Summary:

This paper talks about how a classifier was trained in order to distinguish twitter accounts in different categories. These categories consisted of organizations, journalists/bloggers, and consumers.  They were able to define these groups using the Welch and Kolmogorov-Smirnov t-test. His findings were very interesting, organizations tended to be more professional while journalists use more of a personal style. Organizations also tend to share a lot more links than journalists.

Reflection:

One of the first things that popped out at me was the fact the organizations seems to be a lot more reserved than journalists. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense, I’m going to use buzzfeed as an example because that is a website I follow closely. Buzzfeed as an organization probably does not want to be tied to certain political views or ideologies that could deter potential consumers from using their site or purchasing merchandise. Whereas, a journalist for buzzfeed can much more freely tweet their opinion online without drawing attention to the company as a whole if they do so on their private twitter account. Similarly the statistic that organizations have 3 times the number of links posted than journalists is likely tied to this as well. Buzzfeed wants to advertise the company on platforms like twitter but doesn’t care about using twitter as a form of information distribution. They post links directing consumers to their official website where information/blogs/videos are posted for the user to see. On the other hand, journalists will probably use sites like twitter to publish their personal opinion on a subject matter without linking anything.

Another big discrepancy between journalists and organizations is that they use different mediums to publish their tweets. For journalists, they seem to primarily use their phones which does not surprise me at all. If we go back to my previous example about a buzzfeed journalist, if most of the time it is just a quick statement about your opinion on a matter than there is no need to use anything other than your phone. With a phone, they also have the capability to tweet wherever and whenever they want. Organizations use special twitter applications a lot more than a journalist. This also makes sense to me, from my experience at the biomedical high-performance computing lab at Virginia Tech they would often scheduled their tweets so that there would be daily tweets at common peak times. As an organization they must make sure that they’re coming out with steady content to keep their consumers engaged. This would also explain why journalists tend to reply to their readers more than an organization. While a journalist has their phone on them almost all the time, organizations often don’t check their replies they just use Twitter as a platform to advertise their company and recent posts on their official website.

Future Work:

This article is really interesting to me because I am hoping to use data analytics to find misinformation within the news. I wasn’t exactly sure where to start however it’s helpful to know that we can distinguish different types of users based off their posting and replying habits.

I do have a few additional questions that this work could answer in the future.

• First what features would we be able to use to distinguish different types of organizations, for example Wendys from CNN, if given a big dataset of organization information? Word association seems to be a good start but are there better solutions?
• How could we differentiate organizations like Wendys that reply to their readers and do not post links often without mislabeling them as a journalist?
• How would the features be discovered for finding misinformation from these sources whether they are a journalist or organization?

Read More

Journalists and Twitter: A Multidimensional Quantitative Description of Usage Patterns

Bagdouri, M. et al (2016) conducted one of the largest to date studies on the usage patterns of journalists, news organizations, and news consumers on Twitter. The study also explored the differences in the aforementioned user groups between English and Arab users. At the offset, Bagdouri, M. et al (2016) proposed the following research questions:

• Do journalists engage personally with their audience compared to news organizations?
• Do observations about English journalists—who are typically studied in previous work—apply to journalists from different regional, cultural, and lingual backgrounds (e.g., Arab journalists)?
• Do journalists use Twitter in a manner dissimilar from news consumers, and do these (dis)similarities hold across different regions?
• Are journalists a homogeneous group, or do they differ as a function of the type of the news outlet they work for?
• To which extent do journalists who speak the same language, but belong to different countries share similar characteristics?

Through the Welch and Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical tests, Bagdouri, M. et al (2016) compared fourteen features found in 13 million tweets of 5,358 Twitter accounts of journalists and news organizations, as well as two billion posts from over one million of their connections. The following results were observed:

• Organizations broadcast a number of tweets to a large audience, while journalists will target their tweets towards individual users.
• Arab journalists tend to broadcast to a larger follower base, while English journalists tend to have a more individual directed approach to a smaller follower base.
• Arab journalists are more distinguishable than their English counterparts.
• Print and radio journalists have dissimilar behaviors; however, television journalists share commonalities with both print and radio journalists.
• British and Irish journalists are largely similar.

     Although Bagdouri, M. et al (2016) succeeded in answering their original questions, I found the lack of explanation beyond the statistical analysis to raise a number of questions. Although quantifying certain phenomena is an important first step, establishing correlation would help us better utilize the data. Questions such as the following quickly rose to mind:

• Does the difference in broadcasting and targeting behaviors lead to a significant different in the reception of the news?
• What social (or other factors) lead to differences between Arab and English journalists, what can we learn from these differences, and how can we utilize that data moving forward?
• Does commonality between same language journalists extend beyond the British Isles?

While Bagdouri, M. et al (2016) occasionally attempted to answer a few of these questions, many of the explanations were closer to conjecture than to empirical evidence.

Cite:

Bagdouri, M. (2016). Journalists and Twitter: A Multidimensional Quantitative Description of Usage Patterns. Proceedings of the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Retrieved January 29, 2019.

Read More

Summary:

 Journalists and Twitter: A Multidimensional Quantitative Description of Usage Patterns

This study is an extension on other studies that study news organizations/journalists in the past. This study is supposed to be bigger than most of the other released studies and answered five research questions.

1. Do journalists engage personally with their audience compared to news organizations?
2. Do observations about English journalists—who are typically studied in previous work—apply to journalists from different regional, cultural, and lingual backgrounds (e.g., Arab journalists)?
3. Do journalists use Twitter in a manner dissimilar from news consumers, and do these (dis)similarities hold across different regions?
4. Are journalists a homogeneous group, or do they differ as a function of the type of the news outlet they work for?
5. To which extent do journalists who speak the same language, but belong to different countries share similar characteristics?

The authors found that journalists do engage more personally with their audiences, even to gather information from Twitter. The study also showed that Arab journalists were far more distinguishable than their English counterparts. Journalists also behave differently based off of what medium they work with, print and radio being the most dissimilar.

Reflection and Raised Questions: 

Personally, I thought the first question that the study tried to answer seemed self-explanatory. Individual journalists would be more personable with their audience because it is more likely their personal account, with themselves or a small team running it, whereas an organizations account is run to promote the business. I think that the paper tried to answer to many questions and it hurt the value of the paper and the more intresting points that it was making.

What is too many questions for a paper and what are too many variables?

Going off what I said above, I want to know when you should draw a line for the number of questions you want to ask and try to answer during a study. I think that this research paper could have been split up into two research papers, one that asked questions comparing journalists and organizations (of the same culture/language) and one comparing journalists from different cultures and organizations.

This paper also had a lot of features that they used to compare the journalists. This made me think about something a PI told me about in my lab called p-hacking. He told me that a lot of researchers are under extreme pressure to get published and sometimes collect a lot of different data points in hopes that some of them will be statistically significant enough to publish, there is a very interesting paper about this entitled: Why Most Published Research Findings are False. This may be different across the fields of research and currently, I am not well versed in the field of data science research so this many features may be the norm.

Since Arab journalist was found to be more distinguishable than their English counterparts, Is there a way to classify different types of journalists based off where they are from and tell bias based off of tweets, community interaction, and writiting style? 

I am very interested in machine learning and I wonder if it would be possible to do research and train a classifier to tell what part of the world a journalist is from based off of their tweets, content, and style of writing. Now, most of this is easily done by looking at their language and location, but being able to tell what type of bias they might have from their writing style would be a very interesting study.

This could potentially lead to other studies trying to classify what jounlists try to propogate “fake news” based off of their interactions with communities.

Read More

Brief:

Bagdouri conducted a large scale study on the use of Twitter by news producers and consumers. The primary groups being analyzed in the study are journalists and organizations from both European english speaking countries, and Arab speaking countries. Quantitative analysis is done to compare the writing styles between the aforementioned groups, and their audience interaction.

Reflection:

Culture seems to have a significant effect on how news is shared and received by their intended recipients.

Journalist vs Consumer: The study mentions that Arab journalists receive more reaction to their tweets compared to Arab news consumers, while the situation is reversed in the English population (English news consumers receive more reaction compared to English journalists). It is interesting that such a disparity exists, and it raises the question of why Arab journalists evoke reactions, while in English speaking European countries, the consumers evoke reactions.

Targets and Broadcasts: Another thing that stuck out to me in the study was the difference in how the journalists would communicate. It was seen that while Arab journalists have more followers, and tweet in a way that broadens their reach, English journalists are much more likely to engage other users when they tweet. Perhaps this is a reason as to why consumers are more likely to evoke reactions in English journalism, but this also raises the question: Are people more likely to react to consumers when journalists engage them, or are people more likely to react to other consumers because of other variables (English speakers may be more likely to argue against a journalist’s points).

Organizations and journalists: Interestingly enough, it is seen that organizations are more likely to broadcast news, whereas journalists are more likely to engage with consumers. Journalists dedicate much more of their tweets replying to other people (44% for journalists vs <12% for organizations), and interact with other user’s tweets more often. While this fact is not inherently shocking, it seems to suggest that the study may have some flaws. Perhaps upon scraping the data, there wasn’t as much of an effort to distinguishing Arab journalists from Arab organizations as there was to distinguish English journalists from English organizations.

General questions: One of the big differences between English and Arabic journalism is the amount of interactions that the consumer has with the journalist. Since it is stated that Arab journalists tweet more than twice as much as English one, share 75% more links, and use 39% more hashtags, is the difference in interactions due to how tweets are composed by the journalist? The study seems to suggest that Arab journalists are much more likely to share information in a way that does not promote conversation or interaction. There is also a question of if the methods of separating organizations from journalists is accurate, as Arab journalists seem to share similar characteristics as organizations.

Read More

Summary

Bagdouri investigates the intersection of journalism and Twitter with a multi-faceted analysis that spans a set of “5000 news producers and 1 million news consumers”. The main research questions Bagdouri seeks to answer are:

• Is Twitter usage the same or different for news producers compared to news consumers?
• Can previous findings be applied to a wholly different group of journalists?

The reason for doing such an investigation is that previous studies focused on a small and specific set of data that it was difficult to apply those findings to a larger and more spread-out set of data. With a larger set of data, Bagdouri analyzes different features of over 13 million tweets and over 5,000 Twitter accounts of journalists and news organizations using different statistical analyses, in particular Welch and Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical tests.

Reflection

Having rarely used Twitter as a social media platform before reading this article, this Bagdouri’s research gave me insight into some of the more practical usages of the platform: mainly broadcasting and disseminating information.

The beginning of the article starts off with selecting criteria to compare the groups of Twitter accounts, and Bagdouri comes up with eighteen different criteria. How were those chosen, and are they good metrics? In my opinion, some of these metrics are not as easily quantifiable as Bagdouri suggests. For example, one feature that was analyzed was audience reaction. This is a binary classification: did another user retweet, or did the user favorite a tweet? To me, in a study that aims to describe how journalists and consumers interact through social media we would need better classification that involves not only positive reactions but negative ones as well. For instance, measuring number of times people had seen a particular tweet but did not favorite nor retweet could be a third classification in this sub-category.

Other categories are easier to define and to collect data for, though their purposes are not entirely clear. For instance, the author mentions publication medium as a means of differentiating between tweets made through mobile or desktop applications, but to me this does not seem like a classification that would yield any insight regarding the way journalists and consumers of news interact.

One thing that I still have questions about though are how does Bagdouri account for cultural differences? The author is aware that differences may exist between Arabic and English journalists, and analyzes each group independently, but then compares the two without providing an explanation or hypothesis for the difference (e.g. “We note first the unsurprising observation that journalists are more likely to have a verified account [is] 8.46% vs 0.35% for Arabic, and 14.84% vs 2.96% for English).

In the end, it seems the paper has moved from the broader category of journalism source vs consumer to a more specific type of journalism source vs consumer. The paper suggests two strategies, Twitter for independent journalists vs Twitter for news organizations, reaches the same audience based on the fact that the two groups receive roughly the same number of favorites. Is this idea flawed because Bagdouri does not compare tweet-by-tweet over the same particular event? To me, this is flawed because viewers might relate to certain events more closely, e.g. news about a hurricane in Florida may see more retweets and favorites versus news about the oldest cat in Ireland.

Additional Questions

• How can we explore, track, and analyze the dissemination of information not just from news source to viewer, but from viewer A to viewer A’s friend?
• How does indirect news affect perceptions of whether or not a source is accurate in the age of “fake news”?

Read More

Journalists and Twitter: A Multidimensional Quantitative Description of Usage Patterns

---

Summary

Using millions of tweets from thousands of users, Mossaab Bagdouri was able to conduct what was perhaps the most ambitious and thorough analysis of journalists on Twitter to date. Overall, the University of Maryland professor found that the official news organizations often share links to their own stories, whereas individual journalists seek out engagement with other users more directly. Lastly, Bagdouri found that language barriers may also shape the online behaviors of these journalists — whether dividing or unifying.

---

Reflection

As an avid Twitter user, I didn’t find many of Bagdouri’s results to be extremely surprising. For example, it was mentioned extensively that professional accounts were less likely to retweet other posts or to engage with other users. From a practical standpoint, this makes sense. The more an organization posts or responds, the more chances there are to mess up.

A retweet from an official, certified account is almost always considered an endorsement of (1) the opinion of the post and (2) the creator of the post. In the realm of Twitter, retweeting from an official account is very dangerous due to the community’s critical culture. In this realm, many individuals must walk on eggshells in order to avoid getting “canceled,” or rejected, by the active community of Twitter.

Furthermore, engaging in comments on Twitter will often descend into heated arguments. Someone could easily reply with benevolent intentions and find themselves in an argument about racial inequalities within an hour of the post. From a public relations standpoint, replying to comments on Twitter would almost never result in a positive interaction for the brand. Thus, companies would obviously be less likely to interact directly with the community than an individual journalist.

---

Further Questions

• What would happen if we considered that some of the “news consumers” were also journalists rather than disregarding that fact?
• How would the data look:
  • with a survey of a larger amount of countries, spanning the same language?
  • with a survey of journalists within the same country, but that speak different languages (perhaps within the United States)?
  • if we also included other forms of journalism, such as YouTube?
  • if we separated the accounts based on whether they were verified?
• What would the overall sentiment analysis of journalists vs. organizations look like?
• Could we map a political graph (liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative) by looking at an organization’s most commonly mentioned terms, the other accounts its consumers follow, etc.? Using this map, could we predict a user’s political affiliations only by looking at who they follow on Twitter?

Read More

Overview

The article tells of the “largest study to date of the use of Twitter by news producers and consumers.” The authors collected an enormous amount of twitter data corresponding to news organizations, journalists, and news consumers. From this data, they extracted a series of quantitative measures for the groups and clustered them to illustrate six aspects of the groups. They extended their classification by taking data from various regions of the world encompassing multiple languages and cultures and maintaining these classifications throughout their comparison and analysis. They compared these aspects of their defined groups using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Welch’s t-test. Using these aspects to compare the groups the authors attempted to gain an overview of use of Twitter in the news cycle from multiple angles.

Reflection

This article gave me a lot to reflect on and raised some interesting questions in regards to the study itself, but also other useful insights that could be gained about the news industry by analyzing the data from Twitter and other large social media platforms.

• Near the beginning of the article the authors mention several questions they hope to answer with this study. Reflecting on the reading led me to question whether a study designed to answer so many questions relying on so many variables could be scientifically sound. While their data and analysis could definitely help gain insight into the five separate questions they aimed to answer, spanning from the way journalists interact to their cultural backgrounds, I am not sure if such an approach could definitively answer any of the questions given such a wide focus.
• Later in the article the authors defines news consumers individuals who have a bidirectional follower / friend relationship or are mentioned in any tweet of the journalists they sampled. This raised the question to me are the people with bidirectional follower / friend relationships with individual journalists really the consumers of the news, and are those people journalists mention in their tweets really consumers of the news. It would seem possible to me that an individual journalist’s Twitter account could have many follower / friend connections with people for reasons other than news dissemination. Furthermore, it seems possible to me that a journalist may mention someone in a tweet who is not a consumer of their news; such as mentioning a public figure relevant to something they or saying or mentioning a personal friend in a tweet. From personal experience, I can think of many people who consume news of a specific organization or journalist but do not have a friend / follower relationship with said party. The article itself references that journalists may be less inclined to follow individual consumers of the news in favor of more high profile individuals and those highly active on Twitter, from this I wonder what portion of the people journalists have a friend / follower relationship with are actually individuals looking at the journalist’s Twitter for news?
• The article references that they do not think that many individuals with whom a journalist has a friend / follower relationship with are other journalists. This made me wonder would it not be likely that a journalist, or member of any profession, be in connection with other journalist, or people with the same profession? It makes me wonder if the number of journalists sampled as people with a friend / follower connection to another journalist is actually as insignificant as the authors say.

The research shown in this article is very interesting and spurs many questions about news in social media. I am very interested to find out how the use of social media by news organizations and figures has altered the quality of the information they present. I find that this specific study has several flaws and sources of bias in its design and do not think that its conclusions are supported or logically follow from their experiment.

Read More

Journalists and Twitter: A Multidimensional Quantitative Description of Usage Patterns

Summary

This article details a quantitative analysis of the twitter usage of journalists, news organizations, and news consumers by Dr. Bagdouri. The study compares twitter usage metrics between these groups as well as between nationalities. To collect the data, the researchers gathered twitter profiles from http://media.info and used the Twitter API to collect over 13 million tweets associated with them. Using these tweets, the researchers measured 18 features aimed at assessing the perception, engagement, and delivery of each twitter account’s activity with its audience. These features were then analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Welch’s t-test. From this analysis, the researchers concluded that not only did the three groups have very different communication styles, but there were significant differences across sections within each group.

Reflection

This article left me with several questions about the validity of the researchers’ methodologies. To begin, the researchers used a third-party website http://media.info to collect twitter account names associated with news affiliates, but did not include any evidence to support the credibility of this site. I did some digging around on the site, but I didn’t find any evidence to the contrary in what little time I spent. However, I still believe that this method is questionable. If the researchers wanted to observe journalists and news organizations, why did they not simply pull their data from one of the many circulation lists available online?

---

Going further, the researchers use a completely different method to collect the twitter accounts for Arab journalists. I’m not a dedicated researcher myself, but wouldn’t this difference in methodology introduce a bias in the data?

---

Finally, the researchers use an incredibly large collection of accounts and tweets (2.2 billion tweets) to analyze audience engagement. This collection process was inherently biased, however, and the researchers admit that the limitations could have been addressed through randomly sampling news consumers. From this I wonder: why did the researchers not randomly sample the journalist and news organization accounts in the beginning? Then they could have chosen one, consolidated source and reigned in the massive data project they chose.

Read More

Journalists and Twitter: A Multidimensional Quantitative Description of Usage Patterns

Summary:

This paper is an extension of work done by De Choudhury, Diakopoulos, and Naaman, where they trained a classifier that categorized Twitter accounts into organizations, journalists/bloggers, and ordinary individuals. However, this study seeks to prove statistical significance of eight different comparisons: journalists and news organizations, journalists and news consumers, four media types (newspaper, magazine, radio, television), and two regions (European English and Arabic speaking countries). Bagdouri chose to use Welch and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests because of limitations a regular Welch’s t-test poses such as the assumption of normality of distributions and is constrained to the comparison of means.

Bagdouri was able to conclude that journalists target their communication and personally interact with their readers. In contrast, news outlets avoid personal style and broadcast their posts instead. From the region comparison analysis, Bagdouri determined that Arab journalists broadcast more tweets and their audience have a positive reaction to it. When comparing the different media types, print and radio journalists are the most dissimilar groups. It’s important to note that television journalists share similarities with radio and print journalists. For journalists of the same language but from different countries, in this paper’s case are British and Irish journalists, very few dissimilarities are observed.

Reflection:

The study states that “Journalists and organizations also differ in the medium used to publish their tweets. In fact, while they both use a desktop in about 30% of the time, mobile is the preferred medium for journalists (54.95%), and organizations tend to use special Twitter applications for posting more than 28% of the tweets”. Personally, I’m not surprised that the preferred medium for journalists is mobile. I would be very interested in what the age demographics of journalists are because I believe that many of the journalists in this paper are of Generation Y–who are often associated with the current technological revolution. My reasoning is that Generation Y are individuals that grew up along with the significant changes in technology, so they would most likely be more comfortable with posting on Twitter from their mobile compared to news organizations.

One conclusion made in this paper that stood out to me was that most journalists tend to target their communication and interact with their readers more than news outlets. However, Arab journalists go against this notion because they broadcast their tweets. The study mentions that “The broadcast communication behavior is evident for Arab journalists. They tweet more than twice as much as the English ones, share 75% more links, and use 39% more hashtags…For each original tweet, on average, Arab journalists receive over four times more retweets than the English ones do.” If Arab journalists are broadcasting more tweets, I am curious about what conclusions can be made from a comparison of Twitter features between Arab journalists and Arab news organizations. How similar are journalists and news organizations from Arab speaking countries? Furthermore, this study only covered European English and Arabic speaking regions. Consequently, what other regions have journalists broadcasting more tweets similar to Arab speaking countries? Do those regions receive positive reactions similar to Arab speaking countries?

Further Work:

• After reading through Bagdouri’s study, I am very interested in the vast amount of features that can be extracted from posts on Twitter which makes me eager to use it as a media platform to extract data for my data science project this semester.

• One of the features this paper utilizes to make many of their conclusions is “Targeted communication”. Specifically, the paper talks about mentions which indicate the average number of mentions of other users per original tweet for a given account and questions which indicates the ratio of original tweets that include a question mark in its Arabic or English form. It would be interesting to see if there is any pattern relating the individuals that journalists and news outlets mention in their tweets and how different are the types of questions journalists ask compared to news outlets.

• This paper clearly emphasizes the fact that Twitter is becoming a primary platform for breaking news. However, there are other platforms for breaking news as well. For example, Facebook is a platform for which numerous individuals around the world use–including journalists and news outlets. While Facebook is clearly different Twitter, I would like to see if the conclusions made in this study hold up on Facebook. If not, which conclusions don’t hold up and why?

• Lastly, with the rise of fake news in the present day, a question that arises is how much do news consumers trust journalists compared to news outlets? Consequently, how would we statistically prove the extent news consumers trust a news source? Furthermore, how are the features “audience perception” and “audience reaction” of journalists and news outlets changing over time? Is fake news affecting these features over time?

Read More

Brief Summary of “Journalists and Twitter: A Multidimensional Quantitative Description of Usage Patterns”:

By conducting what might remain the largest study of the use of Twitter by news producers and consumers, they were able to use Welch and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to quantify the statistical differences in eight comparisons between accounts spanning two regions (Arab world, and European speaking countries), three user categories (journalists, news organizations, and consumers), and three media types (print, radio, and television). They found that the accounts of news outlets use an official style and share more links than journalists, whereas journalists have a targeted communication that is engaging their audience, suggesting that they also use Twitter as a source of information. Also, that Arab journalists are less likely to have this communication pattern, however, they are more distinguishable from news consumers, than English journalists are. And finally, that print and radio journalists have a very dissimilar behavior while the television ones share some characteristics with each of them.

Reflection:

While reading the article, these were a few lines that stood out to me.

• Quote 1: While interviewing several political journalists working for American newspapers: “He found these journalists to be more conservative about publicly sharing their opinions than what Lasorsa, Lewis, and Holton had reported”.

• Reflection 1: After watching the past presidential election, I’m not surprised that the less popular (by followers) journalists, would be conservative to share their personal opinions on political topics. What might be a bold (but not necessarily incorrect) claim, that the major news outlets have begun to stain their reputation of being credible sources of information by consistently aligning with what is being reported based upon their political affiliation. Major news outlets don’t necessarily “suffer” from these political affiliations, for example, if I wanted to just brush up on today’s events from a viewpoint that wouldn’t make me furious, I would turn to the news station that historically supports my political views. However, I can see where journalists have to stay as neutral as possible, in order to preserve their reputation among their narrower audience. This claim might be supported by the fact that journalists are more likely to have a verified account when compared to news outlets, thus showing that they value accuracy when it comes to their reporting, and not their respective political opinions.

• Quote 2: When comparing the count and the nature of the tweets between journalist and organizations: “For each tweet published by a journalist, an organization publishes three, on average”.

• Reflection 2: After reading this line from the article, I honestly was not surprised, and made me think of the line from “Anchorman”, that news organizations are turning to “scraping the bottom of the barrel” for news reporting. News organizations often have characteristics that resembles a large business, therefore they have a larger access to resources and have more mouths to feed when it comes to having their reporters out in the field. As many of these news outlets have their own station that is aired throughout the day, they have a mindset of needing to consistently come up with news in order to please these audience, whereas journalists probably focus more of what needs to be reported.

Additional Questions Work Enables:

• An additional question that this work might enable is the potential of analyzing the revenue streams of these journalist and organizations. Is there a relationship between reporting locations and the amount of revenue they generate from that location, thus potentially influencing these journalists and organizations to cover certain locations over others.

• Another additional question that this work might enable is the potential of using the omitted accounts which were originally omitted due to some journalists having more than one affiliation, and seeing if these journalists often tailored their reporting from one reporting station to another.

Read More