Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 518

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A CLASH OF CULTURES: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites

Hermida, Alfred, Thurman, Neil·2008·Journalism Practice

Abstract

This study examines how national UK newspaper websites are integrating user-generated content (UGC). A survey quantifying the adoption of UGC by mainstream news organisations showed a dramatic increase in the opportunities for contributions from readers. In-depth interviews with senior news executives revealed this expansion is taking place despite residual doubts about the editorial and commercial value of material from the public. The study identified a shift towards the use of moderation due to editors’ persistent concerns about reputation, trust, and legal liabilities, indicating that UK newspaper websites are adopting a traditional gate-keeping role towards UGC. The findings suggest a gate-keeping approach may offer a model for the integration of UGC, with professional news organisations providing editorial structures to bring different voices into their news reporting, filtering and aggregating UGC in ways they believe to be useful and valuable to their audience. While this research looked at UGC initiatives in the context of the UK newspaper industry, it has broad relevance as professional journalists tend to share a similar set of norms. The British experience offers valuable lessons for news executives making their first forays into this area and for academics studying the field of participatory journalism.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17512780802054538

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Fulton , Katherine 1996 “A Tour of Our Uncertain Future” , Columbia Journalism Review , March/April , http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/96/2/tour.asp , accessed December 2007 .
  2. Gillmor Dan, 2004, We the Media, 10.1145/1012807.1012808 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Lasica , J. D. 2003 “What Is Participatory Journalism” , Online Journalism Review , 7 August , http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php , accessed March 2007 .
  4. Lindlof Thomas R., 1995, Qualitative Research Methods
  5. Mccracken Grant, 1998, The Long Interview
  6. O'Reilly , Tim 2005 “What Is Web 2.0” , O'Reillynet.com , 30 September , http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html , accessed July 2007 .
  7. Paul , Nora 2005 “‘New News’ Retrospective: is online news reaching its potential?” , Online Journalism Review , 24 March , http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050324paul/ , accessed July 2007 .
  8. Weaver David H., 1998, The Global Journalist: news people around the world
  9. Weiss Robert, 1994, Learning from Strangers

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hermida, A., & Thurman, N.
Venue
Journalism Practice
Published
2008-10
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
343-356
ISSN
  • 1751-2786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-2794
OpenAlex
W2167477732
Cited by
518
References
0
FWCI
103.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.