience complaints). The items were again rotated
randomly.
In addition, we assessed the respondents interest in different news topics.
Respondents indicated on a scale from 1 (= not at all) to 5 (= very) how much they
were interested in news on social issues (e.g., environment, economics, or health care),
on politics and politicians, on celebrities, on ordinary people, and on crime and accidents, respectively.
Background Characteristics
To analyze whether and how citizens differ in what they expect from news media and
their journalists, audience characteristics that are plausibly related to those opinions
were gauged. These include sociodemographics and news media use.
Sociodemographicsgender, age, education, and social class52were provided by
TNS NIPO, the fieldwork company. News media use was assessed in our survey after
the questions about values and role conceptions. First, we asked respondents how
many days a week they followed the news on six news channels (newspapers, TV,
radio,53 videotext,54 online news, and social media). Next, we asked how valuable different news outlets (i.e., specific newspapers and TV news programs) are to them
personally as news sourceson a scale from 1 (a source that you most likely never use
to stay informed about whats going on around you) to 5 (a favorite source of information for you on recent domestic and foreign events).
440
Results
The Dutch respondents follow the news very closely. Only 2% claims, in a typical
week, not to receive any news from any source. A large majority (85%) instead
watches, reads, or listens to the news at least five days a week.
The most popular news source is TV. TV news and current-affairs programs are
viewed on average five days a week by Dutch citizens (SD = 2.3). Next are online
news (3.8 days per week, SD = 2.8), radio news (3.8 days per week, SD = 2.6), (paid
or free) daily newspapers (3.5 days per week, SD = 2.6), and news on videotext (2.9
days per week, SD = 3.0). Social media closed the ranking (1.3 days per week, SD =
2.5). Taking all news media together, Dutch adults on average use 2.9 of these six
news channels per day.
Audience Demands
What do citizens expect from the journalists who produce the news? Our survey
included ten items to represent four journalistic role conceptions, but a principal component analysis55 revealed only twomore generalorientations (shown in Table 1).
The first factor (eigenvalue 3.19, five factor loadings > .64, 32% of variance explained)
can best be interpreted as a primarily critical and interpretive professional-journalistic
orientation. Both the immediacy of reporting and the watchdog role are important
here, as well as the demand that news media enable citizens to develop their own
opinions.
The second factor (eigenvalue 2.61, five factor loadings > .57, 26% of variance
explained) combines commercial and populist mobilizer aspects. Their common
dimension is a focus on the user, who should be able to contribute to the news and to
participate in debates on current affairs. Also, news should be made attractive to large
groups of citizens. Based on these two factors, we constructed two indices: a professional role conception (five items, = .83) and a user-oriented one (five items, =
.75).
The audience rates the professional, mainly interpretative, role of journalists as a
little more desirable compared with the user-oriented one. The average difference
between the respective items is about .5 points on our five-point scale. The preferences
for these two roles are also somewhat connected (r = .56, p < .001). The majority
(62%) finds both of them important (mean index scores > 3.0), 27% evaluates only the
professional role as really crucial and merely 1% the user-oriented one.
Journalistic values. Respondents find it important that news media openly admit mistakes, are independent, clearly distinguish advertising from news, separate facts and
opinion, and present alternative viewpoints as completely as possible (Table 2). In
addition, news media should be transparent in their work and respond to audience
complaints and demands.
A principal components analysis suggests three factors among these journalistic
standards. The first one (eigenvalue 3.13, 28% of variance explained) comprises
441

Table 1. Importance of Journalistic Role Conceptions.
How important is it to you personally that news media in the Netherlands . . .
SD
Professional orientation index

Get news to the public as quickly as possible
Critically follow government
Explain social issues
Enable readers, viewers, and listeners to develop their own opinion
Critically follow big business
User orientation index
Give ordinary people a chance to express their view
Report on events that interest large groups of people
Stimulate people to participate in debates on important social issues
Enable people to contribute to the news
Provide entertainment and relaxation
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
Note. N = 3,203. Cell entries are means and standard deviations. All items are scored on five-point scales
from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
expectations that news media adhere to traditional journalistic values (five factor loadings > .69, = .83). They include openly admitting mistakes, an item that we originally regarded as indicating accountability (see above).56 But for the audience, it
clearly belongs to classic journalistic dos. The other two indices represent the general demand that news media should be responsive to their audience (eigenvalue 2.34,
four factor loadings > .68, 21% of variance explained, = .75) and the claim that they
should be accountable and transparent to their audience (eigenvalue 1.50, two factor
loadings > .69, 14% of variance explained, = .66). The mean scores for these indices
show that our respondents consider all three types of values important, with traditional
values being a little more relevant than accountability and responsiveness.
As with the journalistic role conceptions, the dimensions of journalistic values are
interrelated too. Respondents who consider traditional values important also think that
accountability is relevant (r = .57, p < .001). The other correlations are lower, but still
show that people who appreciate accountability also value responsiveness (r = .47, p
< .001), and those who attach great value to key journalistic values are also more likely
to deem responsiveness important (r = .40, p < .001). Put differently, our data reveal
that about half of the audience (51%) thinks that all three dimensions are at least somewhat important (mean index scores > 3.0).
Interest in news topics. A principal components analysis shows that audience interest
in news topics falls into two categories, represented by indices with decent reliability
scores (Table 3). Following Boczkowski,57 we label the first index interest in publicaffairs news, such as news about political and social issues (eigenvalue 1.72, two
factor loadings > .88, 34% of variance explained, = .77), and the other index represents interest in non-public-affairs news, such as news about crime, accidents, ordinary
442
Table 2. Importance of Journalistic Values.

How important is it to you personally that news media in the Netherlands . . .
SD
Traditional journalistic values index

Are independent
Clearly separate news from advertisements
Openly admit mistakes to audiences
Strictly separate facts and opinion
Report different views in society as completely as possible
Accountability index
Clearly indicate journalistic principles
Explain how news items come about
Responsiveness index
Respond to audience complaints
Consider audience wishes
Bond with viewers, readers, and listeners
Side with ordinary people when reporting on conflicts
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.3
3.3
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
Note. N = 3,203. Cell entries are means and standard deviations. All items scored on five-point scales
from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).
people, and celebrities (eigenvalue 1.63, three factor loadings > .69, 33% of variance
explained, = .59). A quarter of the sample (26%) indicates to be at least moderately
interested (mean index scores > 3.0) in both types of news. Yet almost a third (32%)
has no strong interest in either type (mean index 3.0 at most). The rest is either
strongly interested in public-affairs news (30%) or non-public-affairs news (12%).
This is why interest in public-affairs news is only weakly related to interest in nonpublic affairs (r = .28, p < .001).
Civic and Citizen Demands

Intuitively, we expect citizens demands of journalistic roles and values and their interest in a specific category of news to be related to each other. And, indeed, a secondorder principal component analysis of the indices described so far clearly shows two
dimensions. The first meta-factor (eigenvalue 2.44, 35% of variance explained) reveals
positive relationships between the indices for the professional-journalistic role, traditional journalistic values, accountability, and interest in public-affairs news. These
four indices (with factor loadings > .68) add up to a reliable second-order index ( =
.76 for the indices it includes). We propose calling it the Civic Demands index because
it combines audience expectations focusing on the traditional informational and democratic role of media in society.
The user-oriented index, the journalistic-responsiveness one, and the index of interest in non-public-affairs news load together on the second factor (eigenvalue 2.06,
three indices with factor loadings > .70, 29% of variance explained), constituting a
443

Table 3. Audience Interest in News Topics.
Generally speaking, how interested are you in news on . . .
SD
Public-affairs news index

Social issues (environment, economy, social integration, education, health
care)
Politics and politicians (The Hague, Parliament, ministers, elections, political
parties)
Non-public-affairs news index
Crime, accidents, safety
Ordinary people
Movie stars, media personalities, prominent sports people, and other
domestic and foreign celebrities
3.4
3.7
0.9
1.0
3.1
1.1
3.0
3.4
3.2
2.4
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
Note. N = 3,203. Cell entries are means and standard deviations. All items are scored on five-point scales
from 1 (not at all interesting) to 5 (very interesting)
Citizen Demands index ( = .72 for the indices included here). This index encompasses more selfish expectations of the audience: Journalists should more seriously
consider the experiences, contributions, complaints, and desires of individual citizens.
Such a catalog of demands is connected to more interest in non-public-affairs news
and to the valuation of responsiveness.
Both meta-indices, Civic and Citizen Demands, are related (r = .45, p < .001).
Indeed, two-thirds of the respondents (64%) find both types of requests important
(mean index scores > 3.0). An additional quarter (25%) only expresses Civic Demands
more strongly, whereas the proportions of people favoring only Citizen Demands or
none at all are negligible (3% and 8%, respectively).
Attributes of People with Different Demands

How common among the Dutch are the demands for news media and their journalists
that we described so far? Are there groups in society with different types of expectations? To find out, we regress Citizen and Civic Demands on sociodemographics. The
findings show that better educated respondents have stronger Civic expectations,
whereas lower educated ones show stronger Citizen expectations (Table 4). We also
note that older people favor both types more strongly, in particular Civic expectations
of news media. Finally, we note that, after the other sociodemographics are controlled
for, respondents from a higher social class and males tend to express marginally
weaker Citizen Demands too.
Audience Demands and Media Use

Plausibly, audience expectations of news media and their journalists are related to the
use of news media. Indeed, regression analyses show first of all that people with stronger
444
Table 4. Sociodemographic Predictors of Civic and Citizen Demands.

Civic demands
Citizen demands
.03
.37 **
.17 **
.05
.16
.06 **
.16 **
.18 **
.11 **
.11
Gender (male = 1)
Age
Education
Social class
Adjusted R2
Note. N = 3,203. Entries are standardized OLS regression coefficients.

**p < .001.
Table 5. Civic and Citizen Demands as Predictors of News Media Use.
Civic demands
Citizen demands
Adjusted R2
News
TV
.26 **
.06 *
.21
.18 **
.08 **
.25
Newspapers Online Radio

.09 **
.06 *
.17
.15 **
.02
.08
.11 **
.06 *
.03
Videotext Social media

.06 *
.09 **
.03
.00
.12 **
.10
Note. N = 3,203. Entries are standardized OLS regression coefficients. The regressions are controlled for
Gender, Age, Education, and Social Class but only results for Civic and Citizen Demands are reported.
News = news in general.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Citizen Demands, especially those with stronger Civic Demands, tend to turn more
often to the news in general, and in particular to traditional news media (TV, newspapers, radio, and videotext; see Table 5). In addition, we find that respondents with
higher Civic Demands use more online news, whereas those with stronger Citizen
Demands more frequently turn to social media. These findings are all controlled for
sociodemographics.
Because these categories of media types sometimes contain fairly different news
media outlets (e.g., TV news encompasses both commercial and public news broadcasts),
we end our analysis by exploring the relationship between Civic and Citizen Demands, on
the one hand, and preferences for selected news outlets, on the other. The dependent variable here is not actual news media use (in days per week) but a self-report of how important a specific news outlet is to respondents (indicated on a five-point scale). The four
outlets investigated were deliberately selected as mainstream news media that cater to
relatively large audiences and at the same time represent different media genres and editorial policies. They are the mass tabloid De Telegraaf versus the quality newspaper NRC
Handelsblad and the commercial infotainment TV program Hart van Nederland versus
the public-service TV current-affairs magazine Nieuwsuur.
This preliminary analysis shows that Citizen Demands are positively related to
favoring tabloidized news services, whereas Civic Demands are connected to a preference for quality news services (see Table 6). But, interestingly, these are differences in degree only. As many as 91% and 87% of those respondents who regard
445
Table 6. Civic and Citizen Demands as Predictors of the Perceived Importance of Specific
News Offerings.
Tabloid news media
Civic demands
Citizen demands
Adjusted R2
N
Quality news media
De Telegraaf
Hart van Nederland
NRC Handelsblad
Nieuwsuur
.16 **
.27 **
.10
2,227
.25 **
.37 **
.27
2,906
.35 **
.25 **
.28
1,871
.24 **
.02
.16
2,628
Note. Entries are standardized OLS regression coefficients. Regressions are controlled for Gender,
Age, Education, and Social Class, but only results for Civic and Citizen Demands are reported. N varies
because people who do not use a particular medium (e.g., newspapers) at all were not asked to rate
titles of that medium.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
tabloid titles De Telegraaf and Hart van Nederland as important find Civic Demands
for the news media desirable. Conversely, 55% and 72% of the people who attach
great value to quality news media NRC Handelsblad and Nieuwsuur also express
Citizen Demands.
Discussion
The audience in the Netherlands considers both the professional and the more useroriented role conceptions of journalism importantwith the professional one as more
crucial, however. The professional role emphasizes the imperative to disseminate
news as quickly as possible, and to interpret it as well. In contrast, the user-orientation
role combines tasks that journalism research has classified under the populist mobilizer role and more market-oriented functions of news media (to provide entertainment, to be attractive for large audiences).
The relatively strong support of the audience for the professional role that we found
in 2011 in our survey seems to align relatively well with the view of the Dutch journalists. Albeit five years earlier, in 2006, they too emphasized the interpretive and disseminator tasks,58 as did the experts in our 2010 Delphi study.59 Whether journalists
also share the audiences (slightly weaker) appreciation of the user-oriented role cannot be determined on the basis of available data.
When we look at journalistic values, a slightly different picture emerges. The Dutch
audience considers journalistic independence crucial for journalism. Other more traditional norms are also strongly endorsed by the publicto separate news from advertising, to distinguish between facts and opinion, to present a diversity of viewpoints, and
to correct mistakes.
Again, we can only cautiously compare these findings with the statements of journalists and experts in previous studies. The similarity between the answers of these
groups is striking, though. Journalists in 2006 rated autonomy as the most important
value,60 and experts in 2010 emphasized the need to separate editorial from commercial
446
information and facts from opinions.61 Both citizens and experts furthermore agree
that journalists should be transparent in and accountable for their workthat they
should explain to the audience how news items are constructed.
Audience demands start to diverge, though, from professional and expert views in
the Netherlands once we look at responsiveness. As we know, the Dutch audience
shares the journalists professional expectations. But it also expects journalists to side
with the people and to listen to their complaints and desires. Journalism experts, on the
other hand, deemed responding to audience demands in 2010 as not that important,62
and journalists felt the same in 2006 about serving the audience.63 Along the same
lines, case studies suggest that journalists in the Netherlands only pay lip service to
this request for responsiveness.64
Civic and Citizen Demands

On a meta-level, the Dutch audience expresses both Civic Demands and Citizen
Demands, with a preference for the former. Civic Demands build upon the professional
role conception of journalists, emphasizing their interpretive, critical, and disseminating tasks. In other words, Civic Demands mirror traditional ideas about the social role
of news media as a fourth estate, providing information on public affairs instead of
entertaining the audience. Civic Demands also call for getting the news to the people
as quickly as possible, for following both government and businesses critically, and
for insisting on journalistic independence. Citizen Demands, in contrast, emphasize
more strongly the populist mobilizer role. They ask for a responsive journalism, attractive news content, and audience participation in the news process.
Correlates and Implications of Audience Demands

Our findings are based on a large-scale representative survey. This should lend some
validity to our conclusions. But at the same time, we must acknowledge limitations:
our study relies on self-reports. Thus, we can only draw conclusions about what citizens expressed as their intentions and expectations, not about their actual choices or
behavior. Context validity may apply, though, because of the plausible relationships
that we found between our measures of Civic and Citizen Demands, on the one hand,
and sociodemographics and news media use, on the other hand.
Overall, our findings show that better educated people express stronger Civic
Demands, whereas lower educated people have more Citizen Demands. Civic
Demands in particular go along with a higher level of news consumption in general,
with a greater proportion of traditional news media (TV, newspapers, radio, and
Videotext), and with a stronger preference for quality news outlets.
Interestingly, preferences for specific online forms of communication vary with
audience demands. Civic Demands prevail for those who more frequently use online
news. Social media, on the other hand, are more often used by people with stronger
Citizen Demands.65 This indicates a certain division of labor between the newer channels. Quite plausibly, news websites seem to be preferred as disseminators and interpreters
447
for current affairs. Social media, instead, are used more often for populist mobilizer
functions. This warrants further investigation.
Conclusion
Our findings are limited to the news audience in the Netherlands at the beginning of the
twenty-first century. We hope that our study will be replicated in other countries, to compare audience demands across cultures and time (as is already possible for the views of
journalists), and perhaps even across media outlets and communication channels.
Ensuring comparability with journalist surveys is an important aim in this respect.
Conceptually, we believe that, on the basis of our findings, it makes sense to explore
further the usefulness of the categories of Civic and Citizen Demands to understand
and predict the different ways in which audiences engage with news media. These
constructs seem to integrate the different kinds of the views, needs, and wishes of
news media users. They also correlate plausibly with media use. We hope they stimulate more systematic research into the needs and wishes of audiencesan area of
inquiry that has been neglected too long, especially given the shifting power relations
between (what used to be) senders and receivers in the current media environment.
For news media and journalists in the Netherlands, our findings are both comforting and challenging. The audience is not as uninterested and hedonistic as is often
assumed in the public debate. Nor can its members be separated simplistically into
those who are interested in quality news and those who are not. Instead, the audiencelike journalism itselfshows a complex understanding of the roles that media
should play in society and the values that journalists, accordingly, should uphold.
Crucially, the audience shares with journalists the notion that news media have an
important and independent function in modern democracies.66 Journalists should feel
reassured by this. The audience wants them to act as serious conveyors and interpreters of what is going on in the world. It accepts and respects journalistic roles and
values.
Hopefully, these findings inspire journalists to reciprocate and take the public into
account more actively and explicitly because the audience also expects journalists and
news media to respond to the expectations, needs, and complaints of individual citizens as news media users. Our findings show that responsiveness to these demands
does not automatically happen at the expense of journalistic quality. This should make
us confident that there is room for journalists and citizens to work together in securing
a socially relevant future for professional journalism.
Acknowledgment
We thank the editor and the three reviewers for their valuable comments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
448
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This study was part of a research project commissioned by the
Dutch Media Ombudsman Foundation and supported by the Netherlands Press Fund, a taxfunded but independent organization to advance the quality of news media in the Netherlands.
Notes
1. Jo Bardoel and Leen dHaenens, Media Meet the Citizen: Beyond Market Mechanisms
and Government Regulations, European Journal of Communication 19 (2, 2004): 165-94;
Yael de Haan, Between Professional Autonomy and Public Responsibility: Accountability
and Responsiveness in Dutch Media and Journalism (PhD diss., University of Amsterdam,
2012); Jane B. Singer, Journalism Ethics amid Structural Change, Daedalus 139 (2,
2010): 89-99.
2. Kees Brants and Yael De Haan, Taking the Public Seriously: Three Models of
Responsiveness in Media and Journalism, Media, Culture & Society 32 (3, 2010): 411-28;
David Domingo, Interactivity in the Daily Routines of Online Newsrooms: Dealing with
an Uncomfortable Myth, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (3, 2008):
680-704; George A. Gladney, How Editors and Readers Rank and Rate the Importance
of Eighteen Traditional Standards of Newspaper Excellence, Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 73 (2, 1996): 319-31; Tanni Haas and Linda Steiner, Public
Journalism: A Reply to Critics, Journalism 7 (2, 2006): 238-54.
3. Irene Costera Meijer, Waardevolle Journalistiek: Op zoek naar kwaliteit vanuit het gezichtspunt van de gebruiker [Valuable Journalism: Searching for Quality from the Users
Perspective], Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 38 (3, 2010): 223-31; Shanto
Iyengar, Helmut Norpoth, and Kyu S. Hahn, Consumer Demand for Election News: The
Horserace Sells, Journal of Politics 66 (1, 2004): 157-75.
4. Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media
and Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
5. Kees Brants and Philip van Praag, Signs of Media Logic. Half a Century of Political
Communication in the Netherlands, JavnostThe Public 13 (1, 2006): 25-40.
6. Richard van der Wurff and Klaus Schoenbach, Audience Expectations of Media
Accountability in the Netherlands, Journalism Studies 15 (2, 2014): 121-37.
7. See, for example, David H. Weaver and Lars Willnat, The Global Journalist in the 21st
Century (NY: Routledge, 2012), who provide a comparison of the journalist profession
in thirty-one countries; and Thomas Hanitzsch, Folker Hanusch, Claudia Mellado, Maria
Anikina, Rosa Berganza, Incilay Cangoz, Mihai Coman, et al., Mapping Journalism
Cultures across Nations: A Comparative Study of 18 Countries, Journalism Studies 12 (3,
2011): 273-93, who compare journalistic cultures across 18 countries.
8. John W. C. Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski, and William W. Bowman, The Professional
Values of American Newsmen, The Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (4, 1972): 522-40.
9. David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S.
News People and Their Work (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); David H.
Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People
and Their Work (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991); David H. Weaver and G.
Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the End
of an Era (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996); David H. Weaver, Randal A. Beam,
Bonnie J. Brownlee, Paul S. Voakes, and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist
449
in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium (Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007).
10. Bonnie J. Brownlee and Randal A. Beam, U.S. Journalists in the Tumultuous Early Years
of the 21st Century, in The Global Journalist, ed. David H. Weaver and Lars Willnat (NY:
Routledge, 2012), 357; Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist (1991), 116.
11. Brownlee and Beam, U.S. Journalists, 357; David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit,
The American Journalist (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 116.
12. Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist (1986); Weaver and Wilhoit, The American
Journalist (1996).
13. Brownlee and Beam, U.S. Journalists, 357; Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist
(1996), 137.
14. Brownlee and Beam, U.S. Journalists, 358; Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist
(1991), 116.
15. Hallin and Mancini, Comparing Media Systems.
16. Mark Deuze, National News Cultures: A Comparison of Dutch, German, British,
Australian and U.S. Journalists, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 79 (1,
2002): 134-49; Hanitzsch et al., Mapping Journalism Cultures; Weaver and Willnat, The
Global Journalist (2012).
17. David H. Weaver and Lars Willnat, Journalists in the 21st Century. Conclusions, in The
Global Journalist, ed. David H. Weaver and Lars Willnat (NY: Routledge, 2012), 529-51.
18. Deuze, National News Cultures; Alexander Pleijter, Liesbeth Hermans, and Maurice
Vergeer, Journalists and Journalism in the Netherlands, in The Global Journalist, ed.
David H. Weaver and Lars Willnat (NY: Routledge, 2012), 242-54.
19. Hanitzsch et al., Mapping Journalism Cultures.
20. Hanitzsch et al., Mapping Journalism Cultures, 282-83.
21. Pleijter, Hermans, and Vergeer, Journalists and Journalism in the Netherlands.
22. Richard van der Wurff and Klaus Schoenbach, Between Profession and Audience,
Journalism Studies 12 (4, 2011): 407-22.
23. Van der Wurff and Schoenbach, Between Profession and Audience.
24. See also De Haan, Between Professional Autonomy.
25. Angela M. Lee, News Audiences Revisited: Theorizing the Link between Audience
Motivations and News Consumption, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57 (3,
2013): 300-17.
26. Evan N. Ben-Porath, Connecting with the News through Affective Expectations:
Antecedents and Outcomes (paper presented at the annual convention of the International
Communication Association, Dresden, Germany, 2006).
27. John Dimmick, Yan Chen, and Zhan Li, Competition between the Internet and Traditional
News Media: The Gratification-Opportunities Niche Dimension, Journal of Media Economics
17 (1, 2004): 19-33; Richard van der Wurff, Are News Media Substitutes? Gratifications,
Contents, and Uses, Journal of Media Economics 24 (3, 2011): 139-57, 142.
28. Media Use and Evaluation, Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/1663/Media-UseEvaluation.aspx (accessed December 19, 2012).
29. The standard Eurobarometer is a regular public opinion survey conducted twice a year
on behalf of the European Commission in all EU member states. We consulted all
Eurobarometer Reports published between 1998 and 2011.
30. European Commission, Eurobarometer (48, 1998) and (74, 2011), http://ec.europa.eu/
public_opinion/archives/eb_arch_en.htm (accessed May 3, 2011).
31. See also Gladney, How Editors, for a summary of older research in the United States.
450
32. Sandra Braman, Public Expectations of Media versus Standards in Codes of Ethics,
Journalism Quarterly 65 (1, 1988): 71-77.
33. Judee K. Burgoon, James M. Bernstein, and Michael Burgoon, Public and Journalist
Perceptions of Newspaper Functions, Newspaper Research Journal 5 (1, 1983): 77-89.
34. Gladney, How Editors.
35. Gladney, How Editors.
36. Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, Public Opinion on Investigative Reporting in the
1990s: Has Anything Changed since the 1980s? Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly 75 (3, 1998): 449-63.
37. Don Heider, Maxwell McCombs, and Paula M. Poindexter, What the Public Expects
of Local News: Views on Public and Traditional Journalism, Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 82 (4, 2005): 952-67.
38. Heider, McCombs, and Poindexter, What the Public Expects; see Deborah S. Chung,
How Readers Perceive Journalists Functions at Online Community Newspapers,
Newspaper Research Journal 30 (1, 2009): 72-80, who also found relatively strong support
for the populist mobilizer role among a small sample of online local community newspaper
readers.
39. Wolfgang Donsbach, Mathias Rentsch, and Anna-Maria Schielicke, The Ethics Gap. Why
Germans Have Little Esteem and No Trust in Journalists (paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL, 2009).
40. Donsbach, Rentsch, and Schielicke, The Ethics Gap, 17.
41. Sandra Lieske, Das Image von Journalisten. Eine qualitative Untersuchung [The
Image of Journalists. A qualitative investigation] (Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag fr
Sozialwissenschaften, 2008).
42. Yariv Tsfati, Oren Meyers, and Yoram Peri, What Is Good Journalism? Comparing Israeli
Public and Journalists Perspectives, Journalism 7 (2, 2006): 152-73.
43. Pablo J. Boczkowski and Eugenia Mitchelstein, Is There a Gap between the News Choices
of Journalists and Consumers? A Relational and Dynamic Approach, International
Journal of Press-Politics 15 (4, 2010): 420-40.
44. See also Klaus Schoenbach, Does Tabloidization Make German Local Newspapers
Successful? in Tabloid Tales: Global Debates over Media Standards, ed. Colin Sparks
and John Tulloch (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), 63-74; Klaus Schoenbach,
Factors of Newspaper Success: Does Quality Count? A Study of German Newspapers,
in Measuring Media Content, Quality, and Diversity: Approaches and Issues in Content
Research, ed. Robert G. Picard (Turku, Finland: Turku School of Economics and Business
Administration, 2000), 85-96.
45. Boczkowski and Mitchelstein, Is There a Gap.
46. Irene Costera Meijer, The Paradox of Popularity, Journalism Studies 8 (1, 2007): 96-116.
47. Level of Internet Access: Households, Eurostat, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/
table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tin00134&plugin=1 (accessed October
18, 2012).
48. See, for example, Yehuda Baruch and Brooks C. Holtom, Survey Response Rate Levels
and Trends in Organizational Research, Human Relations 61 (8, 2008): 1139-60.
49. For example, providing analysis and interpretation of complex problems became
explaining social problems.
50. News media were defined on the first page of the questionnaire as the media that daily
provide us with news and topical information about recent events inside and outside our
country. We are talking paid and free dailies, newscasts and other topical information
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
451
programs on radio and television, news on Videotext, and websites with news and other
topical information. These news media may report about, among other things, the economy, sports, politics, accidents, media, health and prominent Dutch people.
The complete list of all items and their exact wordings can be derived from Tables 1 to 3.
Social class is assessed per household in five categories, based on the education and the
profession of the main wage earner. This is a standard approach used by the major opinion
research companies in the Netherlands.
In the survey, we distinguished between listening to radio news (short bulletins that are
regularly broadcast on most radio stations every hour or even every half hour) and listening
to current-affairs programs. In the final analysis, we define radio use (in days per week) as
the maximum number of days that respondents indicated listening either to radio news or
current-affairs programs.
Videotext (aka teletext) is a one-way text-based information system that is displayed on the
television (TV) screen where it temporarily replaces the program watched. Viewers can use
the remote control to select pages with the latest news, weather and traffic information, TV
schedules, sports news, and other types of information.
All reported principal component analyses used varimax rotation.
See Keith P. Sanders, What Are Daily Newspapers Doing to Be Responsive to Readers
Criticisms? News Research Bulletin 9 (November 1973): 61-80.
Boczkowski and Mitchelstein, Is There a Gap, 425.
Pleijter, Hermans, and Vergeer, Journalists and Journalism in the Netherlands.
Van der Wurff and Schoenbach, Between Profession and Audience.
Pleijter, Hermans, and Vergeer, Journalists and Journalism in the Netherlands, 251.
Pleijter, Hermans, and Vergeer, Journalists and Journalism in the Netherlands, 252.
De Haan, Between Professional Autonomy.
We thank a reviewer for drawing our attention to this finding.
This conclusion is strikingly similar to conclusions formulated almost twenty years ago for
the United States, in Gladney, How Editors.

Civic and Citizen Demands of News Media and Journalists - Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civic and Citizen Demands of News Media and Journalists - Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journalism & Mass

Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication

>> Version of Record - Aug 18, 2014

JMQXXX10.1177/1077699014538974Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterlyvan der Wurff and Schoenbach

New Challenges to Credibility

Civic and Citizen

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

Richard van der Wurff1 and Klaus Schoenbach2

of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

members are perceived either as consumers, primarily interested in infotainment and

Journalism between Public Interest and the Audience

Journalistic Role Conceptions

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

The View of the Audience

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

Audience Interest in News Topics

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

Measurement of Audience Demands

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

Professional orientation index

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

Table 2. Importance of Journalistic Values.

Traditional journalistic values index

Civic and Citizen Demands

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

Public-affairs news index

Attributes of People with Different Demands

Audience Demands and Media Use

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

Table 4. Sociodemographic Predictors of Civic and Citizen Demands.

Note. N = 3,203. Entries are standardized OLS regression coefficients.

Table 5. Civic and Citizen Demands as Predictors of News Media Use.

Newspapers Online Radio

Videotext Social media

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

Quality news media

Hart van Nederland

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

Civic and Citizen Demands

Correlates and Implications of Audience Demands

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3)

van der Wurff and Schoenbach

You might also like