Between Personal and Public Interest: How Algorithmic News Recommendation Reconciles with Journalism as an Ideology
Abstract
Throughout modern history, the introduction of new technologies in journalism has challenged journalistic roles and the normative landscape of journalism, and the emergent use of personalised news recommender systems seems no exception given personalisation’s inherent democratic risk and commercial nature. However, current literature offers limited insight into how these technologies reconcile with the shared ideological norms and beliefs of journalists. This article identifies recurring tensions between journalism’s ideology and increasing commercial pressures in existing literature focusing on illustrative examples of digital technology implementations in journalism, and discusses how personalised news recommendation may recreate or mediate these tensions. The findings suggest that personalised news recommendation can facilitate journalism in service of the public by using value-sensitive algorithmic design that incorporates editorial input and nudges users to view diverse and serendipitous content. The findings additionally emphasise the importance of algorithmic transparency as a constituent element to distinguish nudging that prompts reflective behaviour from manipulation of choice, thus mediating tensions with journalism’s ideological aspirations to be fair and objective. Lastly, the paper calls for a higher level of understanding and interaction between journalists and algorithmic designers to mediate the impact on journalistic autonomy and ease the inherent transfer of editorial authority over 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?
Increasing dependence on digital technology affects traditional social interactions and creates a digital divide.
“In addition, the increasing dependence on digital technology is affecting traditional social interactions and creating a digital divide between those who have access to technology and those who do not.”
From CHANGES IN PUBLIC INFORMATION CONSUMPTION PATTERNS IN THE DIGITAL ERA: A LITERATURE STUDY ON DIGITAL JOURNALISM (2025) · cites this paper as Møller, 2022
Cites
‘Hypernudge’: big Data as a mode of regulation by design
Yeung, K. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1186713 · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Explainable Recommendation: A Survey and New Perspectives
Zhang, Y., & Chen, X. (2020) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000066 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Should we worry about filter bubbles?
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C. H., & Helberger, N. (2016) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2016.1.401 · Cited by 541 · see citing works
Algorithmic Transparency in the News Media
Diakopoulos, N., & Koliska, M. (2017) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2016.1208053 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
Social Media and the Public Interest: Media Regulation in the Disinformation Age
Napoli, P. (2019) · doi:10.7312/napo18454 · Cited by 332 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sulistiani, I., Caroline, C., & Syarifuddin (2025) · MORFAI JOURNAL · doi:10.54443/morfai.v5i1.2544
“(Møller, 2022).”
- Authors
- Møller, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Møller, Lynge Asbjørn
- Venue
- Digital Journalism
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-02-15
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1794-1812
- ISSN
- 2167-0811 (ISSN-L)
- 2167-082X
- OpenAlex
- W4213059804
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5
- FWCI
- 10.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Digital Journalism (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- news objectivity, algorithmic transparency, nudging, value-sensitive design, editorial authority, editorial independence, journalism and technology
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