for DR. Archimedes
Journal of Communication Inquiry36(3) 246 –262 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0196859912458700 http://jci.sagepub.com 458700 JCI 36 3 10.1177/019685991245870 0 Journal of Communication InquiryMarchi 1Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Corresponding Author:
Regina Marchi, Department of Journalism and Media Studies, School of Com\ munication and Information, Rutgers University, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901-1071, \ USA Email: [email protected] With Facebook, Blogs, and Fake News, Teens Reject Journalistic “Objectivity” Regina Marchi 1 Abstract This article examines the news behaviors and attitudes of teenagers, an understudied demographic in the research on youth and news media. Based on interviews\ with 61 racially diverse high school students, it discusses how adolescents beco\ me informed about current events and why they prefer certain news formats t\ o others.
The results reveal changing ways news information is being accessed, new\ attitudes about what it means to be informed, and a youth preference for opinionated rather than objective news. This does not indicate that young people dis\ regard the basic ideals of professional journalism but, rather, that they desire more authentic renderings of them.
Keywords youth and news, Facebook, fake news, objectivity, civic engagement Most people under 30 do not subscribe to newspapers or habitually tune i\ n to TV and radio newscasts. Some scholars interpret these trends as indications tha\ t today’s youth are not interested in news and are less civic-minded than prior generations (Jones, 2008; Mindich, 2005; Patterson, 2007; Quigley, 1999). Others contend th\ at waning consumption of traditional news media does not necessarily mean youth ar\ e disinter- ested in news or politics (Costera Meijer, 2007; Harrington, 2008a; Mar\ chi, 2012; Raeymaeckers, 2004; Sherr & Staples, 2004). These differing interpretations reflect two distinct models of citizenship laid out by Bennett (2008). In the first model, correlatin\ g with older Americans, the Dutiful Citizen feels an obligation to closely follow the daily Marchi 247 news and participate in government-centered activities such as voting an\ d party poli - tics. In the second, corresponding with youth, the Actualizing Citizen h\ as a diminished sense of government obligation, a mistrust of mainstream news media and \ politicians, and a higher sense of self-purpose. Actualizing citizens express civic e\ ngagement via volunteering, social movement activism, and communication networks facil\ itated by new technologies (Bennett, 2008). Based on interviews with 61 teenager\ s, conducted from December 2007 to February 2011, this article illustrates how 21st-c\ entury ado- lescents are trending toward the latter model of citizenship. 1 Teens were chosen as the subject of this study because they are a signif\ icant subset of young media consumers but are relatively understudied in research on \ youth and news. Most recent studies have focused on news habits of young adults wi\ thin the age range of 18 to 34 (Associated Press [AP], 2008; Brown, 2005; National A\ nnenberg Election Survey [NAES], 2004; Pew, 2004; Purcell, Rainie, Mitchell, Rose\ nstiel, & Olmstead, 2010). Others have included limited survey data about teens w\ hile focusing predominantly on youth above 18 (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 20\ 10; Patterson, 2007; Pew 2010) or have focused more on newspapers and TV news than on \ new media venues (Costera Meijer, 2007; Raeymaeckers, 2004). To date, the \ vast majority of research on youth and news focuses peripherally, if at all, on the te\ en years—a period in life when people begin to develop their political views and ne\ ws habits.
Numerous studies indicate that news consumption habits formed during the\ teen years shape adult news habits (Barnhurst & Wartella, 1991; Burgon et al., 198\ 3; Collins & Armstrong, 2008; Grusin & Stone, 1993; Robinson & Levy, 1996; 1998). Th\ e follow- ing discussion of the news habits of contemporary teens attempts to fill\ this gap, illus- trating changing notions of citizenship. Literature Review The dearth of young people in contemporary print and broadcast news audi\ ences has been widely noted (Brown, 2005; Jones, 2008; Mindich, 2005; Patterson, \ 2007; Purcell et al., 2010) and scholars and news organizations are strugglin\ g to understand the phenomenon. Mindich contends that there has been a “generational shift” away from news, particularly political news. Noting that 80% of people below 30 do not read newspapers daily while 70% of older Americans do, and further notin\ g that the median age of TV news viewers is 60, he foresees grave consequences for \ the future of democracy (Mindich, 2005). A study by the Joan Shorenstein Center o\ n the Press, Politics, and Public Policy echoes this concern, showing further decreas\ es in youth news consumption and concluding that there is a “basis for pessimism about the future of news and young adults” (Patterson, 2007, p. 24). It also notes that when young adults and teens follow the news, they “are attracted disproportionately to sto- ries that have little or no public affairs content” (Patterson, 2007\ , p. 16). These studies are representative of the disengaged youth paradigm (Bennett, 2008), which takes traditional civic actions such as voting and news consumption as the pro\ per measures of a healthy democracy. 248 Journal of Comm unication Inquiry 36(3) Other studies present a more hopeful portrait, positing that youth have \ an interest in current events but find conventional newspapers and TV news boring (Bar\ nhurst & Wartella, 1991, 1998; Costera Meijer, 2007; Livingstone, 2002; Raeymaeckers, 2004); difficult to understand (Raeymaeckers, 2004); and irrelevant to their \ lives (Barnhurst, 1998; Buckingham, 1999; Costera Meijer, 2003; Frola, 2006; McKee, 2005)\ . Rather than interpreting low rates of news consumption as signs that youth are \ “tuned out” from the world of politics, Raeymaeckers (2004) concludes that news pr\ oducers should use clearer language and provide greater background and contextua\ lization of stories. Similarly, Costera Meijer (2007) argues that news organizatio\ ns need to develop new quality standards that young (and all) people will not fin\ d boring. An emerging theme in the literature concerns the definition of “news.\ ” For peo- ple who hold traditional ideas of what news is, young people do not appe\ ar to be interested in the news. However, for those with more flexible definition\ s of “news” and how it may be accessed, there is more optimism. A recent study of un\ dergradu- ate university students found that “young people today are not necess\ arily unin- formed, but rather they are differently informed” than previous gener\ ations, getting news via cell phone texts, email, social networking sites, and conversat\ ions with friends and family (Singer, Clark, & Monserrate, p. 26). In an “a l\ a carte” model of news gathering, youth tend to know a little bit about a lot of subjects,\ researching topics of special interest in more detail. Costera Meijer (2007) observed similar youth strategies regarding TV news consumption, pointing out that what m\ ay look like youth inattention by older adult standards is a reflection of the y\ ounger genera- tion’s comfort with monitoring multiple media sites simultaneously. She notes that youth feel at ease zapping from station to station and “snacking” \ on tidbits of news, gaining superficial knowledge of a broad variety of topics, while older \ people pre- fer in-depth knowledge about a smaller number of topics. Unlike older ge\ nerations, accustomed to postponing their news needs until a fixed hour of the day,\ young people prefer to get news instantly whenever they want it (Costera Meij\ er, 2007).
This latter group of research falls within the engaged youth paradigm, which emphasizes the empowerment of youth as agents and recognizes a new spect\ rum of civic actions occurring online and in other nontraditional arenas. As Be\ nnett (2008) observes, In this view, if there is an attendant decline in the credibility or authenticity of many public institutions and discourses that define conventional politic\ al life, the fault lies more with the government performances and news narratives\ than with citizens who cannot engage with them. (p. 2) While teens, in particular, are often thought to be too young to care ab\ out politics, the results of the present study contradict this notion. Those interview\ ed tended to fall within the engaged youth paradigm, exhibiting low levels of credibility \ in mainstream news while gathering news in alternative ways. Marchi 249 News Consumption Among Teens Most of the teens interviewed reported reading print newspapers “some\ times” (rang- ing from once a week to once a month), with fewer than 10% reading them daily. All those who reported reading a paper daily had parents who subscribed to d\ aily papers.
The remaining students who read newspapers did so at school, where they \ received free copies and were usually required to read them by teachers. Students\ who took public transportation read The Metro, a daily newspaper distributed free to commuters at subway stations. Most of the teens did not independently seek out tel\ evision news, but watched it “by accident” when flipping channels or when older \ family members happened to be watching it. Dylan, 18, explains, “As far as TV, I’\ m usually watching reality television or something like that and then during the commercial\ s, I’ll flip to CNN. That’s how I get my news. During the commercial breaks.” In k\ eeping with other recent findings that the dry and predictable format of professional news alien- ates youth (Costera Meijer, 2007; UNICEF, 2005), the teens we interviewed found TV news boring, repetitive, and irrelevant to their daily lives:I like the sports, but in the rest of the news they just keep blabbing about what other people are doing. (William, 14) ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, they all have the same exact stories, even the same exact order. It isn’t interesting or original. Everyone copies each other. (Den\ nis, 16) They repeat too much of the same thing! (Xela, 17) When we see the news, it doesn’t pertain to us that much . . . It’\ s just so boring!
(Manuel, 16) My mom and dad watch the news . . . They just look at pictures of fires and be like, “Oh, my God, there’s a house burning up!” It could be a house burning up from three days ago, but they keep showing it and showing it on the news\ .
(Sopheap, 15) I don’t watch broadcast news unless it’s the winter and I want to know if there’s no school. (Maneeya, 17) The cultural, generational, and often racial disconnect between young pe\ ople and the faces, news priorities, and reporting styles of mainstream journalis\ ts (Baym, 2010; Harrington, 2005; Marchi, 2012; Miller, 2007) helps explain the common sense of boredom youth feel regarding official news media. Yet, while most teens \ did not make a daily habit of reading newspapers, watching TV news, listening to news\ radio, or logging onto official news web sites, nearly all expressed that keeping up with the news was important. This was revealed in common statements such as, “\ It’s important 250 Journal of Comm unication Inquiry 36(3) for the public to be educated on subjects they need to make decisions on\ ” (Dennis, 16) or “It’s important because you need to know what’s going on in \ the world” (Maria, 18). They noted that the public depended on journalists in numerous way\ s, from warn- ings about health hazards and political corruption to information about \ public policies and elected leaders. They felt that news organizations have a “huge role in society” (Agata, 15) and “a heavy responsibility to bring out the truth” (Miles, 17) and should “stand up for what’s right” (Danny, 18). Ideas related to col\ lective well-being were frequently expressed: “Journalists need to communicate to the public \ and let them know about important things they should know about but maybe they don’t know about” (Lily, 14). “The job of the journalist is to not only keep the people informed, but to be always checking up on the corporations and politicians” (M\ ark, 17). “They warn us of things, like contaminated chicken and meat and other things y\ ou can’t see” (Andy, 17). Most of the teens were at least nominally aware of recent \ news concerning local or national politics and some spoke with unexpected passion about \ the economy, the mortgage crisis, war in the Middle East, or local neighborhood issue\ s. Aside from “accidental” TV news, there were three main ways that the young people learned about news: (a) Via trusted adults; (b) Internet social networking s\ ites and blogs; and (c) humorous and/or acerbic current events programs.
Trusted Adults With mixed admiration and astonishment, the teens noted that their older\ relatives consumed “a lot” of news: “My father is a faithful news watcher\ . He literally watches the news at 12:00 noon, 6:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m., and also the 6:00 a.m. news!” said Tara, 15. Anthony, 16, described his father as a “news junkie” who “lives to get the news.” The teens were urged by their teachers, parents, grandparents, or older \ siblings to pay attention to the news, and many listed these adults as their main source\ s of news: My mom watches news a lot . . . She’s always telling me about somethi\ ng she saw on the news so I can look out for it. You know, swine flu, be carefu\ l, use hand sanitizer. Or there was an accident, or a shooting at this place, s\ o be care- ful when you go there. (Marvin, 17) I get news from family and friends. Like my grand pop. He always tells m\ e. I don’t always pay attention. But he always talks about the news and \ how I should watch it. He’s like, did you hear about blah, blah, blah? An\ d I’m like, “No I didn’t,” and then he tells me the whole story. (Jackie, \ 15) My older sister watches the news daily. I get most of my news from her. \ (Stefani, 17) My parents are always watching the news and reading newspapers. So I thi\ nk it’s a priority in their life. They always want me to watch the news.\ (Brielle, 17) Marchi 251 My dad and stepmom watch the news and weather and everything. They’ll give me the whole newspaper and tell me to read it. (Brian, 15) While adults were often initial sources of information about a news stor\ y, the teens sought further information online if their curiosity were piqued: \ “My mother told me that a priest in our parish was accused of child abuse. The next\ day, I looked it up online” (Mike, 18). “I first learned about Michael Jackson\ ’s death from my sister. Then, I Googled it to check the rumors” (Stefani, 17). Sara\ , 18, who had fam- ily in Egypt, stated, “My uncle told me about the protests and then I\ went to YouTube.” In a world of “information overload,” where youth report feeling o\ verwhelmed by an onslaught of information (AP, 2008; McMane, 2007; Nordenson, 2008; P\ urcell et al., 2010), trusted adults served as news “filters” and “trans\ lators” for the teens, pointing out important issues and explaining their relevance. Teens foun\ d this guid- ance useful, as a major theme to emerge in the interviews was the belief that newspa- pers and TV news did not elucidate the relevance of political events to their lives:
The news is just people talking and talking about things I don’t care\ about.
(Brian, 15) News is entertainment because everything they repeat is not what people \ really need to know. It isn’t stuff that can help you. (Katie, 15) I don’t really know what they’re talking about most of the time. (\ Shaniece, 17) I don’t read newspapers because nothing applies to me. (Phola, 17) Social Networking Sites and Blogs In addition to getting news from conversations with trusted adults, the \ teens reported learning about current events from social networking sites such as Faceb\ ook, MySpace; YouTube, and blogs. A number of them also mentioned “pop-ups” that\ appeared on AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, and Google email accounts. “I’ll be on email \ and a headline will pop up at me and I’ll check it out . . . If a headline catches m\ y eye, I’ll look at it,” explained Terry, 17. Anna, 15, noted, “Facebook and MySpace, that’\ s how we get information. Me and my friends are on Facebook, like, 24/7.” Anthony,\ 16, said, “I check Facebook at least once a day and I know people who check it \ at least once every hour. My friends post links to articles and videos and I learn abo\ ut things that way.” And Phola, 17, quoted earlier saying she did not read newspaper\ s because “noth- ing applies to me,” checked Facebook and YouTube “at least five ti\ mes per day.” While most Facebook news pertained to mundane activities of close person\ al and distant virtual “friends,” the site was also a source of national \ and international news about celebrities (i.e., the death of Michael Jackson and the arrest of\ Charlie Sheen), 252 Journal of Comm unication Inquiry 36(3) outlandish events (Somali pirates or teen boy falling from plane), and\ political news (immigration laws; gay marriage referendums; or the 2011 protests in the Middle East). Again, personal connections with friends and family in social ne\ tworks served as news “filters,” bringing various stories to the teens’ atten\ tion and helping them understand their relevance via posted commentaries. A number of studies that empha- size the importance of the Internet for young people in expressing their\ identities and maintaining social connections with peers have noted that sharing news i\ s a part of that process (Livingstone, 2009; Singer et al., 2009; Watkins, 2009). The a\ bility to connect and contribute to ongoing conversations about news via posting comments \ and/or con- tent on social networking sites and blogs was highly valued by the teens\ we inter- viewed, as was the immediacy of the exchanges. Mark, 16, explained, I have a friend who’s obsessed with technology and stuff. He’s alw\ ays posting technology news [on Facebook], and now I’m very into it. There’s a\ blog called Engadget.com. They have a new story like every five minutes. They have w\ rit- ers from all over the place that search the web for anything new related\ to technology news. That’s how we keep up.
Lily, 14, who had recently moved to the United States, used blogging as a wa\ y to adjust to her new life and share news with friends in both her home coun\ try and her new one: “I started blogging at school. It’s a web site and I blog\ about things that I’ve experienced that are different from over here.” Social networking sites and blogs were also valued for their ability to transmit firsthand experiences and dive\ rse perspectives that allowed the teens to develop their own opinions on issues such as war, gay mar- riage, or gun control. “I like how bloggers post on a lot of articles\ and weigh in on stuff. They have some good things to say,” said Jamal, 17. Anthony, 16, felt that blogs offered more local news than did newspapers or TV:
If you want to get local news that’s reliable, people post pictures of certain streets and certain things that happen locally. A lot of bloggers captur\ e things that regular media outlets don’t. So the positives of reading a blog \ is actually getting personal insights on what’s affecting the lives of your neigh\ bors.
Having first learned of a news story from face-to-face or online interac\ tions with family and friends, teens would go to online news sources such as CNN.co\ m, if inter- ested in a topic. Comparing these sites to newspapers and TV news, Eric,\ 17, felt that “online sites are much more organized with a wealth of information an\ d archives,” so he could look back at past articles. Sujeong, 18, liked AOL online because “they explain things more and have more sources,” and Gisela, 16, appreciat\ ed that “on CNN.com, MSNBC.com, Boston.com, there’s no commercial interruptions”\ so she could get news faster. The teens felt that traditional news outlets forc\ e fed them stories in which they had no interest, so they preferred to self-tailor their ne\ ws. Omar, 18, explained, Marchi 253 Often times, I couldn’t care less about the stories that TV news thin\ ks we should care about . . . I don’t care about the B.S. they talk about. So I do\ n’t get my news from television, I don’t get it from the radio, I get it from the Int\ ernet.
Online activities allowed the teens to engage with news in a more comple\ x way than possible with traditional news formats. The links embedded in stories made it easy for them to learn about the history of a topic, related issues, or \ definitions of unfamiliar terms. They especially liked how online comments exposed them\ to a vari- ety of opinions that helped them form their own opinions on issues. “\ When I was reading a blog about the legalization of marijuana and saw all the diffe\ rent comments people posted for and against it, I thought about certain things I didn’\ t consider before,” noted Lily, 14. “I like reading blog discussions about politics, like when they\ raised taxes, I was reading the pros and cons and how it affected welfare,” \ said Kim, 17. “I just love to know people’s points of views, even if it’s bad, so I can know where I stand,” said Michelle, 17. The desire to gain perspective on curren\ t events through exposure to diverse opinions was a salient theme, helping explain teen p\ references for online versus traditional news. As the teens discussed their practices o\ f staying informed, a third source of news was mentioned: humorous and/or acerbic \ current events programming, particularly the genre known as “fake news.” Opinionated Talk and “Making Fun of Stuff” “Fake news” refers to entertainment TV shows that parody network n\ ews, using satire to discuss public affairs. Recent research notes the increasing populari\ ty of mock TV news shows such as The Colbert Report (TCR), The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (TDS), the “Weekend Update” on Saturday Night Live (SNL) and other satirical pro- ductions, and the public’s increasing reliance on them as sources of \ news (Baym, 2005; 2010; Borden & Tew, 2007; Fox et al., 2007; Harrington, 2005, 2008a, 2008b; McKain, 2005; Turner, 2005). Researchers react with varying degrees of approval and concern to the public’s growing reliance for news on shows that are n\ ot produced by journalists and lack commitment to journalistic objectivity. However, according to recent national studies, viewers of such shows are better informed about\ national and international affairs than those who rely exclusively on official news. \ Young adults who watched The Daily Show scored higher on campaign knowledge tests than those who watched network news or read newspapers (NAES, 2004). Viewers of The Daily Show and Colbert had the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, outranking consumers of major print newspapers, newspaper web sites, online news sites such as Google News and Yahoo News, news magazines, news radio, CN\ N, and network news. These studies did not collect data on people under 18, but\ when asked to name their main sources of news, more than a quarter of the teens we \ interviewed listed TDS, TCR, SNL, David Letterman, Jay Leno, or O’Reilly. 2 Combined with stu- dents who said they got news from humorous talk radio, about a third of the teens mentioned humorous or acerbic talk shows as sources of news. 254 Journal of Comm unication Inquiry 36(3) Previous research has found that adults consider fake news shows to be “\ knowledge- enabling” as opposed to merely “informational” (Baym, 2005, 20\ 10; Fox et al., 2007; Harrington, 2008a, 2000b; MacDonald, 2000). Baym (2005) notes that \ while typi- cal TV news reports the “facts” in rapid succession, switching top\ ics with little or no contextualization, fake news “places its topics in wider contexts, of\ ten providing back- ground information and drawing historical linkages of the sort uncommon \ to television news” (p. 264). The in-depth discussions found on TDS and TCR, in particular, provide information on institutional processes (i.e., how a bill becomes law, o\ r how the Electoral College functions) rarely explained in mainstream news. While official news increasingly resembles banal entertainment, growing numbers of scholars note that fak\ e news provides the type of political communication that promotes public debate. Althoug\ h they are not officially “the press,” these shows enact the classical watchdog r\ ole of the press by striv- ing, through satire, to hold powerful authorities accountable for what they say and do (Baym, 2005, 2010; Harrington, 2005, 2008a, 2008b). Recognizing the hybrid nature of news information in our discursively integrated age, Baym (2010) ur\ ges us to move beyond mutually exclusive dichotomies of “entertainment or informatio\ n” (p. 104).
Borden and Tew (2007) argue that since fake news shows are free from t\ he official news constraints of gatekeeping and objectivity, they offer the same kind of \ authenticity prom- ised by bloggers, in terms of drawing attention to lapses of journalisti\ c integrity. Warner (2007) contends that Jon Stewart’s Socratic questioning technique is “a rhetorical tactic t\ o point out incongruities, inconsistencies and internal contradictions” in the public dis- course of politicians and other powerful actors (p. 23). By purposely \ eschewing the authoritative voices that are the hallmark of professional reporters, su\ ch shows critique the trivialization of news and superficial reporting that have become co\ mmonplace in professional journalism. They offer audiences a taste of what current ev\ ents news could be if stripped of its dependence on the authority of the presenter, focu\ sing instead on the quality of political arguments (Turner, 2005). The teens expressed similar ideas. Explaining how she first became aware\ of the 2008-2010 financial crisis watching SNL, Maneeya, stated, “At first, when the econ- omy was going down, they did a joke about it and I thought it was very f\ unny. Then I saw the regular news and was like, “Oh my God, it’s true!” Mi\ ke explained, “I watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I actually find it a really interesting way to get news, because it’s funny, but you learn from it.” Mohamed, 15, watched TDS “every night before bed” and, on the ideologically opposite end of the scale, he also watched The O’Reilly Factor. Although he held progressive views, he prided himself on being open-minded and tuned in to conservative shows to “hear the other side.” What did he like about these shows? He said, “They remind me of myself.” He contin- ued, “I’m very opinionated and quick to start an argument, but som\ etimes when you start an argument, it could lead to either yourself discovering somethin\ g new about a topic or someone else discovering something new.” Like many of his pe\ ers, he appre- ciated that the hosts of such shows provided unambiguous political opini\ ons:
O’Reilly is very opinionated, very strong willed and he’s quick to\ jump on anyone else, but also Jon Stewart criticizes people. He doesn’t do it\ in the same Marchi 255 way . . . but he’s sort of sarcastic about it. Satire. And that’s \ what I do when I argue with people. I just kind of make fun of their points.
For similar reasons, Mark, 16, found sarcastic news commentary on his favorite rock station more appealing than official news: “I listen to WBCN a l\ ot. 104.1. I think it’s a great show. It’s very funny. But, they incorporate a lot of\ news. They make fun of stuff, indirectly, but they mention news.” So, what was it about being opinionated and “making fun of stuff” \ that made these programs more satisfying newsgathering experiences for the teens?
Youth, News, and the Public Sphere A commonality of these genres is that they do not just relate the news, but provide interpretations and judgments about current events. Since the mid-20th c\ entury, the ethic of public service in U.S. journalism has been a revered profession\ al standard, whereby journalists ideally functioned as “watchdogs” protecting t\ he public from government and corporate abuses. Yet this ideal has been eroded in recen\ t decades for reasons related to the changing economics of the news industry and major transforma- tions in U.S. culture and politics (Hallin, 2000; McChesney, 2000, 2004\ ; Schiller, 2000). In the fiercely profit-driven battle for news market share, basi\ c tenets of profes- sional journalism, such as independence, investigation, and verification\ , are too often superseded by sensationalism and generic reporting. Experiencing massive\ budget cuts, newsrooms have slashed independent research and fact checking, becoming ever more dependent on free sources of news produced by corporate and government pub - lic relations staff (Stauber & Clyde, 1995). Despite this reality, the\ appearance of objectivity is staunchly maintained by professional news outlets, giving\ rise to skepti- cism among the public, particularly the young. Youth tend to have both idealistic and rebellious tendencies, as evidenc\ ed in the youthful countenance of so many movements for social justice. Young enou\ gh to believe change is possible and old enough to recognize when something is\ amiss, they admire individuals who are not afraid to confront hypocrisy. As the teens’ comments reveal, they value truth in reporting, but are not convinced that profes\ sional news is truthful or trustworthy. Recall that they described traditional news as “boring” and “the same”—implying that it was predictable and devoid of any q\ uestioning of power.
In contrast, they felt that Facebook postings, You Tube videos, blogs, opinionated talk shows and fake news provided background information and perspectives that enabled them to understand the larger meanings of political events and develop t\ heir own opin- ions. For them, this was a more truthful and authentic rendition of news\ . The concept of objectivity—reporting the “facts” in a nonpartis\ an fashion—has been a cornerstone of professional U.S. journalism. Herbert Gans (1979)\ stated that objectivity “includes the freedom to disregard the implications of th\ e news. Indeed, objectivity could not long exist without this freedom . . .” (p. 188\ ). Yet our teens indi- cated that the implications of the news were what they most wanted to understand. 256 Journal of Comm unication Inquiry 36(3) Sadé, 17, said, “Right now, they’re too focused on things that \ entertain and not stuff like a more complete evaluation of the war in Iraq or Obama’s adminis\ tration or some more important things like that.” Mohamed, 15, said, It sort of gets on my nerves that, back when the housing bubble was stil\ l intact, there would be hundreds of articles in the New York Times talking about what restau- rant is best, but very few talking about what happens if the housing bub\ ble pops, what happens with these companies like Enron. Mainstream news media’s “objectivity” was not something the tee\ ns found useful.
George, 16, spoke sarcastically about the concept of objectivity, implying that report- ers used it to appear unbiased while glossing over wrongdoings: In a news story, you can’t say certain things. Like you can’t poin\ t fingers and say, “Well, he screwed up the economy by overpaying everybody and making stocks crash.” You have to be more “objective” [sarcastic tone] about \ it, you have to say [mocking official voice], “This company crashed because of the ‘fi\ nancial crisis.’” He felt angry and deceived that journalists, in his opinion, hadn’t “pointed fingers” and interrogated the people and policies responsible for the economic me\ ltdown. Even some of the youngest teens expressed doubts about the objectivity of the\ news.
William, age 14, stated, “I don’t trust the news all the time beca\ use I’ve heard that sometimes they tell lies. I used to think it was all facts and true. But\ now I don’t com- pletely trust it.” Ironically, while the students’ comments and behaviors implied that t\ hey were uninterested in “objective” news, it was, in part, their desire to\ gain a more balanced understanding of news that attracted them to blogs, Facebook postings, Y\ ouTube vid- eos, fake news, and other nontraditional sources of news. In contrast to the disinter- ested observations about the political world typical of “boring” p\ rofessional news, the ironic and passionate remarks of blogs and humorous or acerbic current e\ vents shows “put things in context,” offered “different opinions,” and w\ ere “not afraid to tell it like it is.” The teens enjoyed the use of opinion and sarcasm employed to \ expose lies and abuses. They understood that shows such as TDS and O’Reilly were not “news,” but indicated that they provided clearer understandings of current events, helping them to see what was at stake regarding a given event or policy. As Kara, 16, pu\ t it, “The regu- lar news gives you one side and another side, but you don’t really kn\ ow which one is good or bad.” Potential concerns regarding “a la carte” news consumption among youth include fears that this may allow them to avoid important political stories in f\ avor of trivia, or encourage the creation of an “echo chamber” where individuals are \ exposed only to views that match their own (Garnham, 1992; Pariser, 2011; Sunstein, 2007). Others respond, in contrast, that gaining access to new political ideas and dif\ fering opinions is common on social networking sites (Clark & Van Slyke, 2010; Rainie &\ Smith, 2012). Based on our interviews, the “echo chamber” effect does no\ t appear to be any more likely today than in the past, and may even be less likely. Exposed\ to diverse “friends” and commentators, the teens liked blogs and Facebook pos\ tings because they could “hear the pros and cons,” “know other people’s vi\ ews” and “think about Marchi 257 things I didn’t consider before.” And since news is now transmitte\ d via myriad plat - forms, from cell phones to blogs to entertainment shows, to TVs in store\ s, subways or taxi cabs, youth who would otherwise not seek news at all are at least nominally exposed to the top stories of the day, while those who want to follow ne\ ws closely have access to more sources and opinions than ever. The question remains whether young people can decipher factual from false information. Bloggers and t\ alk show hosts are riveting sources of opinion, but many do not fact check or sho\ w concern for reliability. While this problem is not limited to youth, it underscores \ the critical impor- tance of media literacy and journalism training for high school students\ . An additional concern regarding today’s fragmented news environment i\ s the potential weakening of democratic deliberation. If everyone gets their information from different places, it is argued, our ability to hold common conversa\ tions and debates is diminished. However, the a la carte news strategies of today’s youth offer possibilities to strengthen rather than weaken national conversations. As feminists, LGBT people, racial minorities, and other historically marginalized grou\ ps point out, there has never been only one public sphere. Rarely seeing their concern\ s represented in mainstream news, such populations have depended on a variety of alter\ native media through which to become informed (McKee, 2005). The multiple public sp\ heres now existing online, on TV, and on talk radio help citizens of all ages, soc\ ioeconomic and racial backgrounds, sexual orientations, or political leanings develop t\ heir ideas and viewpoints, making them better prepared to contribute to larger public d\ ebates.
Conclusions Although bored and skeptical of official news, teens are not necessarily\ tuned out when it comes to current events. More connected than ever to friends, fa\ mily, and the larger world, they get much of their news from their social networks. Wh\ ile this has long been the case, as the Personal Influence research of Lazarsfield an\ d Katz (1955) attests, it is even more common in today’s media saturated world, whe\ re youth are in more frequent contact with more expansive networks of friends, family, a\ nd peers.
This study expands on youth and media research, finding that teens gravitate toward fake news, “snarky” talk radio, and opinionated current events sho\ ws more than offi- cial news, and do so not because they are disinterested in news, but because these kinds of sites often offer more substantive discussions of the news and \ its implica- tions. Such formats are “marked by a highly skeptical, alienated atti\ tude to established politics and its representation that is actually the reverse of disinter\ est” (Turner, 2005, p. 92). The assumption that newspapers and broadcast news are the prima\ ry venues for learning about politics (The Dutiful Citizen model) leads to concl\ usions that today’s youth are uninformed and apathetic. This fails to capture the\ many socially networked and entertaining ways young people become informed about curre\ nt events. While most teens probably care more about news of personal interest to t\ hem than about broader political issues, this is a starting point for civic engag\ ement, reflecting 258 Journal of Comm unication Inquiry 36(3) the Actualizing Citizen model. As Bennett (2005) observes, the development of information-seeking skills in adolescents begins with motivation, genera\ lly powered by personal interests. The teens we interviewed did believe it was important to be informed. But unlike Dutiful Citizens, they did not exclusively equate a\ n informed citizenry with daily rituals of seeking official news reports. Nor did t\ hey associate “objectivity” with a rote presentation of two sides, “pro” a\ nd “con.” Instead, they savored the ideological clashes found on social networking sites, blogs,\ fake news, and opinionated talk shows, which they considered more objective and informa\ tive forms of news gathering. As Actualizing Citizens, they mistrusted mainstream n\ ews but stayed informed about people and issues they cared about via alternative\ news con- sumption practices, relying heavily on communication networks facilitated by new technologies. Mistrust in mainstream media and politics is not necessari\ ly bad, as Michael Schudson points out: “because of distrust, we have checks and\ balances; because of distrust, we are enjoined as citizens to be watchful” (Sc\ hudson, 1999, p. 301). Today’s Actualizing Citizen may not be the classic “informed citizen” of yore—well-versed on all the political topics of the day. Yet this ide\ al has never actu- ally applied to most Americans (Schudson, 1999). Actualizing Citizens \ can, however, be “monitorial citizens” (Schudson, 1999), equipped with enough \ basic information to take action on issues of importance, if required. Adding to evidence that young audiences are skeptical about the concept \ of objec- tivity (Amadeo, 2004; Brown, 2009; Gigli, 2001; Torney-Purta & Barber, \ 2004), this study points to the need for news organizations to return to the original intention of the concept of journalistic objectivity, which was to disaffiliate news from\ public relations and propaganda, providing the public with information that would allow t\ hem to “not only know but to understand” (Schudson, 2001, pp. 162-164). The findings suggest that what youth gain from nontraditional news formats illuminates an are\ a of potential improvement for mainstream news media. Twenty years ago, Barnhurst and W\ artella (1991) stated that journalists could better connect with youth by offe\ ring a more sub- jective framework in place of “the sterile ‘objectivity’ of mod\ ernism,” asserting “the validity of the subjective experience of both the writer/journalist and \ the reader/ citizen” (p. 208). Today, as young people study, work, and live ami\ dst more racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, and political diversity than ever, they are e\ ven less inclined to accept news coverage from a single “objective” point of view. T\ aking a cue from radio and TV talk shows that acerbically critique public figures, Facebo\ ok and blog postings that express diverse opinions, and TV game shows and competitions that invite viewers to participate via call-ins and cell phone voting, mainst\ ream news pro- ducers in TV, radio, print, or the web, could experiment with alternativ\ e storytelling formats and redefine news content to integrate “facts” with more o\ pinion, critique, and commentary. This would go a long way toward reinvigorating the ideals of\ democratic deliberation for which the news media are meant to be a foundation.
Acknowledgements This research was funded with generous support from The Lilly Endowment, Inc. The author would also like to thank former students Christine Schneider, Carina Sitkus and Cristabel Cruz Marchi 259 for providing invaluable research assistance, and the editor of JCI and \ anonymous reviewers for their very helpful feedback on this submission.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to t\ he research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes 1. Individual interviews and focus groups of 45 to 60 min each were held wi\ th 61 high school - ers aged 14 to 19. (Most fell between the ages of 15 and 18, with three\ 14 and two 19-year- olds). Thirty-eight individual interviews were conducted at after-schoo\ l youth programs in Boston and Philadelphia. Additionally, four focus groups (of five to si\ x members each) were held with 23 students of an alternative high school run by the Boston Pu\ blic Schools. The total sample had approximately equal numbers of males and females and consisted of 26% Black, 25% Latino, 23% White, 16% Asian, and 10% Middle Eastern. With IR\ B approval, subjects were recruited via distributing flyers about the study to relev\ ant staff, program par- ticipants, and parents. Through letters and phone calls, youth and/or th\ eir parents were con- tacted to set up and confirm interviews. Written consent was acquired from all participants and parental consent for those under 18. Participants’ names were kep\ t confidential and pseudonyms have been used. Except for ellipses to shorten lengthy quotes\ , all statements are written as they were recorded.
2.
A small minority of teens listed O’Reilly as a source of news. This show is not in the “fake news” genre, but employs sarcasm, finger pointing, and strident opini\ ons to discuss public affairs. Letterman and Leno both comment sarcastically on the news.
References Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., & Barber, C. H. (2004). Attention to media and trust in media sources: Analysis of data from the IEA Civic Education Study. College Park, MD: The Cen- ter For Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement.
Associated Press. (2008). A new model for news: Studying the deep structure of young adult news consumption (A research report from the AP and the Context-Based Research Group).\ Retrieved from http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf Barnhurst, K., & Wartella, E. (1991). Newspapers and citizenship: Youn\ g adult’s subjective experience of newspapers. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 195-209.
Barnhurst, K, & Wartella, E. (1998). Young citizens, American TV newsc\ asts and the collective memory. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 15(3), 279-305.
Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political jour- nalism. Political Communication, 22, 259-276. 260 Journal of Comm unication Inquiry 36(3) Baym, G. (2010). From Cronkite to Colbert: The evolution of broadcast news. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm.
Bennett, W. L. (2005, September 1). Civic learning in changing democracies: challenges for citizenship and civic education. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. Civic Life Online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 1-24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, M. (2005). Abandoning the news (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
Buckingham, D. (1999). Young people, politics and news media: Beyond p\ olitical socialisation. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 171-184.
Clark, J., & Van Slyke, T. (2010). Beyond the echo chamber: Reshaping Politics through networked progressive media. New York, NY: New Press.
Collins, S. J., & Armstrong, C. L. (2008). U of Florida students prefe\ r campus paper to free daily. Newspaper Research Journal, 29(1), 77-89.
Costera Meijer, I. (2003). What is quality television news? A plea for\ extending the professional repertoire of newsmakers. Journalism Studies, 4(1), 15-29.
Costera Meijer, I. (2007). The paradox of popularity: How young people\ experience the news. Journalism Studies, 8(1), 1-22.
Fox, J, Kolloen, G. & Sahin, V. (2007). No Joke: A Comparison of Subst\ ance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presiden- tail Election Campaign. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51(2), 213-227.
Frola, L. 2006. Tracking the teenage path to news. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/ content/content_view.asp?id=110852 Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what’s news. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Garnham, N. (1992). The media and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (E\ d.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 359-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gigli, S. (2001). Young people and media in Central and Eastern Europe, the CIS, and Balti\ c states. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/magic/resources/InterMedia2000.pd\ f Grusin E. K., & Stone G. C. (1993). The newspaper in education and new\ readers: Hooking kids on newspapers through classroom, Journalism Monographs, 141, 1-39.
Hallin, Daniel C. (2000). Commercialism and Professionalism in the American News Media. In J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass Media and Society (3rd edition, pp. 218-237).
London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Harrington, S. (2005). The democracy of conversation: The panel and th\ e public sphere. Media International Australia, 116, 75-87.
Harrington, S. (2008a). Future-proofing journalism: Youthful tastes an\ d the challenge for the Academy. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 22, 395-407.
Harrington, S. (2008b). Popular news in the 21st century: Time for a c\ ritical approach? Journal- ism; Theory, Practice and Criticism, 9, 266-284.
Jones, A. (2008). Losing the news: The future of the news that feeds democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lazarsfeld, P., & Katz, E. (1955). Personal influence. New York, NY: Free Press. Marchi 261 Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and young adults. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adul\ ts.aspx Livingstone. S. (2002). Young People and New Media: Childhood and the changing media envi- ronment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet: Great expectations, challenging realities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
MacDonald, M. (2000). Rethinking personalization in current affairs jo\ urnalism. In C. Sparks and J. Tulloch (Eds.), Tabloid Tales: Global debates over media standards (pp. 251-266). Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
Marchi, R. (2012). From disillusion to engagement: Minority teen journ\ alists and the news media. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism. 13(6), 750-765.
McChesney, R. (2000). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New York, NY: Free Press.
McChesney, R. (2004). The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st centur\ y. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
McKain, A. (2005). Not necessarily not the news: Gatekeeping, remediat\ ion, and the daily show. Journal of American Culture, 28, 415-430.
McKee, A. (2005). The public sphere: An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
McMane, A. (2007 February 15 & 16). Where the young get the news. Paper prepared as part of New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension, sponsored by the World Press Fre\ edom Com- mittee and UNESCO, in partnership with the Coordinating Committee of Pre\ ss Freedom Organizations and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Paris, Fra\ nce.
Miller, T. (2007). Cultural citizenship: Cosmopolitanism, consumerism, and television in a neoliberal age. Philadelphia, PA: Temple.
Mindich, D. (2005). Tuned out—Why Americans under 40 don’t watch the news. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
National Annenberg Election Survey. (2004). Daily Show viewers knowledgeable about presi- dential campaign, National Annenberg Election Survey Shows. Retrieved from http://www.
annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2\ 004_03 _late-night-knowledge-2_9-21_pr.pdf Nordenson, B. (2008). Overload! Journalism’s battle for relevance i\ n an age of too much Infor- mation. Columbia Journalism Review, 47(4), 30-42.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York, NY: Penguin.
Patterson, T. (2007). Young people and news (A Report from the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy). Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy \ School of Govern- ment, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pres\ spol/research/ carnegie-knight/young_people_and_news_2007.pdf Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2004). Cable and Internet loom large in fragmented political news universe: Perceptions of partisan bias seen as growing, especially by Democrats. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=200 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2007). Public knowledge of current affairs little changed by news and information revolutions: What Americans know. Retrieved from 262 Journal of Comm unication Inquiry 36(3) http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affai\ rs-little-changed- by-news-and-information-revolutions/ Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., & Olmstead, K. (\ 2010). Understanding the participatory consumer: How Internet and cell phone users have turned ne\ ws into a social experience. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/understanding _participatory_news_consumer Quigley, C. (1999). Civic education: Recent history, current status, a\ nd the future. Albany Law Review, 62, 1425-1451.
Raeymaeckers, K. (2004). Newspaper editors in search of young readers:\ content and layout strategies to win new readers. Journalism Studies, 5, 221-232.
Rainie, L., & Smith, A. (2012). Social networking sites and politics. Retrieved from http://www. pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Social-networking-and-politics.aspx Schiller, D. (2000). Digital capitalism: Networking the global market system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schudson, M. (1999). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism: Theory, Prac- tice and Criticism, 2, 149-170.
Sherr S., & Staples, M. (2004). Working paper 16: News for a new generation. Report 1: Con- tent analysis, interviews, and focus groups. Retrieved from http://www.civicyouth.org/ circle-working-paper-16-news-for-a-new-generation-report-1-content-analy\ sis-interviews- and-focus-groups/ Singer, D., Clark, L. S., & Monserrate, R. (2009, May). News a la carte: Customization of news consumption by college students. Keynote panel address, presented to the annual Confer- ence of the Magazine Publishers of America, Boulder: Colorado.
Sunstein, C. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Turner, G. (2005). Ending the affair: The decline of television current affairs in Australi\ a. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
UNICEF. (2005). World Youth Report. New York, NY: CEE/CIS.
Warner, J. (2007). Political culture jamming: The dissident humor of T\ he Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Popular Communications, 5(1), 17-36.
Watkins, S. (2009). The young and the digital: What the migration to social-networking sites\ , games, and anytime, anywhere media a means for our future. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Bio Regina Marchi holds a PhD in communication from the University of California, San Diego.
She is an associate professor in the Department of Journalism and Media \ Studies at Rutgers University. A former journalist, she conducts research about media, cult\ ure, and civic life. She is the recipient of the 2010 James W. Carey Award for Media Research.
