What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This article problematizes the relationship between clicks and audience interests. Clicking patterns are often seen as evidence that news users are mostly interested in junk news, leading to concerns about the state of journalism and the implications for society. Asking and observing how 56 users actually browse news and what clicking and not clicking mean to them, we identified 30 distinct considerations for (not) clicking and classified them into three categories: cognitive, affective and pragmatic. The results suggest, first, that interest is too crude a term to account for the variety of people’s considerations for (not) clicking. Second, even if one aims for roughly estimating people’s news interests, clicks are a flawed instrument because a lack of clicking does not measure people’s lack of interest in news. Third, taking users’ browsing patterns seriously could help bridge the gap between what people need as citizens and what they actually consume. Finally, we argue that all metrics should be critically assessed from a user perspective rather than taken at face value.

LanguageEnglish
Pages668-683
Number of pages16
JournalJournalism
Volume19
Issue number5
Early online date22 Jan 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2018

Fingerprint

news
lack
journalism
pragmatics
News
citizen
evidence

Keywords

  • Clicks
  • journalism
  • news interest
  • news use
  • qualitative audience research
  • web metrics

Cite this

@article{6c49a99eab664987b91d96add6c175c1,
title = "What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices",
abstract = "This article problematizes the relationship between clicks and audience interests. Clicking patterns are often seen as evidence that news users are mostly interested in junk news, leading to concerns about the state of journalism and the implications for society. Asking and observing how 56 users actually browse news and what clicking and not clicking mean to them, we identified 30 distinct considerations for (not) clicking and classified them into three categories: cognitive, affective and pragmatic. The results suggest, first, that interest is too crude a term to account for the variety of people’s considerations for (not) clicking. Second, even if one aims for roughly estimating people’s news interests, clicks are a flawed instrument because a lack of clicking does not measure people’s lack of interest in news. Third, taking users’ browsing patterns seriously could help bridge the gap between what people need as citizens and what they actually consume. Finally, we argue that all metrics should be critically assessed from a user perspective rather than taken at face value.",
keywords = "Clicks, journalism, news interest, news use, qualitative audience research, web metrics",
author = "{Groot Kormelink}, Tim and {Costera Meijer}, Irene",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1464884916688290",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "668--683",
journal = "Journalism",
issn = "1464-8849",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "5",

}

What clicks actually mean : Exploring digital news user practices. / Groot Kormelink, Tim; Costera Meijer, Irene.

In: Journalism, Vol. 19, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 668-683.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - What clicks actually mean

T2 - Journalism

AU - Groot Kormelink, Tim

AU - Costera Meijer, Irene

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - This article problematizes the relationship between clicks and audience interests. Clicking patterns are often seen as evidence that news users are mostly interested in junk news, leading to concerns about the state of journalism and the implications for society. Asking and observing how 56 users actually browse news and what clicking and not clicking mean to them, we identified 30 distinct considerations for (not) clicking and classified them into three categories: cognitive, affective and pragmatic. The results suggest, first, that interest is too crude a term to account for the variety of people’s considerations for (not) clicking. Second, even if one aims for roughly estimating people’s news interests, clicks are a flawed instrument because a lack of clicking does not measure people’s lack of interest in news. Third, taking users’ browsing patterns seriously could help bridge the gap between what people need as citizens and what they actually consume. Finally, we argue that all metrics should be critically assessed from a user perspective rather than taken at face value.

AB - This article problematizes the relationship between clicks and audience interests. Clicking patterns are often seen as evidence that news users are mostly interested in junk news, leading to concerns about the state of journalism and the implications for society. Asking and observing how 56 users actually browse news and what clicking and not clicking mean to them, we identified 30 distinct considerations for (not) clicking and classified them into three categories: cognitive, affective and pragmatic. The results suggest, first, that interest is too crude a term to account for the variety of people’s considerations for (not) clicking. Second, even if one aims for roughly estimating people’s news interests, clicks are a flawed instrument because a lack of clicking does not measure people’s lack of interest in news. Third, taking users’ browsing patterns seriously could help bridge the gap between what people need as citizens and what they actually consume. Finally, we argue that all metrics should be critically assessed from a user perspective rather than taken at face value.

KW - Clicks

KW - journalism

KW - news interest

KW - news use

KW - qualitative audience research

KW - web metrics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045704465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045704465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1464884916688290

DO - 10.1177/1464884916688290

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 668

EP - 683

JO - Journalism

JF - Journalism

SN - 1464-8849

IS - 5

ER -