The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Towards a sociology of computational and algorithmic journalism
Abstract
This article advances a sociological approach to computational journalism. By “computational journalism” the article refers to the increasingly ubiquitous forms of algorithmic, social scientific, and mathematical forms of newswork adopted by many 21st-century newsrooms and touted by many educational institutions as “the future of news.” By “sociological approach,” the article endorses a research model that brackets, at least temporarily, many of the current industry concerns with the practical usability of newsroom analysis. The bulk of the article outlines a series of six lenses through which such an approach to computational journalism might be carried out. Four of these lenses are drawn from Schudson’s classic typology of the sociology of news—economic, political, cultural, and organizational approaches. In addition, the author adds Bordieuean field approaches and technological lenses to the mix. In each instance, the author discusses how particular approaches might need to be modified in order to study computational journalism in the digital age.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cited by
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444816676645 · Cited by 1,836
If...Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics
Bucher, T. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190493028.001.0001 · Cited by 1,223
Algorithmic Accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures
Diakopoulos, N. (2015) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.976411 · Cited by 733
Carlson, M. (2015) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.976412 · Cited by 542
Dealing with digital intermediaries: A case study of the relations between publishers and platforms
Kleis Nielsen, R., & Ganter, S. A. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817701318 · Cited by 522
To be or not to be algorithm aware: a question of a new digital divide?
Gran, A.-B., Booth, P., & Bucher, T. (2021) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1736124 · Cited by 410
Enter the Robot Journalist: Users' perceptions of automated content
Clerwall, C. (2014) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2014.883116 · Cited by 377
Readers’ perception of computer-generated news: Credibility, expertise, and readability
Graefe, A., Haim, M., Haarmann, B., & Brosius, H.-B. (2018) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884916641269 · Cited by 315
“Gaming the System”: Platform Paternalism and the Politics of Algorithmic Visibility
Petre, C., Duffy, B. E., & Hund, E. (2019) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305119879995 · Cited by 225
Montal, T., & Reich, Z. (2017) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2016.1209083 · Cited by 208
True or False: Studying the Work Practices of Professional Fact-Checkers
Micallef, N., Armacost, V., Memon, N., & Patil, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512974 · Cited by 70
Schaetz, N., & Schjøtt, A. (2026) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2024.2443163 · Cited by 17
Camaj, L., Lanosga, G., & Martin, J. (2025) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2023.2278040 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, C.
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-12-10
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1005-1021
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2129622505
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.18
- 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.