## News criteria on social media Comparing news media use of Facebook and Twitter 1

## BY JAKOB LINAA JENSEN

## Introduction

The supply of news is larger than ever. However, traditional mass media are no longer in a privileged position as the exclusive gatekeepers of news; they face competition from alternative media, organizations and citizens who can produce and distribute  news  instantly  through  websites,  blogs  and  social  media. Furthermore,  a  significant  share  of  news  consumption  is  now based on links and stories appearing in users' social media newsfeed. Every week, 56 percent of Danish citizens get news through social media that have become a major battleground for attention, clicks, viewers and readers (Schrøder et al. 2018). If traditional media are to retain attention and audience they have to play by social media logics.

This  article  identifies  and  compares  news  criteria  of  social media posts shared on 25 Danish Twitter accounts and 25 Danish Facebook pages, representing exactly the same 25 news media actors.  Hereby  I  investigate  the  criteria  by  which  media  frame their stories shared through social media and compare different uses and strategies on Facebook and Twitter.

## The outline

In the following, I will start by discussing the concepts of news values and news criteria. Next, I will address existing studies on news criteria in general and of social media in particular. In the methods section I will establish a framework for comparing news criteria of posts shared by Danish news media through Facebook and Twitter. The analysis starts by a quantitative analysis of the Twitter accounts and Facebook pages: how much do the different media outlets post on the respective platforms? The second part of the analysis focuses on news criteria identified in media posts on the two platforms. Finally, I will reflect on similarities and  differences  and  relate  them  to  current  debates  on  social media and journalism.

## News criteria of traditional and social media

Every  day,  when  journalists  choose  what  to  write,  publish or  broadcast  they  can  select  from  an  almost  infinite  number of  topics  and  events.  News  production  takes  place  in  a  social context and journalists and editors are bound by certain social and cultural constraints in their news selection and production (Schudson 1989). The mechanisms by which topics, problems and events become news have been described by concepts like newsworthiness  (Epstein  1973)  and  news  values  (Gans  1979). The concept newsworthiness is often associated with Galtung & Ruge (1965) and their study of news coverage of three international conflicts in four Norwegian newspapers.

Despite the works' classical status in news research, it has been criticized on several points: Hjarvard (1995) points out that the work is too focused on distinct events and their ability to become news whereas most potential news stories are harder to delimit and  define.  Furthermore,  Harcup  &  o'Neill  (2001)  revisit  the original work by Galtung & Ruge and criticize that it addresses only newspapers and that their focus on foreign policy conflicts is  too  narrow  to  establish  general  news  criteria.  Studying  the news in three major national newspapers in the UK they refine and develop the news criteria for a more contemporary context. Among the new conclusions, they identify the rise of celebrity and entertainment as independent news values.

As Ryan (1991) says, there is no final definition of news criteria. Rather, they are analytical tools, used by researchers to describe how issues become news. As analytical tools news criteria might become self-fulfilling prophecies as journalists and editors study them and incorporate the ideas in their editorial processes. An example is the five criteria  (timeliness,  sensation,  importance, identification and conflict) that were defined in a Danish context by Asmussen & Meilby (1977) and Kramhøft (2000). Based on a reading of international research they are a kind of a 'cookbook' for journalists and have been taught to Danish journalism students for decades. Furthermore, they have a dominant position in Danish news and journalism and have been employed in earlier research, making them a useful backbone for the present analysis. For instance, Schultz (2007) has tested the criteria in an ethnographic study of TV news by Danish broadcaster DR. She identifies the five criteria as still relevant but adds three more: good pictures, simplicity and liveness (ibid. p. 63). Also, she identifies a dominant news value of exclusivity: TV wants to be first (and alone) with the stories. Taking the analysis further to netbased news, Hartley (2013) in an ethnographic study of 35 Danish online journalists also finds exclusivity to be of paramount importance in a net-based world.

Recently, some scholarly focus has turned to news criteria of stories disseminated through social media. Theoretically, Rainie & Wellman (2014:214) claim that stories spread through social media  might  be  framed  differently  than  stories  in  traditional media.  Emotions  and  sensations  rather  than  facts  dominate because  social  media  have  'different  subjects,  different  narrative  sensibility  and  different  pathways  to  capture  the  attention' (ibid.). Furthermore, when news selection and reading are increasingly based on popularity, 'likes' and 'shares' rather than traditional editorial filters, the spectacular, the entertaining, the personal or the conflicting  might  come  to  dominate  the  news cycle (Meyer et al. 2010).

Empirical  studies  of  social  media  sharing  patterns  among users  support  such  hypotheses.  Boczkowski  &  Mitchelstein (2012) demonstrate that controversial news with a conflict frame is likely to be the most shared during election times. Hamdy & Gomaa (2012) in their study of the role of social media in the Egyptian uprising in 2011 find that identification, or what they call 'the human interest frame', is dominant.

Traditional  media  have  actively  tried  to  adjust  to  the  new social media circumstances. For almost a decade, media companies have employed social media editors, not only for sourcing news from social media (Gleason 2010) but more importantly for  using  social  media  as  an  alternative  distribution  channel (Kalsnes & Larsson 2017). These social media editors have often been  accused  of  being  too  focused  on  likes  and  shares  rather than  journalistic  content.  For  instance,  Hille  &  Bakker  (2013) have shown that Dutch media do not seem to have a journalistic strategy for dissemination through social media. Rather, their practice is based on 'audience distribution'. Other studies have demonstrated how celebrity (Ekman & Widholm 2014) and sensationalism (Kilgo et al. 2016; Highfield 2017) become dominant features  of  news  stories  shared  through  social  media.  Harcup & o'Neill (2016) in a follow-up of their earlier study update the news criteria, including electronic as well as social media, and add exclusivity, conflict, drama, audiovisuals and 'shareability' as news criteria. They find that bad news, surprise and entertainment are the most identified criteria in electronic media.

There are only a few studies specifically comparing Facebook and Twitter even though one might expect different patterns and strategies for news sharing as the two platforms differ in architecture,  purpose  and  user  demography  (Bossetta  et  al.  2017). Among existing works, Larsson & Christensen (2017) in a study on  Swedish  Television's  use  of  social  media  during  a  national election find that Twitter is used more extensively and in a more interactive fashion than Facebook, like a second screen. Anderson and Caumont (2014) find that contrary to Facebook, Twitter is widely used for 'breaking news'. Kalsnes & Larsson (2017) in a Norwegian study find that news sharing through Twitter tends to be dominated by social 'hard news' like economy, national and foreign policy whereas Facebook is more focused on 'soft news', for instance sports, gossip and entertainment.

However, none of these interesting studies focus specifically on the possible difference in news criteria used on Facebook and Twitter, respectively. This article aims at filling that research gap, using Danish news media as a case. The specific method will be described below.

## Methodology

As mentioned, the aim of the study is to compare news criteria identified in social media posts shared by Danish media on Facebook and Twitter. Sometimes, the posts are unique stories, but most often, as we shall see, the media use Facebook and Twitter to link to existing stories on their web sites or elsewhere. No matter what, the focus here is on news criteria employed in the social media posts rather than in the linked stories. The main target is to identify differences between Facebook and Twitter although social  media  criteria  are  also  discussed,  compared  to  existing knowledge on news criteria.

As  a  methodological  frame  for  the  comparative  approach I  developed what I call the Danish Twitter News Index and the Danish  Facebook  News  Index.  The  names  and  the  research design are inspired by a similar project in Australia, ATNIX, the Australian Twitter News Index (see for instance Bruns et al. 2011). This project identifies the main media actors in the Australian Twittersphere and the kind of stories they share. Where the Australian project relied on URLs distributed through social media posts this project focuses on the content of tweets and Facebook posts. Even though most tweets and posts link to articles, photos or videos from the media's own websites, a number of stories have no links. Such stories are not included by the Australian approach which is also limited to Twitter only.

The Facebook and Twitter news indexes are developed based on identical methods and include the same media to allow for maximum comparison. The initial sample included all daily and some relevant weekly nationwide news media, written, visual or internet-based, covering relevant political and societal agendas. Media dedicated strictly or mainly to sports, lifestyle journalism, music and gossip were excluded. Some media, for instance the large public-service broadcasters DR and TV 2 and major newspapers  have  divided  their  social  media  presence  into  several pages or accounts, representing different TV channels or topic areas. Thus, the same medium, for instance DR, may have several Facebook pages and Twitter accounts included in the final sample that consisted of 51 Facebook pages and 49 Twitter accounts.

Furthermore, for comparison purposes, Facebook pages should correspond to Twitter accounts, otherwise the account or page was excluded from the sample. Finally, if a page or account had no or very low activity, it was excluded. In the end, the sample  consisted  of  25  corresponding Twitter  accounts  and  Facebook pages spanning across a period of three months, December 2014 - February 2015. The period was selected to avoid any major planned events like elections or referendums and to exclude the summer holiday.

The tweets were harvested by DMI TCAT, a tool developed by the  Digital  Methods  Initiative  at  the  University  of  Amsterdam (https://www.digitalmethods.net).  The  Facebook  pages  were harvested  by  Digital  Footprints,  developed  by  researchers  at Aarhus University (www.digitalfootprints.dk).

The  different  nature  and  architecture  of  Twitter  and  Facebook is also apparent when it comes to data retrieval. Where it was straightforward to get all Facebook posts from the 25 media pages, it was a bit unclear what tweets to include. Being a study of media distribution rather than user sharing, user comments were not included in the Facebook sample.

One might argue that the analysis is skewed as the procedure includes a lot more tweets than Facebook posts, 70.045 tweets versus 15.999 posts. However, Twitter in Denmark is still small compared to Facebook: when including user interaction in the analysis, Facebook will generate much more activity. The 15.999 Facebook posts generated more than 2.000.000 comments. The corresponding  figure  when  including  the  Twitter  equivalents, retweets and comments, is around 230.000. This is not surprising as Facebook has 3,5 million monthly users in Denmark, versus  457.000  on  Twitter  (https://www.socialemedier.dk/socialemedier-2016-i-danmark).  However,  I  will  still  argue  that  my approach  is  the  best  possible  solution  for  a  comparison.  The choice  highlights  that  comparative  analyses  of  different  social media platforms often pose such challenges (Linaa Jensen 2017). I will return to the possible implications in the conclusion.

As the total number of tweets and posts is very high and in order to make similar samples, 3.000 tweets and 3.000 posts were selected, based on random sampling distributed with even numbers of tweets and posts from each of the three months. I ana- lyzed the tweets and posts as they appeared on the social media platforms.  However,  some  posts  and  tweets  appeared  unclear or ambivalent and it was necessary to follow the link and read the main story, or to explore the context a bit further. Thus, even though the coding process focused on the manifest content on Facebook and Twitter, sometimes further information had to be included to allow for a consistent coding.

For the coding, I focused on the five news criteria discussed above:  timeliness,  sensation,  importance,  identification  and conflict. The criteria have been taught to generations of Danish journalists and used as a framework in several qualitative studies,  for  instance  Schultz  (2006)  as  discussed  above.  However,  I was surprised to learn that there have been no systematic, quantitative studies employing the criteria. Arguments might be that they are context dependent, difficult to code or broad and fluffy and unlikely  to  make  sense. Therefore,  it  was  an  independent methodological challenge to apply them to a quantitative content analysis framework. As a student assistant was hired for the coding process it was necessary that both she and I had a profound and similar understanding of the meaning of the criteria. We understood them as follows, based on a reading of Asmussen and Meilby (1977) and Kramhøft (2000) and on the applied use by Schultz (2006):

Timeliness: We find that the story focuses on a contemporary topic taking place at the time of writing.

Sensation: We find that the story addresses something spectacular or surprising, something unexpected like 'man bites dog' or 'single mother wins in the lottery'.

Importance: This is a problematic category as there may be different  conceptions  of  importance  for  different  journalists  and audiences. By importance we mean that the story claims to be relevant,  either  to  the  intended  reader  or  society  in  general.  It can address central political issues, significant events or topics relevant in the daily lives of the audience.

Identification: We find that the story addresses the reader by a personal angle, either addressing him or her, or portraying someone they can identify with, a countryman or someone in a similar situation. For instance, it could be stories like 'Are you ready to vote?' or 'No Danes among the dead in China earthquake'.

Conflict: We find  that  the  story  highlights  a  conflict  between people  or  institutions,  addresses  or  frames  a  problem  taking place right now or in the future, or in other ways portrays something that 'ought to be solved'. The criterion is typically found in coverage of controversial topics like immigration or crime or in political news using the horserace frame, for instance opposition vs government.

We coded the tweets and posts two times: First, we identified and coded every single news criterion we could identify. It could be from zero to all five. Next, we coded the 'dominant' criterion, the most important one in the story. If there was any doubt about the latter, the story was not coded. The coding scheme is shown in table 1.

Table 1. Overview of codes in the content analysis.

<!-- image -->

| News criterion          | Timeliness     |
|-------------------------|----------------|
| News criterion          | Sensation      |
| News criterion          | Relevance      |
| News criterion          | Identification |
| News criterion          | Conflict       |
| Dominant news criterion | Timeliness     |
| Dominant news criterion | Sensation      |
| Dominant news criterion | Relevance      |
| Dominant news criterion | Identification |
| Dominant news criterion | Conflict       |

Even though the research assistant ended up doing the entire coding, the author initially coded 300 stories as a pilot test, both to ensure validity of criteria and to establish inter-coder reliability. After two iterations, inter-coder reliability, measured by Krippendorf's Alpha, reached a level of 0,95 and was deemed satisfactory. Even though we are confident about the quality of the coding, one must remember that criteria are not objective features and must be seen as something identified by the researcher, based on the best possible understanding of the text.

## The analysis part I - overall activity of Twitter and Facebook

The  analysis  includes  25  Facebook  pages  and  25  Twitter accounts over three months, December 2014 - February 2015. Among  the  media  included  there  are  ten  newspapers:  three tabloid newspapers, four traditional broadsheets, one business paper and one Christian inspired paper. Finally, there is a small socialist paper published three times a week but with daily online editions. There are two weekly papers, both long-standing political magazines frequently quoted in other media, too. Six pages and accounts originate from TV stations, three from each of the public-service broadcasters, DR (paid through license fees) and TV 2 (paid through commercials). Some pages belong to an entire channel, some to a specific (relevant) program. Three accounts belong to radio stations, two to DR and one to the commercial public-service broadcaster Radio 24-7. Finally, some pages and accounts belong to various web media.

In  table  2  (below)  I  summarize  the  activity  of  the  25  Twitter accounts and Facebook pages. They have been divided into different categories, making it possible to compare across electronic and written media and new and old media types. The table shows the respective media and media types and their share of all Facebook posts and tweets, respectively. In general, daily papers and web media are most active on Facebook whereas radio and TV media are most active on Twitter. Further details reveal differences within the media types. Among the daily newspapers, tabloids are more 'Facebook media' than broadsheets. This may not come as a surprise since large tabloids like Ekstra Bladet and Facebook generate lively debates among Facebook followers and deliberately boost such debates.

|                                    |   Tweets |   Facebook posts |
|------------------------------------|----------|------------------|
| Daily papers                       |     31.4 |             53.4 |
| Berlingske (broadsheet)            |      0.3 |              8.0 |
| BT (tabloid)                       |      7.8 |              8.9 |
| Børsen (business broadsheet)       |      0.6 |              2.0 |
| Arbejderen (socialist niche paper) |      1.9 |               .2 |

Table 2. Comparison of Twitter accounts and Facebook posts for the 25 media.

| Information (broadsheet)                  |   0.4 |   1.7 |
|-------------------------------------------|-------|-------|
| Ekstra Bladet (tabloid)                   |   3.5 |   9.4 |
| Jyllands-Posten (broadsheet)              |   8.9 |   5.9 |
| Kristeligt Dagblad (Christian broadsheet) |   1.5 |   3.0 |
| Metroxpress (tabloid, free)               |   1.5 |   7.3 |
| Politiken (broadsheet)                    |   5.0 |   7.0 |
| Weekly magazines                          |   1.7 |   1.2 |
| Mandag Morgen (political analysis)        |   1.3 |    .8 |
| Ugebrevet A4 (political analysis)         |   0.4 |   0.4 |
| TV stations                               |  32.5 |  23.7 |
| DR Nyheder (DR news profile)              |   4.4 |   8.9 |
| DR2 (TV channel)                          |   4.6 |   1.4 |
| DR Debatten (political magazine)          |   9.4 |   0.4 |
| TV 2 NEWS (news channel)                  |   2.6 |   9.8 |
| TV 2 Politik (TV 2 political profile)     |  10.2 |   2.9 |
| TV 2 Udland (TV 2 foreign profile news)   |   1.3 |    .3 |
| Radio stations                            |  23.7 |   4.6 |
| DR P1                                     |   4.2 |   3.1 |
| DR P3                                     |  17.6 |    .6 |
| Radio24syv (commercial, public service)   |   1.9 |    .9 |
| Web media                                 |  10.8 |  17.1 |
| Altinget (political analysis)             |   2.2 |   1.2 |
| Dagens.dk (online tabloid)                |   3.1 |   8.8 |
| Den Korte Avis (right-wing)               |   1.3 |   5.5 |
| Politiko (online political magazine)      |   4.2 |   1.6 |
| N                                         | 73337 | 15999 |

The figures show the relative percentage of all tweets or posts.

Among the TV pages and profiles the picture is more blurred. Twitter profiles belonging to specific shows or programs are more active  than  their  Facebook  counterparts.  Often  there  is  lively tweeting, for instance during a televised debate in 'DR Debatten', accounting for 1 of ten of all tweets. On the other hand, TV 2 is also very active on Twitter with their profile 'TV 2 Politik', a general station profile for political news. The Facebook page of TV 2 News is much more active than its Twitter twin. The chan- nel uses Facebook mainly for linking and click-baiting to news stories on the screen or on their website.

The biggest difference between Facebook and Twitter is found among the radio stations. DR P3 - the popular music and talk radio channel of public-service provider DR -accounts for 17,6 percent  of  all  tweets.  Popular  radio  station  hosts  use  Twitter excessively  to  promote  their  programs  and  generate  response

from their listeners.

The web media in this analysis are three political online magazines and Dagens.dk - an online portal for gossip, entertainment and 'lighter  news'.  Especially  the  latter  is  active  on  Facebook, generating most of their page views through Facebook stories. Also Den Korte Avis - a right-wing online journal - is most active on Facebook, posting emotional or sensational stories on immigration consequences. Politiko and Altinget - regarded as more balanced and 'serious' web sites - are most active on Twitter, however. Finally, the two weekly magazines show almost no activity. A third weekly was excluded from the final sample because it had no Twitter activity at all. The conclusion may be that weeklies  have  problems  sustaining  the  momentum  throughout  the week in the constant flux of news on social media.

The  activity  is  relatively  even  over  time  with  small  drops  in most weekends. However, there are two noticeable exceptions: the  terrorist  attack  on  the  French  satirical  magazine  Charlie Hebdo generated increased media activity on Twitter as well as Facebook on the days of attack, January 7 th  and after. The top activity, however, occurred on February 14 th  and 15 th , the days of the terrorist attacks in Copenhagen targeting a meeting featuring Swedish artist Lars Vilks and the Jewish Synagogue in central Copenhagen. The two events spurred a large number of tweets, posts and activity in general. Especially TV 2 News had high Twitter activity and mentions as they were the first to break the story. Another interesting feature is an increase in the number of different locations of the tweets, including many abroad. In other words: Danish media news reached an international audience.

A reading of the posts and tweets from the two events show some differences; Facebook stories often have a personal or more emotional angle whereas Twitter stories are short, reporting and often contains no more than a link to a web story, followed by a short description. Such differences might account for different strategies from media but can also be explained by a different format: Tweets are short and invite to factual notifications rather than longer stories adding details and negotiating emotions.

## The analysis part II - news criteria of Twitter and Facebook

I will start by looking at what I call the dominant news criteria across tweets and posts, shown in table 3. In general, fewer tweets than posts have been possible to code, given that they are shorter and there is less text to clearly identify the criteria.

Table 3. Dominant news criteria on Facebook and Twitter.

|          | Timeliness   | Relevance   | Identification   | Conflict   | Sensation   |    N |
|----------|--------------|-------------|------------------|------------|-------------|------|
| Facebook | 22.3%        | 12.5%       | 43.1%            | 11.5%      | 10.6%       | 2913 |
| Twitter  | 28.0%        | 14.1%       | 41.7%            | 11.9%      | 4.2%        | 2411 |

The difference of dominant news criteria between Facebook and Twitter is statistically significant at a 99 percent level. The timeliness criterion is clearly more identified on Twitter than on Facebook where the posts on the other hand tend to be more 'sensational'. Differences are not large for relevance, identification and conflict. Timeliness and relevance make the real difference.

We get a more detailed analysis by looking at all news criteria identified in the posts and tweets. The results are shown in table 4.

All news criteria identified in posts and tweets.

|                  |   Facebook |   Twitter |    N |
|------------------|------------|-----------|------|
| Timeliness *     |       58.4 |      44.9 | 3100 |
| Relevance        |       19.0 |      17.9 | 1105 |
| Identification * |       61.9 |      45.5 | 3223 |
| Conflict *       |       15.8 |      13.1 |  866 |
| Sensation *      |       15.9 |       5.5 |  641 |
| N                |       3000 |      3000 |      |

Table 4.

Significant differences between Facebook and Twitter marked by an *

This analysis looks a bit different. Each post or tweet has been coded for each of the criteria, as dummy variables. Therefore, it makes no sense to define N for each of the platforms. Rather, N is identified for each category, adding the bonus that we can see the distribution of news criteria in total as well.

The main conclusion of the table is that there are significant differences between Facebook and Twitter for all criteria, except 'relevance' and that these differences are larger than when coded for only the dominant news criteria. Expanding the analysis thus makes the difference between Facebook and Twitter more visible.  On  Facebook posts I can identify more timeliness, sensation and conflict than in tweets. This supports hypotheses from the discussed literature that Facebook stories are more personal, emotional and focused on the spectacular than tweets. Thus it seems as if the media use the platforms for different kinds of stories and different angles. Looking at the figures, it is important to remember that Facebook posts in general contain more criteria than tweets, due to their length and character, as discussed above. This explains why Facebook posts have a higher percentage figure across all criteria.

Bearing this in mind, we can take a look at the general trends in social media framing of news stories. On Facebook as well as Twitter, identification is the most used news criterion, followed by  timeliness. Then  we  have  relevance,  conflict  and  sensation but they are less frequently used. Thus, social media stories are often framed by personal angles, calling for the identification of the reader. As such this part of the analysis has a mixed conclusion: The emotional and sensational both play a large role in the social media but not at the expense of the established criteria of timeliness and relevance.

## Conclusion

This study has identified differences in Danish media use of teria. It was expected that the two social media platforms might be used differently, given their different format, architecture and

Facebook and Twitter, focusing on overall activity and news criaffordances.

Regarding overall activity, print and web media use Facebook relatively more than Twitter whereas the opposite is the case for radio and TV media. Facebook is often used for framing stories with personal angles, aiming at user identification or communicating emotions. On the other hand, tweets are often shorter, more factual and provide its users with links to stories and an invitation to read more.

There are clear differences between Facebook and Twitter in terms of news criteria. Identification, followed by timeliness, are the  two  most  frequently  identified  dominant  news  criteria  on both platforms. Relevance is identified evenly on both platforms whereas sensation and conflict are clearly more frequently identified on Facebook. This contributes to an understanding of Twitter as a medium used primarily for facts and reporting whereas Facebook is used for framing of the spectacular or appealing to emotions. On both platforms, however, the media frequently use identification  as  an  indication  of  the  more  personal  nature  of news distributed through social media.

Looking  at  all  criteria  identified  in  the  data,  a  higher  average number of criteria are identified in Facebook posts than in tweets, given the longer format and its room for different topics and angles. Considering these structural differences, the tendencies described above are confirmed. Facebook is the more sensational and conflictual, Twitter the more factual medium with more focus on importance as defined in the news criteria.

Some of the differences can be ascribed to the different architecture of the two social media platforms. Tweets are shorter with no space for emotions. In terms of users and activity, Facebook is much more popular than Twitter and the media use their Facebook pages to build communities, as discussed in the literature review.

A final word about the methods: As discussed above no method is perfect for the comparison of different social media platforms. The selected method includes much more Twitter activity in the initial data set, but the equal sample sizes eliminate that difference.

In  sum,  this  study  shows  that  social  media  are  no  coherent juggernaut when it comes to news dissemination. Different platforms are used differently, based on their affordances and the audience. Twitter is  used  mainly  for  short  reporting  or  linking to media stories whereas Facebook posts often seek to engage, invoke emotions or employ personal angles, aiming at user identification.  However,  the  identification  criterion  is  also  widely found on Twitter. It is fair to conclude that identification is the main news criterion on both social media platforms. However, pessimistic  claims  that  timeliness  and  relevance  give  way  for sensation and conflict are not fully confirmed.

One remaining  question  is  whether  the  media  use  different strategies  deliberately  for  branding  and  audience  purposes,  as some earlier research indicates, or because they believe that the users of the two platforms are different; that Twitter users may prefer  quicker,  more  factual  information  whereas  Facebook  is more  a 'community'  medium  where  people  identify  with  the stories and where emotions are communicated to a larger extent. This question ought to be explored in further studies.

## NOTES

- 1 The  research  in  this  article  is  part  of  the  project  'Meaning  Across Media' investigating how media content travels across platforms. The project was sponsored by The Danish National Research Council for Communication and Culture.

The author would like to thank research assistant Mia Thylkjær for coding the dataset and valuable feedback on the data material.

## REFERENCES

- Anderson, M, and Caumont, A (2014). 'How Social Media is Reshaping News.' Pew Research Center.
- Asmussen, K and Meilby, M (1977). Før deadline - dagbladsjournalistikkens grundtrin. Copenhagen: Institut for Presseforskning.
- Boczkowski, P J & Mitchelstein, E (2012). How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: Clicking, E/.notdefMailing,  and commenting. Human Communication Research , 38 (1),  pp. 1-22.
- Bossetta, M., Segesten, A. D., & Trenz, H. J. (2017). Engaging with European politics through Twitter and Facebook: Participation beyond the national?. In Social Media and European Politics (pp. 53-76). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

- Bruns, A, Burgess, J, Highfield, T, Kirchhoff, L, & Nicolai, T (2011). Mapping the Australian networked public sphere. Social Science Computer Review , 29 (3), pp. 277-287.
- Ekman, M., & Widholm, A. (2014). Twitter and the celebritisation of politics. Celebrity Studies , 5 (4), pp. 518-520.
- Epstein, E J (1973). News from Nowhere . New York: Random House.
- Galtung, J & Ruge, M H (1965). The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers. J ournal of peace research, 2(1), pp. 64-90.
- Gans, H J (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time . Northwestern University Press.
- Gleason, S. (2010). Harnessing social media: News outlets are assigning staffers to focus on networking. American Journalism Review , 32 (1), pp. 6-8.
- Hamdy, N & Gomaa, E H (2012). Framing the Egyptian uprising in Arabic language newspapers and social media. Journal of Communication , 62 (2), pp. 195-211.
- Harcup, T & O'neill, D (2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism studies , 2 (2), pp. 261-280.
- Harcup T and O'Neill, D (2016). What is news? News values revisited (again). Journalism Studies (1), pp. 1-19.
- Hartley, J M (2013). The online journalist between ideals and audiences. Journalism Practice , 7 (5), pp. 572-587.
- Highfield, T.  (2017). Social  media  and  everyday  politics .  John Wiley  & Sons.
- Hille, S., & Bakker, P . (2013). I like news. Searching for the 'Holy Grail'of social media: The use of Facebook by Dutch news media and their audiences. European Journal of Communication , 28 (6), pp. 663-680.
- Hjarvard,  Stig  (1995).  Internationale  TV-nyheder.  København:  Akademisk Forlag.
- Kalsnes, B & Larsson, A O (2017). Understanding News Sharing Across Social Media: Detailing distribution on Facebook and Twitter. Journalism Studies , pp. 1-20.
- Kilgo, D K., Harlow, S, García-Perdomo, V, & Salaverría, R (2016). A new sensation? An international exploration of sensationalism and social media  recommendations  in  online  news  publications. Journalism , 1464884916683549.
- Kramhøft, P (2000). Journalistik med  omtanke: arbejdsmetoder i udredende og analytisk journalistik . Aarhus: Forlaget Ajour.

- Larsson, A O, & Christensen, C (2017). From showroom to chat room: SVT  on  social  media  during  the  2014  Swedish  elections. Convergence , 23 (6), pp. 587-602.
- Linaa  Jensen  (2017).  Same,  same  -  but  different:  Udfordringer  og muligheder ved at studere og sammenligne Facebook og Twitter. In K. Drotner & S. M. Iversen (eds.). Digitale metoder. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
- Ryan,  C  (1991). Prime  Time  Activism:  Media  Strategies  for  Grassroots Organizing . Boston: South End Press.
- Schrøder, K, Blach-Ørsten, M & Eberholst, M K (2018). Danskernes brug af nyhedsmedier. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo
- Schudson, M (1989). The sociology of news production. Media, Culture & Society , 11 (3), pp. 263-282.
- Schultz, I (2006). Bag nyhederne - værdier, idealer og praksis . Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
- Schultz,  I  (2007).  The  journalistic  gut  feeling:  Journalistic  doxa,  news habitus and orthodox news values. Journalism practice , 1 (2), pp. 190207.

## AUTHOR

Jakob Linaa Jensen

Research Director of Social Media, Danish School of Media and Journalism, Center for Internet Studies, Aarhus University

jlj@dmjx.dk