Journalistic Branding on Twitter: A representative study of Australian journalists’ profile descriptions
Abstract
While journalism scholarship on Twitter has expanded significantly in recent years, journalists’ use of the social networking platform for self-promotion and branding has only recently received attention. Yet, as Twitter is becoming important for journalists to build economic and social capital, journalistic branding is increasingly relevant to study. This article reports the results from a study of 4189 Australian journalists’ Twitter accounts to examine their approaches to self-presentation and branding in their profile information. We find that journalists self-identify primarily through professional characteristics, but a significant number also mix this with personal information. Yet, they are also wary of providing personal information, with one-third including a disclaimer that their views are their own. Whereas only small differences could be found along gender lines, more significant differences existed in terms of whether journalists worked in metropolitan or regional areas and the nature of their employers’ main platform of distribution.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Estudios previos han usado el contenido de la biografía de perfil en Twitter para identificar características de los usuarios y clasificarlos.
“Varios estudios han usado el contenido de la biografía de perfil en Twitter para identificar el campo al que pertenece un académico en Twitter (Vainio & Holmberg, 2017), para clasificar tipos de usuarios según su relación con una protesta política (Santos, 2018), para estudiar el self-branding de periodistas en Twitter a partir de las palabras, links y metadatos de la biografía (Hanusch & Bruns, 2”
From “Vital testimonio confirm󔦔: Polarización de fuentes y redes en el Caso Catrillanca en Twitter (2021) · cites this paper as Hanusch & Bruns, 2017
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Journalists on Twitter: self-branding, audiences, and involvement of bots
Varol, O., & Uluturk, I. (2020) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-019-00056-6 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“Vital testimonio confirm󔦔: Polarización de fuentes y redes en el Caso Catrillanca en Twitter
Santos, M. L. B., Jaramillo Castro, O., & Aguirre, D. (2021) · Cuadernos.info · doi:10.7764/cdi.49.27509 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hanusch, F., & Bruns, A.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Hanusch, Folker
- Bruns, Axel
- Venue
- Digital Journalism
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-03-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-43
- ISSN
- 2167-0811 (ISSN-L)
- 2167-082X
- OpenAlex
- W2308958835
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 6 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 41.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Digital Journalism (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (FT130100703, DP160101211)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- Twitter, journalists, self-presentation, professional identity, personal information disclosure, disclaimers, gender differences
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