Journalism.org Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism

《New Media Old Media》

How Blogs and Social Media Agendas Relate and Differ from the Traditional Press.

News today is increasingly a shared, social experience. Half of Americans say they rely on the people around them to find out at least some of the news they need to know. [1] Some 44% of online news users get news at least a few times a week through emails, automatic updates or posts from social networking sites. In 2009, Twitters monthly audience increased by 200%. [2]

While most original reporting still comes from traditional journalists, technology makes it increasingly possible for the actions of citizens to influence a storys total impact.

What types of news stories do consumers share and discuss the most? What issues do they have less interest in? What is the interplay of the various new media platforms? And how do their agendas compare with that of the mainstream press?

To answer these questions, the Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism has gathered a year of data on the top news stories discussed and linked to on blogs and social media pages and seven months worth on Twitter. We also have analyzed a year of the most viewed news-related videos on YouTube. Several clear trends emerge.

Most broadly, the stories and issues that gain traction in social media differ substantially from those that lead in the mainstream press. But they also differ greatly from each other. Of the 29 weeks that we tracked all three social platforms, blogs, Twitter and YouTube shared the same top story just once. That was the week of June 15-19, when the protests that followed the Iranian elections led on all three.

Each social media platform also seems to have its own personality and function. In the year studied, bloggers gravitated toward stories that elicited emotion, concerned individual or group rights or triggered ideological passion. Often these were stories that people could personalize and then share in the social forum – at times in highly partisan language. And unlike in some other types of media, the partisanship here does not lean strongly to one side or the other. Even on stories like the Tea Party protests, Sarah Palin and public support for Obama both conservative and liberal voices come through strongly.

On Twitter, by contrast, technology is a major focus – with a heavy prominence on Twitter itself – while politics plays a much smaller role. The mission is primarily about passing along important – often breaking – information in a way that unifies or assumes shared values within the Twitter community.And the breaking news that trumped all else across Twitter in 2009 focused on the protests following the Iranian election. It led as the top news story on Twitter for seven weeks in a row – a feat not reached by any other news story on any of the platforms studied.

YouTube has still other characteristics that set it apart. Here, users dont often add comments or additional insights but instead take part by selecting from millions of videos and sharing. Partly as a result, the most watched videos have a strong sense of serendipity. They pique interest and curiosity with a strong visual appeal. The “Hey youve got to see this,” mentality rings strong. Users also gravitate toward a much broader international mix here as videos transcend language barriers in a way that written text cannot.

Across all three social platforms, though, attention spans are brief. Just as news consumers dont stay long on any website, social media doesnt stay long on any one story. On blogs, 53% of the lead stories in a given week stay on the list no more than three days. On Twitter that is true of 72% of lead stories, and more than half (52%) are on the list for just 24 hours.

And most of those top weekly stories differ dramatically from what is receiving attention in the traditional press. Blogs overlap more than Twitter, but even there only about a quarter of the top stories in any given week were the same as in the “MSM.”

Instead, social media tend to home in on stories that get much less attention in the mainstream press. And there is little evidence, at least at this point, of the traditional press then picking up on those stories in response. Across the entire year studied, just one particular story or event – the controversy over emails relating to global research that came to be known as “ Climate-gate ” – became a major item in the blogosphere and then, a week later , gaining more traction in traditional media.

These are some conclusions drawn from one of the first comprehensive empirical assessments of the relationships between social media and the more traditional press.

The study examined the blogosphere and social media by tracking the news linked to on millions of blogs and social media pages tracked by Icerocket and Technorati from January 19, 2009, through January 15, 2010. [3] It also tracked the videos on YouTubes news channel for the same period. It measured Twitter by tracking news stories linked to within tweets as monitored by Tweetmeme from June 15, 2009, through January 15, 2010. [4]

Among the specific findings:

Social media and the mainstream press clearly embrace different agendas. Blogs shared the same lead story with traditional media in just 13 of the 49 weeks studied.Twitter was even less likely to share the traditional media agenda – the lead story matched that of the mainstream press in just four weeks of the 29 weeks studied. On YouTube, the top stories overlapped with traditional media eight out of 49 weeks.

The stories that gain traction in social media do so quickly, often within hours of initial reports, and leave quickly as well.

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

第一部分：外文文献原文

Media Policy Paradigm ShiftsTowards a New Communications Policy Paradigm

The emergence of communications and media policy

The origins of communications policies lie in the interaction between the pursuit of national interests by states and the operations of commercial/ industrial enterprises. Both government and industry have sought mutual advantage by way of privileges, regulations and restrictions. Policies in general refer to conscious (public) projects for achieving some goal, together with the proposed means and time schedule for achieving them. The specific content of government policies reflects the deal made in the particular time and place and the balance of power and advantage between government and industry. At this level of generality, not a great deal has changed, despite the general transition during the 20th century to more democratic forms of government and increasing trends towards globalization. Even so, in the field of media policy there have been significant developments, especially reflecting the changing technologies of communication and the increased importance of communication in lsquo;postindustrialrsquo; societies, which are more often known as lsquo;information societiesrsquo;.

Although for centuries there have been state interventions and regulations relating to transport and travel, for purposes of control, finance or for strategic reasons, it would be anachronistic to speak of communications policies before the series of electronic inventions beginning with the electric telegraph in the mid-19th century. In this article, we identify three main phases of communications policy-making. We may label these consecutive phases as (I) the phase of emerging communications industry policy, (II) the phase of public service media policy, and (III) the phase of a new communications policy paradigm.

The general shape of communications policy

The main elements or factors of policy for media and telecommunications policy, leaving aside the question of changes over time and differences between contexts, consist of: the goals or objectives to be pursued; the values and criteria by which goals are defined or recognized; the variouscontent and communication services to which policy applies; the different distribution services (mainly print publishing, cable, satellite and broadcast dissemination and telecommunications); and finally the appro-priate policy measures and means of implementation (mainly embodied in law, regulation, self-regulation or market practices).

The goal of economic welfare has been subject to changing definitions as far as communication is concerned. Minimum requirements are for infrastructure provisions that allow a national economy to function efficiently in production and market terms. Increasingly, under conditions of an information society, the communication system is an integral part of the economy and forms an important and elaborate market in its own right. Relevant values aside from general ones of efficiency, employment and profitability include those of innovation and interconnection.

This general model of the social communications system viewed according to the perspective of policy-makers is an artificial composite of elements that will not apply to all national cases very well. It is also anachronistic, combining national experiences over a long period during which society and communication technology have been changing considerably. In order to make more sense of the information and interpretations it summarizes, we need to sketch the successive phases of policy-making which have each left their mark on communication systems and still exert an influence on the way the challenges of today are handled. In the description that follows we make an initial distinction between an early stage of emerging policy for media and communications that lasted approximately until the watershed of the Second World War, which opened the way for change in much of the world and also coincided with the rise of television as a major mass medium.

New communication policy:

Policy makers still face many difficulties and unsolved problems. For a country, these main problems: the scope and objectives of the definition of public domain media; economic means, regulation and self-discipline, policy choice; for all areas of the media for consistent principle and regulation framework, how to define and develop the national culture media policy; how to balance the communication freedom and social demand. Policy convergence? Under the influence of science and technology, through the choice of the same objectives, principles and methods applied to a unified regulatory laws and regulations, whether the media policy tends to convergence? This view has been widely supported and can be implemented (for example, the British Communications Act of 2002), but the problem can not be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no' to answer the 25 question. While there are reasons to dilute the boundaries between different media, it is not necessary to use the same regulations for all different media services. Europe is now the trend is: Despite the encouragement of the overall policy thinking, but also to encourage the development of independent state laws and regulations of the country to control the media operations of the public sphere. Currently there are enough reason to ask to have a coherent policy system (especially towards freedom and diversity), but this does not mean that the whole uniform handling of all media content (advertising, art, news, sex, etc.). Because the media content and the audience are obviously different. So it is possible and necessary to use different regulations for different purposes. Public freedom of communication is still very important, and should not allow any single institution to put too much pressure on a certain mode of transmission

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[147517]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word