Cited by 382Media Studies and CommunicationJournalism and Media StudiesMedia and Communication Studies

Reciprocal Journalism: A concept of mutual exchange between journalists and audiences

Lewis, Seth C., Holton, Avery E., Coddington, Mark·2014·Journalism Practice

Abstract

Reciprocity, a defining feature of social life, has long been considered a key component in the formation and perpetuation of vibrant communities. In recent years, scholars have applied the concept to understanding the social dynamics of online communities and social media. Yet, the function of and potential for reciprocity in (digital) journalism has yet to be examined. Drawing on a structural theory of reciprocity, this essay introduces the idea of reciprocal journalism: a way of imagining how journalists might develop more mutually beneficial relationships with audiences across three forms of exchange—direct, indirect, and sustained types of reciprocity. The perspective of reciprocal journalism highlights the shortcomings of most contemporary approaches to audience engagement and participatory journalism. It situates journalists as community-builders who, particularly in online spaces, might more readily catalyze patterns of reciprocal exchange—directly with readers, indirectly among community members, and repeatedly over time—that, in turn, may contribute to the development of greater trust, connectedness, and social capital. For scholars, reciprocal journalism provides a new analytical framework for evaluating the journalist–audience relationship, suggesting a set of diagnostic questions for studying the exchange of benefits as journalists and audiences increasingly engage one another in networked environments. We introduce this concept in the context of community journalism but also discuss its relevance for journalism broadly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17512786.2013.859840

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, S. C., Holton, A. E., & Coddington, M.
Corresponding author
  • Lewis, Seth C.
  • Holton, Avery E.
  • Coddington, Mark
Venue
Journalism Practice
Published
2013-12-04
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
229-241
ISSN
  • 1751-2786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-2794
OpenAlex
W2326083423
Cited by
382
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5
FWCI
41.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journalism Practice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Communication Studies
Keywords
reciprocity, journalist-audience relationship, audience engagement, citizen journalism, community journalism, social capital, trust, online communities, social media, community building

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