This document summarizes findings from a case study of audience participation at the German public television news program Tagesschau. Through interviews and surveys of journalists and viewers, it examined expectations and practices of inclusion. It found that while journalists saw their role as objective reporting, viewers wanted more opportunity for discussion. Participatory features were not heavily used but provided ways for viewers to express opinions, correct errors, and engage in knowledge sharing. The main motivations for audience participation were to discuss important topics, state opinions, expand knowledge through interaction, and move beyond a passive viewer role.

1. Public participation in TV news
Expectations and practices of audience inclusion at the “Tagesschau”
Nele Heise, Julius Reimer
Hans-Bredow-Institute for Media Research
Course: “Journalism and its audience” (Loosen/Pater)
IJK @ University of Hamburg – January 08, 2013

2. Outline
1. Audience participation as inclusion: the #jpub20-project
2. Case study “Tagesschau”: methodology and findings
3. Conclusion

3. Studying the relation of journalism and audience
• “Audience” is constitutive for journalism – practically and normatively
• Under mass-media conditions the audience has played a rather subordinate
role in everyday newsroom routines
• Under social-media conditions, audience activities become more visible for
journalists (e.g. UGC, user feedback), thus contributing to shifting/blurring
boundaries (1)
(1) e.g. Bruns 2005, 2008; Robinson 2010; Lewis 2012

4. Studying the relation of journalism and audience
• “Audience” is constitutive for journalism – practically and normatively
• Under mass-media conditions the audience has played a rather subordinate
role in everyday newsroom routines
• Under social-media conditions, audience activities become more visible for
journalists (e.g. UGC, user feedback), thus contributing to shifting/blurring
boundaries (1)
• But: How to assess the relationship between journalism and audience?
• Approach of “jpub20”-Project: conceptualizing relationship as “inclusion” (2)
• Six case studies of different newsrooms (TV/Online and Print/Online) in Germany
• Combination of methods: in‐depth interviews, standardized online surveys content analyses
• Aim: analyze inclusion performances and expectations towards audience inclusion among
journalists as well as audience members
(1) e.g. Bruns 2005, 2008; Robinson 2010; Lewis 2012
(2) Loosen/Schmidt 2012

5. Audience inclusion in journalism
Journalism Audience
Inclusion Performance Inclusion Performance
Features of audience participation
Participatory practices
Work processes/routines
Degree of community orientation
Journalistic products/output
Inclusion Expectations Inclusion Expectations
Journalistic role perception
Motivations for participation
Images of the audience
Assessment of audience
Strategic rationales contributions
Source: Loosen/Schmidt 2012: 874

6. Audience inclusion in journalism
Journalism Audience
Inclusion Performance Inclusion Performance
Features of audience participation
Participatory practices
Work processes/routines Inclusion Level
Degree of community orientation
Journalistic products/output
Inclusion Expectations Inclusion Expectations
Journalistic role perception
Motivations for participation
Images of the audience Inclusion Distance
Assessment of audience
Strategic rationales contributions
Source: Loosen/Schmidt 2012: 874

7. Introducing the “Tagesschau”
– On air since 1953; produced by “ARD
Aktuell” (Public Service Broadcast)
– Up to 23 newscasts a day
– Most popular evening newscast in Germany
(on avg. 10 Mio viewers; 33% market share)
– 1996: website “tagesschau.de” starts

8. Participatory (online) features at the “Tagesschau”
tagesschau.de

9. Participatory (online) features at the “Tagesschau”
tagesschau.de Meta

10. Participatory (online) features at the “Tagesschau”
tagesschau.de Meta Blog

11. Participatory (online) features at the “Tagesschau”
tagesschau.de Meta Blog Facebook

12. Participatory (online) features at the “Tagesschau”
tagesschau.de Meta Twitter Blog YouTube Facebook Google+

13. Case study “Tagesschau”
In-depth interviews Standardized online survey Content Analyses
Journalists n=10 n=63 Participatory features of the
Chief editors TV / Online out of 130 people in editorial website & Social Media
2x Managing Editor TV staff (TV und Online) accounts
2x Managing Editor Online
2x Social Media Editor Integration of audience & UGC
2x ‚Multi Media Assistant‘ in eight 8pm-newscast
[Community manager]
350 comments on the
Audience n=6 n=4.686
platforms Meta, Facebook and
(varying degrees of engagement) Random sample of
the Tagesschau-Blog
tagesschau.de users (every
500th-visitor)

14. Findings (I):
Journalistic functions and role conceptions

15. What journalists want to (and what they should) do
Journalists Users ∆
What are your personal goals in your profession? / “Tagesschau” journalists should…
(n=60-63) (n=4.570-4.636) (MJ-Mu)
present my/their own opinion(s) to the audience/to the public 1.82 2.94 -1.12
get into conversation about current events 2.36 3.15 -0.79
provide people with opportunity to publish their own content 1.69 2.45 -0.76
concentrate on news that is interesting to an audience as wide as possible 3.64 2.89 0.75
give audience opportunity to express opinion on topics of public interest 2.55 3.16 -0.61
inform the audience as fast as possible 4.72 4.24 0.48
criticize problems and grievances 3.87 4.32 -0.45
control politics, business and society 2.90 3.28 -0.38
share positive ideals 2.69 3.05 -0.36
build/maintain relationship with audience 2.43 2.75 -0.32
encourage/moderate discussion among audience 2.69 3.00 -0.31
provide useful information for the audience and act as advisor / guidance 2.68 2.41 0.27
point to interesting topics and further information 3.97 4.24 -0.27
provide audience with opportunity to maintain ties among themselves 1.57 1.84 -0.27
explain and convey complex issues 4.85 4.68 0.17
give the audience topics to talk about 3.35 3.23 0.12
provide entertainment and relaxation 2.02 2.11 -0.09
inform as objectively and precisely as possible 4.77 4.80 -0.03
show new trends and highlight new ideas 3.39 3.38 0.01
5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

16. What journalists want to (and what they should) do
Journalists Users ∆
What are your personal goals in your profession? / “Tagesschau” journalists should…
(n=60-63) (n=4.570-4.636) (MJ-Mu)
present my/their own opinion(s) to the audience/to the public 1.82 2.94 -1.12
get into conversation about current events 2.36 3.15 -0.79
provide people with opportunity to publish their own content 1.69 2.45 -0.76
concentrate on news that is interesting to an audience as wide as possible 3.64 2.89 0.75
give audience opportunity to express opinion on topics of public interest 2.55 3.16 -0.61
inform the audience as fast as possible 4.72 4.24 0.48
criticize problems and grievances 3.87 4.32 -0.45
control politics, business and society 2.90 3.28 -0.38
share positive ideals 2.69 3.05 -0.36
build/maintain relationship with audience 2.43 2.75 -0.32
encourage/moderate discussion among audience 2.69 3.00 -0.31
provide useful information for the audience and act as advisor / guidance 2.68 2.41 0.27
point to interesting topics and further information 3.97 4.24 -0.27
provide audience with opportunity to maintain ties among themselves 1.57 1.84 -0.27
explain and convey complex issues 4.85 4.68 0.17
give the audience topics to talk about 3.35 3.23 0.12
provide entertainment and relaxation 2.02 2.11 -0.09
inform as objectively and precisely as possible 4.77 4.80 -0.03
show new trends and highlight new ideas 3.39 3.38 0.01
5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

17. What journalists want to (and what they should) do
Journalists Users ∆
What are your personal goals in your profession? / “Tagesschau” journalists should…
(n=60-63) (n=4.570-4.636) (MJ-Mu)
present my/their own opinion(s) to the audience/to the public 1.82 2.94 -1.12
get into conversation about current events 2.36 3.15 -0.79
provide people with opportunity to publish their own content 1.69 2.45 -0.76
concentrate on news that is interesting to an audience as wide as possible 3.64 2.89 0.75
give audience opportunity to express opinion on topics of public interest 2.55 3.16 -0.61
inform the audience as fast as possible 4.72 4.24 0.48
criticize problems and grievances 3.87 4.32 -0.45
control politics, business and society 2.90 3.28 -0.38
share positive ideals 2.69 3.05 -0.36
build/maintain relationship with audience 2.43 2.75 -0.32
encourage/moderate discussion among audience 2.69 3.00 -0.31
provide useful information for the audience and act as advisor / guidance 2.68 2.41 0.27
point to interesting topics and further information 3.97 4.24 -0.27
provide audience with opportunity to maintain ties among themselves 1.57 1.84 -0.27
explain and convey complex issues 4.85 4.68 0.17
give the audience topics to talk about 3.35 3.23 0.12
provide entertainment and relaxation 2.02 2.11 -0.09
inform as objectively and precisely as possible 4.77 4.80 -0.03
show new trends and highlight new ideas 3.39 3.38 0.01
5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

18. What journalists want to (and what they should) do
Journalists Users ∆
What are your personal goals in your profession? / “Tagesschau” journalists should…
(n=60-63) (n=4.570-4.636) (MJ-Mu)
present my/their own opinion(s) to the audience/to the public 1.82 2.94 -1.12
get into conversation about current events 2.36 3.15 -0.79
provide people with opportunity to publish their own content 1.69 2.45 -0.76
concentrate on news that is interesting to an audience as wide as possible 3.64 2.89 0.75
give audience opportunity to express opinion on topics of public interest 2.55 3.16 -0.61
inform the audience as fast as possible 4.72 4.24 0.48
criticize problems and grievances 3.87 4.32 -0.45
control politics, business and society 2.90 3.28 -0.38
share positive ideals 2.69 3.05 -0.36
build/maintain relationship with audience 2.43 2.75 -0.32
encourage/moderate discussion among audience 2.69 3.00 -0.31
provide useful information for the audience and act as advisor / guidance 2.68 2.41 0.27
point to interesting topics and further information 3.97 4.24 -0.27
provide audience with opportunity to maintain ties among themselves 1.57 1.84 -0.27
explain and convey complex issues 4.85 4.68 0.17
give the audience topics to talk about 3.35 3.23 0.12
provide entertainment and relaxation 2.02 2.11 -0.09
inform as objectively and precisely as possible 4.77 4.80 -0.03
show new trends and highlight new ideas 3.39 3.38 0.01
5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Do not agree at all” to 5 = ”Do agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)
• Journalistic role conceptions and expectations of the users towards journalistic
functions of the “Tagesschau” are, by and large, congruent

19. Findings (II):
Participatory practices

20. Participatory features: use and frequency of use
• 19 % of the respondents have sent letters, e-mails or faxes to the “Tagesschau”
(mainly to criticize reporting or to correct errors), but very unregularly
tagesschau.de Facebook Google+
All respondents Facebook users only Google+ users only
(n= 4.543-4.686) (n=334; 7.2 % of all resp.) (n=184; 4 % of all resp.)
Commenting news
Meta: 26.0 % 34.4 % 15.2 %
Blog: 4.7 %
Rating news
Meta: 12.9 % 50.0 % 17.9 %
Recommending news
Meta: 17.8 % 46.1 % 17.4 %
• On average, participatory features are not used regularly, i.e. several times a month
or less often; the respondents also prefer types of participation with a lower effort
(such as “liking” or “sharing” articles)
• But: 49.3 % of all respondents have never been active at all

21. Findings (III):
Motivations for participation

22. User‘s motivations for participation
• Rated by active users of Audience Mail (n=38), Meta (n=390), Blog (n=45)
and Facebook (n=41); accordingly, the main reasons are:
• “to propose a topic that is important to me”
• “to state my opinion publicly”
• “to expand my knowledge by interacting with journalists and other users”
• “to leave the passive viewer’s role”
• “to correct errors” (mainly Audience Mail)
• “because it is fun” (mainly Facebook)
• Motivations to participate slightly vary between the four
channels, especially Audience Mail (as a non-public format) and Facebook
(an external platform)
• But: the three motivations with the lowest agreement are similar, i.e. the
respondents consensually disagreed to participate
• “out of boredom“
• “to build a relationship with the editors”
• “to get to know interesting people and to make new contacts”

23. (Assumed) reasons for participation
Journalists Meta Audience Mail Difference
Motivation (n=63) (n=390) (n=38) (MWJ-MWu)
vent anger/frustration, “blow off steam” 3.94 2.24 2.19 1.70 / 1.75
expanding knowledge 2.49 3.94 3.39 -1.45 / -0.90
self-expression and self-display 3.73 2.32 2.06 1.41 / 1.67
…
leave the passive viewer’s role 3.60 3.75 3.51 -0.15 / 0.09
state opinions publicly 4.19 4.15 3.30 0.04 / 0.89
share knowledge and experiences 3.66 3.77 3.40 - 0.11 / 0.26
• Journalists agree more strongly to „self-centered“, affective motivations and underestimate
the relevance of knowledge expansion
• Both sides are congruent regarding the aspects of sharing knowledge and experiences with
others as well as stating opinions publicly
5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”Disagree completely” to 5 = ”agree completely”; 6 = ”Don’t know / Can’t say” (excluded for calculation of mean)

24. Findings (IV):
Reasons for not being active

25. Reasons for non-participation
• almost half of the user sample (49.3 %) has never been active
Top 5 reasons (n=2.249) M SD
because I don‘t want to register. 3.48 1.44
because it is too time-consuming / too much effort. 3.09 1.36
because it‘s no fun. 2.91 1.39
because the quality of the discussion is too low. 2.81 1.35
because the “Tagesschau” is not the right medium for audience participation 2.75 1.44
5-point-Likert-scale with 1 = ”disagree completely” to 5 = ”agree completely”
• differences between the respondents refer to two influential variables
Age Formal Education
younger than 38: low discussion quality; prefer other No high school grad.: technical problems; legal
channels for participation uncertainty; lack of courage
38 and older: technical problems; functions are too
High school grad:. low discussion quality
complicated; fear of not being taken seriously

26. Findings (V):
Expectations towards participatory features

27. (Assumed) importance of participatory functions
MJ MU
How important are the following aspects to your audience/to you? ∆ (MJ-Mu)
(n=57-59) (n=4.641-4.667)
to be able to interact and/or make contact with other viewers/users (and exchange opinions) 3.29 2.34 0.95
To have editorial staff introduced to them/me 2.14 3.03 -0.89
To be taken seriously by journalists 4.42 3.61 0.82
To get additional information on sources of reporting 3.39 4.16 -0.77
To publicly show their/my attachment to the Tagesschau 2.57 1.87 0.71
To discuss the topics of news reporting 3.76 3.28 0.48
To be able to contact/discuss with editorial staff directly 2.91 3.37 -0.46
To make transparent which stories are viewed /commented by many other people 3.05 2.6 0.45
To be able to comment/rate news reporting 3.83 3.4 0.43
To be able to suggest topics for reporting 2.91 3.29 -0.38
To be able to forward / recommend news 3.48 3.19 0.29
To get information on editorial routines/practices 2.95 3.18 -0.23
To have a platform for discussing practices and quality of news reporting 3.41 3.63 -0.22
To be able to provide own material (text, pictures, videos) for news reporting 2.58 2.45 0.13
To have editors be present and responsive (on social media) 3.62 3.52 0.10
• Journalists overestimate the audience‘s desire for contact and exchange among each
other, and to be taken seriously by the journalists
• Journalists underestimate the audience‘s desire for transparency (actors, sources)

28. Conclusion
• Our case study “Tagesschau” has shown that …
• … with the introduction of new participatory features also new journalistic tasks and
functions emerge
• e.g. Social Media Editors and Multi Media Assistants as “filters” of audience material and
feedback as well as community managers
• … by and large, professional self image and assessment by the audience are
congruent
• dominating (self) image of the fast and neutral disseminator and explainer of news
• some incongruencies regarding participatory aspects of the “Tagesschau”
• … the active audience engages in participatory practices with lower effort and not
very regularly
• … motivations for user participation are viewed differently
• aspect of “stating opinion publicly” is acknowledged by both
• but notable incongruence: journalists assume “self-centered” and affective motivations for
participation, while active audience highlights knowledge exchange
• Non-active users and lurkers mainly do not want to register or spend time for
participation, but: they also appreciate audience participation as entertaining and
helpful in regard with knowledge expansion and opinion formation/reassurance

29. Conclusion
• Audience‘s desire for transparency is underestimated by the journalists …
• regarding journalistic routines, sources and additional information about issues
• regarding actors: Who are the people behind the news?
• regarding audience feedback: What happens with user contributions, comments etc. inside
the editorial departments?
• Audience participation fosters journalistic self reflection:
• What degree of participation is consistent with the “Tagesschau” as a journalistic
product/brand, and with its journalistic self-image?
• Are contributions of the few active audience members representative for the whole audience
of the “Tagesschau”?
• “What is it good for?”
• Higher visibility of the audience, (perceived) “smaller” distance between audience and
journalists but still few direct and public forms of interaction with the users
• Instead, new means of participation are seen as additional tasks and sometimes as a
“problem” which has to be managed
• Audience contributions are appreciated as an additional “source” (UGC), comments on errors
in reporting are perceived as helpful. But: What else is it good for?

30. Thank you!
Nele Heise & Julius Reimer
Hans-Bredow-Institut
Warburgstr. 8-10, 20354 Hamburg
{n.heise;j.reimer}@hans-bredow-institut.de
www.hans-bredow-institut.de
jpub20.hans-bredow-institut.de
@jpub20team

31. Bibliography
• Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching. Collaborative Online News Production. New York: Peter Lang.
• Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond. From production to produsage. New
York: Peter Lang.
• Lewis, S. C. (2012). The tension between professional control and open participation: Journalism
and its boundaries. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 836–866.
• Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). (Re-)Discovering the audience: The relationship between
journalism and audience in networked digital media. Information, Communication &
Society, 15(6), 867–887.
• Robinson, S. (2010). Traditionalists vs. Convergers: Textual Privilege, Boundary Work, and the
Journalist-Audience Relationship in the Commenting Policies of Online News Sites. Convergence:
The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(1), 125–143.
• Schmidt, J-H., Loosen, W., Heise, N., & Reimer, J. (2012). Journalism and participatory practices –
Blurring or reinforcement of boundaries between journalism and audiences? . Pre-conference
Paper, „Towards Neo-Journalism? Redefining, Extending or Reconfiguring a Profession”, 3./4.
October 2012, Brussels