CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 384Media Influence and PoliticsMedia Studies and CommunicationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

On the Democratic Role of News Recommenders

Open access
Helberger, Natali·2019·Digital Journalism
DOI 10.1080/21670811.2019.1623700
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Are algorithmic news recommenders a threat to the democratic role of the media? Or are they an opportunity, and, if so, how would news recommenders need to be designed to advance values and goals that we consider essential in a democratic society? These are central questions in the ongoing academic and policy debate about the likely implications of data analytics and machine learning for the democratic role of the media and the shift from traditional mass-media modes of distribution towards more personalised news and platforms Building on democratic theory and the growing body of literature about the digital turn in journalism, this article offers a conceptual framework for assessing the threats and opportunities around the democratic role of news recommenders, and develops a typology of different ‘democratic recommenders’.

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 · 10.1080/21670811.2019.1623700

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • There are many contexts where homophily can be understood as beneficial.

    “Notably, there are a great many contexts where such homophily can be understood as beneficial:”

    From Filter bubble (2019) · cites this paper as Helberger, 2019

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Anderson, Chris W. 2011. "Deliberative, Agonistic, and Algorithmic Audiences: Journalism's Vision of its Public in an Age of Audience Transparency." International Journal of Communication 5: 529-547.
  2. Balkin, Jack M. 2018. "Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation." UC Davis Law Review 51:1149-1210.
  3. Belair-Gagnon, Valerie, Holton, Averie E. 2018. "Boundary Work, Interloper Media, And Analytics in Newsrooms: An Analysis of the Roles of Web Analytics Companies in News Production." Digital Journalism 6 (4): 492-508.
  4. Boczkowski, Pablo J. 2013. The News Gap: When the Information Preferences of the Media and the Public Diverge, edited by Eugenia Mitchelstein and (Organization) JSTOR. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  5. Calo, R. 2014. "Digital Market Manipulation." George Washington Law Review 82 (4): 995-1051.
  6. Cherubini, F., Nielsen, R.K. 2016. Editorial Analytics: How News Media are Developing and Using Audience Data and Metrics. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
  7. Christians, Clifford. 2009. Normative Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  8. Curran, James. 2015. "Reinterpreting the Democratic Roles of the Media." Brazilian Journalism Research 10 (2): 28-53.
  9. Dahlberg, L. 2011. "Re-Constructing Digital Democracy: An Outline of Four 'Positions'." New Media and Society 13 (6): 855-872.
  10. Dahlgren, Peter. 2006. "Doing Citizenship." European Journal of Cultural Studies 9 (3): 267-286.
  11. Ekstrand, M. D. and M. C. Willemsen. 2016. RecSys 2016. Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems.
  12. Eskens, Sarah, Helberger, Natali, Moeller, Judith 2017. "Challenged by News Personalisation: Five Perspectives on the Right to Receive Information." Journal of Media Law 9 (2): 1-26.
  13. Etzioni, Amitai 1996. "The Responsive Community: A Communitarian Perspective Presidential Address, American Sociological Association." American Sociological Review 61 (1): 1-11.
  14. Edwin Baker, C. 1998. Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Ferree, Myra, Gamson, Wiliam, J€ urgen, Gerhards, and Rucht, Dieter. 2002. "Four Models of the Public Sphere in Modern Democracies." Theory and Society; Renewal and Critique in Social Theory 31 (3): 289-324.
  16. Ferrer-Conill, Raul, Tandoc, Edison C. 2018. "The Audience-Oriented Editor: Making Sense of the Audience in the Newsroom." Digital Journalism, 21(6): 436-453.
  17. Garton Ash, Timothy. 2016. Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
  18. Gitlin, Todd. 1998. "Public Sphere or Public Sphericules?" In Media, Ritual and Identity edited by T. Liebes and J. Curran, 168-174. London: Routledge.
  19. Harambam, Jaron, Helberger, Natali & van Hoboken, Joris. 2018. "Democratizing algorithmic news recommenders: how to materialize voice in a technologically saturated media ecosys- tem". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376 (2133).
  20. Helberger, Natali, Karppinen, Kari and D'acunto, Lucia. 2018. "Exposure Diversity as a Design Principle for Recommender Systems." Information, Communication & Society 21 (2): 191-207.
  21. Held, David. 2006. Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  22. Karppinen, Kari. 2013a. Rethinking Media Pluralism. 1st ed. New York: NY: Fordham University Press.
  23. Lewis, Seth and Usher, Nikkie. 2016. "Trading Zones, Boundary Objects, and the Pursuit of News Innovation: A Case Study of Journalists and Programmers" Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 22 (5): 543-560.
  24. Li, Yaojun & Marsh, David. 2008. New Forms of Political Participation: Searching for Expert Citizens and Everyday Makers. British Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 247-272.
  25. Manin, Bernard. 1987. "On Legitimacy and Deliberation. Political Theory." Political Theory 15 (3): 338-368.
  26. Napoli, Philip. 1999. "The Marketplace of Ideas Metaphor In Communications Regulation". Journal of Communication 49 (4): 151-169.
  27. Napoli, Philip M. 2011. Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.
  28. Helberger, Natali. 2011. "Diversity by Design." Journal of Information Policy 1: 441-469.
  29. Newman, Nic. 2018. Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions. Oxford: Reuters Institute.
  30. Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin.
  31. Richards, Neil. 2008. "Intellectual Privacy." Texas Law Review 87(2): 387-445.
  32. Schoenbach, Klaus. 2007. 'The Own in the Foreign': Reliable Surprise -An Important Function of the Media?" Media, Culture & Society 29(2): 344-353.
  33. Spahn, Andreas. 2012. "And Lead Us (Not) into Persuasion … ? Persuasive Technology and the Ethics of Communication." Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4): 633-650.
  34. Str€ omb€ ack, Jesper. 2005. "In Search of a Standard: Four Models of Democracy and their Normative Implications for Journalism." Journalism Studies 6 (3): 331-345.
  35. Sunstein, Cass. 2001. Republic.Com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  36. Tandoc, Edson C. and Thomas, Ryan J. 2015. "The Ethics of Web Analytics: Implications of Using Audience Metrics in News Construction." Digital Journalism 3 (2): 1-16.
  37. Turow, Joseph. 2005. "Audience Construction Culture Production: Marketing Surveillance in the Digital Age". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 597 (1): 103-121.
  38. Thurman, Neil, Schifferes, Steve. 2012. "The Future of Personalisation at News Websites: Lessons from a longitudinal study." Journalism Studies 13 (5): 775-709.
  39. Young, Iris Manon. 1996. "Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy." In Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by Seyla Benhabib, 120-136. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  40. Zaller, John. 2003. "A New Standard of News Quality: Burglar Alarms for the Monitorial Citizen." Political Communication 20 (2): 109-130.
  41. Zamith, Rodrigo. 2018. "Quantified Audiences in News Production: A Synthesis and Research Agenda." Digital Journalism 6 (4): 418-435.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Helberger, N.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Helberger, Natali
ORCID
Helberger, Natali
Venue
Digital Journalism
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-06-12
Volume
7
Issue
8
Pages
993-1012
ISSN
  • 2167-0811 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-082X
DOI
10.1080/21670811.2019.1623700
OpenAlex
W2953083078
Cited by
384
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 8
FWCI
74.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Digital Journalism (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
H2020 European Research Council (638514)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
democratic theory, data analytics, news platforms, media and democracy

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