hujanen & pietikainen 2004 interactive uses of journalism crossing between technological...

http://nms.sagepub.com

New Media & Society

DOI: 10.1177/1461444804042521 2004; 6; 383 New Media Society

Jaana Hujanen and Sari Pietikäinen Potential and Young People’s News-Using Practices

Interactive Uses of Journalism: Crossing Between Technological

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/3/383 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:New Media & Society Additional services and information for

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/3/383SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 11 articles hosted on the Citations

at University of the West of Scotland on October 7, 2008 http://nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/3/383


ARTICLE

Interactive uses ofjournalism: crossingbetween technologicalpotential and youngpeople’s news-usingpractices

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

JAANA HUJANENSARI PIETIKAINENUniversity of Jyvaskyla, Finland

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

AbstractThe article examines the interactive uses of journalism,focusing on the changes brought by new communicationtechnology in the everyday news media uses of young Finns.The study is based on a survey and in-depth interviews. Theresults indicate that even though young Finns have easyaccess to new communication technology, journalism is stillpredominantly used via television and printed newspapers.While nearly all subjects followed news regularly, a fifth ofthe respondents had taken advantage of participatoryactivities offered by the news media. Consequently,technology alone does not seem to alter news practices. Theinteractive usage of journalism thus seems to beindividualized entertainment for the majority of the youngpeople that were studied, and only for few was it a platformfor active citizenship. The everyday practices of usingjournalism via new media point towards heterogeneousactivity and the conflicting meanings given to them.

new media & society

Copyright © 2004 SAGE PublicationsLondon, Thousand Oaks, CA and New DelhiVol6(3):383–401 DOI: 10.1177/1461444804042521

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

383 at University of the West of Scotland on October 7, 2008 http://nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

www.sagepublications.com


Key wordseveryday life • interactivity • journalism • new media •news • participation • young people

INTRODUCTIONNew communication technologies are believed to bring about changesin journalism: to attract younger generations of users, increase media supply,and change practices of using and making news. One of the mostfrequently-discussed changes is interactivity – the increasing opportunity tocommunicate across ‘old’ boundaries of time and place, and betweenjournalists and citizens. These real or potential changes are significant asnews is an important part of contemporary western societies. As withjournalism, which is not only about informing people about recent ‘factual’events but also a profoundly cultural sense-making practice of modernity(Hartley, 1996), not only does news provide stories on recent events, butthrough ritualized performance and consumption they affect social life aswell as the everyday life of the citizens (Allan, 1999).

The shortage of everyday experiences and research results of the impactof new communication technology on journalism has left room for variousspeculations on the nature and direction of these changes. Characteristically,discussion has been polarized, either focusing on the positive potential ofnew communication technologies or on their negative consequences. Thepositive potential is seen to lie in the possibility to transform ‘mere’consumers of news into participants, even makers of their own media textsand journalism (Heinonen, 1999: 82), whereas the ‘downside’ is believed tomanifest itself in further fragmentation of audiences and losing a sense ofcommunity, shared citizenship and common public sphere (Buckingham,1998).

The underpinning argument is that if new communication technologyenhances citizens’ willingness and ability to participate, the distance betweenthe elite and citizens should become shorter. Likewise, both journalists andaudience would be closer to each other. Ideally, meaningful publicdiscussion within the platform of journalism would be reinforced: today’srather elitist, conflict-centred news would be transformed into a source of,and an arena for, vivid dialogue between citizens and authorities andpoliticians. Ultimately the news, for its own part, would revive andstrengthen democracy. This line of thinking stems from the ideology ofpublic journalism, where the task is not only to inform citizens but also toenhance meaningful public discussion and participation (Heikkila andKunelius, 1997; Rosen, 1991; Sirienni and Friedland, 2001). Although thesegoals may well be idealistic, this kind of journalism is needed: the critiqueof journalism – voiced in journalism research as well as by the decreasingnumbers of news users – points out that the news tends to position citizens

New Media & Society 6(3)



as outsiders and bystanders. Thus, it ignores the potential for meaningfuldialogue and participation among people (Hujanen, 2000: 250–251;Pietikainen and Hujanen, 2003).

There is little research on interactive journalism from the perspective ofmedia use practices. The challenges and opportunities created by thedevelopment of new communication technologies in journalism are evident,but what remains open is what is changing – if anything – and how. Oneimportant way in which to examine this is to study the needs andmotivations of people to take up this potential, and the conditionsenhancing or limiting these processes. After all, changes in the practice ofusing journalism reflect not so much technological developments thansociocultural ones. Consequently, we believe that citizens play a pivotal rolein determining how, and to what extent, new communication technologychanges journalism.

In this article, we are interested in the possible changes in the usage ofjournalism that are brought about by new communication technology inpeople’s everyday lives,1 here, we focus on the relationship between this andyoung Finns. Given the critique of journalism and the promise of newcommunication technologies, we are interested in examining whether newcommunication technologies have powerful potential: whether they canincrease interaction, transform news users into news-makers and enhancepublic discussion on news sites. We study the kinds of conditions in whichthis potential is realized, as well as what limits or prevents such changesfrom occurring. We trace possible changes in the everyday news media useof young Finns by asking them how they use journalism and what the roleof new communication technologies is.

We focus on young people, as they are believed to be in the vanguard ofnew media change. Young people are often referred to as active andcompetent users of new technology, and talked about as ‘the new mediageneration’ (Buckingham, 1998; Drotner, 2000; Johnsson-Smaragdi andJonsson, 2001; Suss, 2001). They are also believed to be interested in newtechnologies, enthusiastic to try new forms of media and capable of quicklylearning the necessary new skills. Consequently, their everyday use of thenew media within the context of journalism could indicate possible futuredevelopments and changes.

Finland offers a particularly interesting social context in which to studynew media usage: it is among the highest ranking countries in the world interms of mobile phones, internet access and use as well as readingnewspapers. As the home country of Nokia, Finnish people form the testingground for latest innovations. Some have even claimed Finland to be anexample of a virtual society (Castells and Himanen, 2001). In addition, theFinnish news media has utilized new technology in making journalism:newspapers, television news and current affairs programmes all produce

Hujanen & Pietikainen: Interactive uses of journalism



online news and invite people to participate in news through onlinediscussion forums and polls.

Our data consists of a large survey conducted among young Finns, and ofin-depth interviews of some of these young people. The statistical findingsestablish general patterns and tendencies of the interactive use of journalismamong young Finns. By analysing interviewees’ discussions, we examine themeanings that they give to the interactive use of journalism and thelimitations and conditions that they find important either in hindering orreinforcing interaction.

We begin by examining the discussion on the new media within thecontext of journalism, public discussion and citizenship. Next, we give abrief description of our data and methods used. Then we move on topresent our findings regarding the participation of young Finns in the newsmedia and the role of new communication technology in interaction.Finally, we discuss the transitions brought about by the new media in theeveryday use of journalism among the young Finns on the verge of the newmillennium. We also ponder on the consequences of these transitions, orlack of them, within the context of the new media, journalism and practicesof citizens’ everyday lives.

NEW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES INJOURNALISMThe complex processes through which new technological inventionsintegrate into the everyday lives of citizens, practices of institutions andwider cultural practices, are essentially discursive. That is to say that anessential part of these processes is how and what people say, read and hearabout new communication technologies, what kind of representations arecirculated, and which of them are preferred and dominant. Consequently,changes – real, hypothetical, partial – exist not only as materialized ‘reality’but also as discursive phenomena (Fairclough, 1992). Much of thetechnological development thus takes place within and through discourse:new technologies are introduced, debated over and signified in language use.The implication is that discourse is part of social practice and has influentialsignifying power (Foucault, 1972; Mills, 1997). Consequently, the social andlanguage are seen as interrelated: on the one hand, the use of languageconstructs the social, and on the other hand, the social underpins, constrainsand manifests itself in the use of language (Pietikainen, 2000). This kind ofdiscourse analytical framework is a fruitful starting point for examining thesymbolic aspects of interactive journalism and their relevance for everydaypractices of using news.

As a theoretical device, the concept of discourse helps us to differentiatethe various perspectives from which interactive journalism is constructed andconsequently, the makers, users and the role of new technology are




positioned. By a discourse we mean the language used in representing agiven social practice from a particular angle (Fairclough, 1992; Hall, 1997).Thus, discourses are ways of signifying particular domains of knowledge orsocial actions from particular points of view. Since discourses are aboutmaking sense of the social, it follows that there are always various views,and consequently, different discourses about the social. The discoursesthemselves are structured and interrelated. Some are more prestigious andlegitimate, while others have to struggle to gain recognition. (Hall, 1997;Pietikainen, 2000).

A more analytical use of the concept helps us to illuminate theinterrelated and complex aspects of the discursive construction of interactivejournalism and practices of its everyday use. Importantly, each discoursesuggests a different kind of subject position for social actors related to thisdomain. Therefore, there are various discourses available, each positioningpeople and the relationship between groups of people differently. Dependingon whether journalism is seen, for example, through discourses ofinformation, entertainment or democracy, people are positioned differently,as (news) consumers or citizens. Of course, individuals may or may notreject such a position in their everyday practices of using journalism, butthey are forced to take a stand.

By drawing on previous research we have identified three discourses that,in our opinion, are relevant in discussing new technology, journalism andpractices of news consumption. The discourses are: ‘pick and choose’, ‘userin transition’ and ’multivoicing journalism’. We do not think that these arethe only discourses that contribute to constructing interactive journalism,but they are relevant in examining the possible changes brought by newtechnology within practices of using journalism. Although these discoursesare closely intertwined, each captures a different aspect of possible orrealised changes in interactive usage of journalism. ‘Pick and choose’highlights changes in supply and demand, whereas ‘user in transition’concentrates on the activation and expansion of a ‘mere’ recipient of newsinto an active participant. Finally, ‘multivoicing journalism’ centres on widertransitions towards more interactive and dialogic journalism. Next, we moveon to discuss each discourse more in detail.

‘Pick and choose’This discourse is dominant in marketing new forms of journalism availablethrough new communication technologies, such as online newspapers ormobile phone news. It sets up dual representation of journalism and itsusers. On the one hand, journalism is represented as a service for eagerconsumers. New communication technology would improve news servicesas supply expands and opportunities for individualized practices of usingnews according to one’s own schedule and priorities increase (Heinonen,




1999: 81). Relevant to our interests is that the users are positioned asindividual consumers, who are well-served with a wide choice of newsaccording to their taste, interest and time. On the other hand, ‘pick andchoose’ discourse focuses on concerns threatening the quality of journalism.The main concern is that instead of striving for better journalism with thehelp of new technologies, new innovations are used mainly on economicgrounds, to increase the market and lower production costs. The goals ofincreasing dialogue in journalism and facilitating public participation wouldbe set aside and the direction of the development would be the opposite:practices of using news would be steered to an even more fragmented andentertaining direction, thus undermining the very purpose of journalism(Bardoel, 1996: 292; Papacharissi, 2002). As the new media is not availableto everyone, technological changes may increase inequality among citizens(Tambini, 1999: 306). Then, new technologies in journalism would weakenits role as an arena for public discussion.

‘User in transition’This discourse focuses on the potential increase of the interactive use ofjournalism and the idea of increased blurring between making and using themedia (texts). Digital media is represented in particular as almost inherentlyinteractive, whereas ‘old’ media is easily seen as non-interactive and one-dimensional (Bardoel, 1996: 287; Bucy and Gregson, 2001; Heinonen,1999: 37–9; Tambini, 1999). As new communication technologies areportrayed in this way, media making and using practices also becomeinteractive. In journalism, news users would not only read or watch news orlisten to it, but would be interested in making contact with newsrooms andjournalists. Hence, this discourse positions news users at the verge oftransition – a change from ‘mere’ users into participants, makers of mediatexts and journalism, and ultimately, into active citizens in society. In apositive reading, not only is communication between audience andjournalists believed to increase but also the dialogue between citizens anddecision-makers. From the viewpoint of our study, an essential feature ofthis discourse is its focus on young people, who are believed to beparticularly enthusiastic to try out new, interactive ways of using the media.In other words, young people (more than anyone else) would be the part ofthe audience that would make the most of technological changes, incontacting people virtually, discussing, commenting and participating.

At the same time, the vision of news users becoming makers of their ownmedia texts is seen as utopian. A critical version of ‘user in transition’discourse brings up the implementations of everyday usage needed forinteractive use of the new media: mere technology does not result ininteractivity – users’ motivation, competence and actions are needed also(Fornas, 1999; Heinonen et al., 2001: 125–6; Naranen, 1999; Tambini,




1999: 322). Another critical point arising in this discourse is that theinteractive use of the ‘old’ media is often downplayed (Pietila, 2001: 19). Inaddition, it may well be that the attraction of journalism is still within itsorganized, familiar structure (Kuusisto and Sirkkunen, 1999). Professionalpractice and journalists’ privilege to make news may also collide withcitizens’ attempts to contribute to news-making.

Multivoicing journalismThis discourse represents a new kind of journalism: instead of one-dimensional, monologic news, journalism would become – via theinteraction of people that is prompted by new communication technologies– multivoiced, entailing multiple voices and perspectives (Heinonen, 1999:82). In this discourse, journalism is portrayed as a resource for citizenship.Also, the main task of the news media is seen to be a forum for publicdebate. Typically, the viewers and readers of the news are positioned in thediscourse as citizens and people who are motivated to participate in publicdiscussion and act for the common good. These representations are familiarfrom discussion on public journalism (Friedland, 1996: 201–6; Sirienni andFriedland, 2001: 188–93) and on participatory research projects in whichthe roles of journalism and new communication technologies have beenstudied. For example, the focus has been on how interactive journalismreinforces and strengthens public discussion and local participation of citizens(Heinonen et al., 2001).

However, it can be argued that much of the ideals of civic journalism areunrealistic: people’s possibilities and competence to participate in journalismand public affairs vary drastically. For us, an essential critical point relates tothe question of people’s motivation to participate in public discussion and,thus, to contribute to multivoicing journalism. Further, what would be theresult if most citizens participated in journalism by voicing their opinionsand making their own texts?

THE STUDY IN CONTEXTThe data of the study was collected in two phases, comprising a largesurvey and in-depth interviews. The survey was conducted in autumn 1999among young Finns, who were recruited from the population in centralFinland born in 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1986. A total of 800 people and 100respondents of each sex per age group were selected at random, contactedand asked to participate in the survey. A total of 700 young people returnedthe questionnaire, and two were discarded, thus forming a group of 698respondents representing a response rate of 87 percent. The sample included337 male and 361 female respondents. As regards their media environment,the respondents represent young Finnish people, apart from those living in




the northern part of the country or in the capital, where access to media isdifferent.

The majority of the respondents were pupils or students and still livingwith their parents. They had access to a large variety of different media,varying from newspapers and television to mobile phones and the internet.Nearly all of them had a television, radio, stereo and telephone at home. Intheir personal possession or use, a majority had a mobile phone, three-quarters had a computer and almost a half had access to the internet athome. The survey included 121 questions regarding e.g. media ownership,uses of different media and media texts. Here, we focus on findingsregarding participation in the media, particularly the news media. Thesurvey was coded for SPSS-database and analysed statistically (for details, seeLuukka et al., 2001).

In the second phase, qualitative interviews were carried out among therespondents. We used the survey findings to detect young people that hadindicated their interest in news (Hujanen and Pietikainen, 2001) and hadjust begun, or were on the verge of beginning, to lead an independent life,thus being free to make their own media choices. We interviewed 11 ofthem. In addition, we interviewed three young people outside the sample inorder to make sure that a rich spectrum of experiences of using and makingsense of the (new) media was included in the data. The interviewees were19–26-years-old; half of them were girls and half were boys. For theinterviews, we used the survey findings of each interviewee as backgroundas well as biographical information. This allowed a dialogue between thequantitative and qualitative methods and findings.

During the interview the young Finns were asked about the role of newsin their lives, the significance of new communication technology in usingnews, and about participating in making journalistic texts. The interviewswere conducted in summer to autumn 2001 and each lasted between oneand two hours. The interviews were taped and transcribed, and the dataanalysed using qualitative text analysis. In the analysis, we focused onmoments where the interviewees talked about their interactive uses of thenews media, meanings, conditions and limitations.

With these two different kinds of data our aim is to examine both thegeneral patterns as well as individual experiences of using journalism at atime when the availability of the news via new media was a new reality.Although we are aware of the possible incompatibility of quantitative andqualitative data, we believe that the two can be complementary and result ina rich, interesting picture of the impact of new communication technologieson the everyday use of journalism among young people. Further, tohighlight the relationship between the young people’s practices of usingjournalism and the discursive construction of interactive journalism, we lookat our findings in relation to the three discourses introduced above. By




doing this, we hope to explore how, and to what extent, the everyday usageof journalism reflects, reinforces, legitimizes or challenges the user positionssuggested in the discourses.

Next, we present our findings regarding the participation of young Finnsin television, newspapers and online newspapers. By participation we meanways in which ‘mere’ reception of news texts transforms into moreinteractive action. In practice this could mean, for example, writing texts,participating in polls or giving feedback to journalists. As our aim is toexamine the possible changes brought by the new media in practices ofusing journalism, we will present findings indicating such changes, or thelack of them. In order to do this, we will focus on the instances of newtechnology in everyday use of journalism, as well as on the absence of theimpact of the new media on usage of news. We look at the potentialmoments or locations of change in forums of news usage, frequency,methods and motivation for participating in journalism. We will discuss eachof these in turn.

RESULTSForums of news usageIn the light of our findings, new communication technologies have notchanged the usage of journalism radically among young Finns at the turn ofthe millennium. Regardless of the availability of, and possibilities to follow,the news in digital forums, as alluringly described in ‘Pick and choose’discourse, the vast majority of young Finns preferred printed newspapersand television news as their primary forum of following news. Of the youngFinns, 42 percent followed television news daily and an almost equalnumber (39%) read news in a newspaper daily. In contrast, young Finnsused digital forums for following news much less frequently, although threeout of four had access to the internet at home, and two out of three hadtheir own mobile phone. Even though 65 percent were familiar with newson the internet, only very few (3%) read news on the internet daily. Forexample, only two respondents said that they read online newspaper newsdaily, and nine youngsters used mobile phone news daily.

As for the interviewees, the digital news forums did not appear attractiveeither. Although all of them were familiar with news sites and had visitedthem as part of school assignments or had come across them while surfingthe internet, following news via new communication technology was notcommon. Reasons for this were, for example, that the news were not ‘thatinteresting’ (Pekka) and ‘why bother, since everything is offered nicely intelevision news or in newspapers’ (Jouni). A major factor in preferring printjournalism to the online version was that paper was considered to be moreuser-friendly – the interviewees felt that it was easier and nicer to read newsstories on paper than on-screen. As one of the interviewees (Pete) explained:




‘it is hard to take the computer with you on the bus or train whereas youcan easily carry a paper and throw it away if necessary.’ Thus, the technicalnature of digital forums also contributed to favouring the more traditionalnews media among the young Finns.

The participants also had misconceptions regarding charges to use newssites:

I’ve never visited it since you have to pay for reading it. (Juho)

Alternatively, they felt that the sites were difficult to find and that in theend, they did not offer anything special:

I don’t think they offer anything new, not so much that it would make sensevisiting them. (Akseli)

The disadvantage with the Net is that if you don’t know a particular address,sites are difficult [to find]. (Kaisa)

Only exceptional events, such as the Jolo hostage situation with Finnishhostages, had prompted a few youngsters to browse the news on theinternet.

Making contactThe often-repeated claim, conveyed by the ‘user in transition’ discourse, isthat new communication technologies prompt media users to make contact,give feedback and write their own news stories. Our findings of theinteractive usage of new communication technologies in journalism indicatethat the reality is more contradictory. The young Finns were familiar withnew communication technologies and recognized their potential for easierinteractive communication. Still, new communication technologies were notused interactively to any greater extent in everyday consumption of news.The possibility of contacting the news media intrigued a relatively smallnumber of young people; while nearly all young Finns followed the newsmedia regularly (85%), 18 percent of them had contacted the news media.Interestingly, interaction with newsrooms was an action favoured amongyoung Finnish girls, particularly those aged 17–19. Among our respondents,25 percent of 17–19-year-old girls and 22 percent of 13–15-year-old girlshad contacted the news media, whereas only 15 percent of older boys and10 percent of younger boys had done the same. However, among those whohad been in touch with the news media, only very few had contacted themseveral times.

If we turn to the means of making contact (N = 375), the ambivalencebecomes even more evident. The often-repeated claim that new ways tocontact the media gradually replace traditional means of communication wasnot true in everyday life of young Finns. Namely, one-third (34%) of all




contact took place via email. Traditional means of communication had notbeen replaced, since one-third of contact (33% ) took place by sending acard or writing a letter. Further, even though a vast majority of therespondents had a mobile phone, only one-fifth (19%) of the contact wasmade by a mobile phone. Text messages (short messaging service, or SMS)were used even less: although a great majority reported that they ‘texted’daily, only 6 percent of contact with the news media took place throughSMS.

As targets for contact, the traditional news media were more popular thanthe new news media; young Finns experienced a need for mediaparticipation more often with newspapers and television than their virtualcounterparts. The majority of contact was directed towards newspapers(50%), followed by television (27%). Every fifth (23%) contact was made toonline newspapers. The youngsters who were interviewed emphasized thebenefits of new communication technology in terms of easiness and rapidity,even if they did not use it regularly. The following extracts from interviewswith two young Finnish girls illustrate this:

The net is actually very easy to use and it’s quick. So yeah, it definitely is[preferred to writing a letter]. (Kaija)

I guess the threshold [to write] would be lower if you were connected, on thenet you can start writing just like that. But since I don’t have access at home,if you start writing something here [at the library], there’s really no time orpossibility. (Kirsi)

These comments bring up an important aspect of interactive usage,namely, that an increase in technological solutions does not result directly inan increase in actual contact – as the critical version of ‘user in transition’discourse has suggested. Although new ways to make contact are ‘easier’ and‘better than using pen and paper’, the young people interviewed hardly everused the new communication technology in communicating with thenewsroom. This points towards other kinds of constraints and limitations formaking contact. In our case, the idea of contacting newsrooms was simplyalien and unnecessary for many young Finns, regardless of many attempts bynews-makers to invite people to get in touch, and all the new technologiesavailable. The following examples illustrate this:

Kaija: Well, I guess some people who want [to contact others], theywant to speak their minds or complain about something, then Iguess they write on the net that this and that wasn’t right.

Interviewer: Hmmm, have you ever done that yourself?

Kaija: No. [laughs]

Interviewer: Have you ever considered contacting a journalist?




Pekka: No, I haven’t contacted them.

Interviewer: Can you see yourself doing that, if for instance you read or heardsomething interesting or annoying on TV, do you think you couldthen email or phone the reporter?

Pekka: hmmm, no I don’t think I’d do that. Maybe I’d talk about it withmy mates but I don’t think I’d ever contact anyone.

Kaija and Pekka’s dialogue illustrates that while they are aware oftechnological opportunities to contact news-makers, it is ‘someone else’,‘others’, who make such contacts, not themselves. This does not mean,however, that journalism does not facilitate discussion. Discussion only takesplace in one’s immediate environment, among friends and family, not withjournalists. So far, the existence of new communication technologies doesnot appear to have changed this.

Participation activitiesNew communication technology has invested heavily in new, easier andmore equal possibilities to participate in the media. By participation in themaking of the news media (texts) we mean taking up any of the activitiesthat are available for news users, such as participating in competitions, polls,questionnaires, writing a letter to the editor, participating in an onlinediscussion group, giving one’s own opinion to a current affairs programmequestionnaire, giving feedback to journalists, sending them hints orquestions for new stories or even writing one’s own news texts. Theseactivities may be grouped as quizzing, voicing one’s own opinion andcommenting on journalism. We discuss each activity group in turn.

QuizzingOut of the inquired possibilities to participate in journalism, young Finnswere most intrigued by the possibility of taking part in competitions, pollsand questionnaires. Out of all the participatory activities, 37 percent (N =345) comprised this kind of participation. Of the respondents, 18 percenthad taken part in competitions or polls. Further, competing and answeringpolls and questionnaires was the most popular way to participate in eachnews media: as for print media, online newspaper and television news, one-half of the activities was comprised of taking part in competitions. This kindof participation in the news media can be called entertainment, such asquizzes which offer an easy-going, harmless way to spend time. A youngFinnish girl’s comments indicate the lightness of this kind of participation:

Anniina: I always checked on the quizzes there [in the tabloids] [laughs].First I read the horoscope and all sorts of gossip and celebritynews and stories, but I don’t think I read the opinions.

Interviewer: Do you remember what kind of quizzes?




Anniina: No, I can’t remember, I dunno.

Age seemed to enhance the attraction towards polls and questionnaires:the majority of those who had answered them were 17–19-years-old. Girlswere more active than boys, and the most eager participants proved to beolder girls.

Voicing one’s own opinionAnother way to participate in making the news media (texts) involvesexpressing one’s own opinions. In practice, this was realised by writing aletter to the editor or the youth section, or participating in an onlinediscussion group. Among young Finns, giving one’s own opinion was thesecond most frequent way to participate in the news media: it formed 30percent of all participatory activity (N = 345). Out of all the respondents,14 percent had participated in this manner. Thus only a rather smallminority of young people were interested in voicing their own opinionregarding current events and topics. The most popular form of contact wasthrough writing. Of the young people, 11 percent had written a letter tothe editor or contributed to a youth section. However, the motivation forthis type of activity is, at least partly, explained by the life situation of therespondent: it may have been a school assignment, as the following extractillustrates:

Sometimes at school one has had to write letters to an editor and then theteacher sends them to the Keskisuomalainen [the local newspaper], and some arepublished. But it’s nothing more than that. It’s just practice, in case we need towrite something like that sometimes. (Eriikka)

It also seems that even when a young person had motivation to writetheir own stories or opinions, it was not always important to get thempublished.

Yeah, I have written texts to send to a newspaper but I’ve never sent them.[laughter] (Kirsi)

Digital fora for expressing opinions were alien to the vast majority ofyoungsters: only 3 percent had written to discussion fora in the online newsmedia. The comments of a young Finnish boy who had participated in acurrent affairs programme by SMS illustrates well how (once the motivationfor participating exists) the new technology facilitates participation, hencefulfilling the promises described in the ‘multivoicing journalism’ discourse:

Interviewer: . . . that these new technologies would somehow lower thethreshold to participate in the programmes. What do you think?

Matti: Well they have. Really, at least I think so. Actually it’s quite goodto be able to take part every now and then.




Interviewer: Yes. Have you ever contacted them?

Matti: Not that much, a couple of times I’ve sent to Channel Four, tothat whatsit, twenty or something like that. Just that, not thatoften.

Interviewer: You mean that vote

Matti: mmm

Interviewer: By a text message?

Matti: Yes.

Interviewer: Do you think that they have influenced, or why have you sentthose?

Matti: Yes, I think they have. I want to have my say.

Interviewer: Right, and you think it’s a good way, do you think you could dothat also in the future?

Matti: I guess so, if there are interesting topics.

Interviewer: And do you think that the new technologies are the reason forparticipating, that you wouldn’t write a letter or postcard?

Matti: No, I don’t think I’d write, it’s easier this way. Since it’s so quick,then why not do it.

Interviewer: Do you think it’s young people sending these messages?

Matti: Depends on the topic. If the topic interests the young, then Iguess they also send messages.

Commenting on journalismOther ways to participate in journalism include giving feedback tojournalists, or sending them hints or questions for new stories. This kind ofparticipation may be interpreted as a desire to have an impact onjournalism. Of all the participatory activity, 22 percent comprised this kindof action. However, among the young Finns examined, commenting wasrare; 11 percent of them had participated in journalism in this way. Thedistribution of activity among various ways of commenting on journalismwas rather even; 5 percent had given feedback, 3 percent had sent hints forjournalists, and 2 percent had sent questions. In addition, the findingssuggest that similarly to giving an opinion, the young participated this waymore often with printed newspapers than online versions or television news.

One explanation for the unfamiliarity of this kind of participation can befound in young people’s understanding of news and its role. Theinterviewees’ comments suggest that they saw news as ‘untouchable’ – aparticular area of journalistic expertise that is not meant (nor needs) to beinteractive. In their eyes, critical contribution to journalism could be ‘JohnDoe fussing about’, which would only result in twisting facts or interferingwith the work of journalists:




I think there are enough possibilities to comment and give feedback, if thejournalists have already decided what to write and know their topic, and thensome John Doe, who hasn’t a clue, interfere . . . I think that things might gettwisted. (Anniina)

Let those who know the job, also do it. They are quite good at it, there’s noneed to try to mess with it. (Pekka)

I don’t want to stick my nose into other people’s business. (Eriikka)

I haven’t much commented on news to their writers. If I have, then it’s beenabout the pages, how readable they are and how they work with differentbrowsers. (Marianne)

Tied in with the view of news as a special area of journalistic expertise,the young Finns also doubted the relevance of their viewpoints andcomments:

I don’t know if I’d ever come up with the idea that I’d suggest to someone,why don’t you write a story about this. It wouldn’t occur to me thatsomething would make a good piece of news. (Eriikka)

However, participation in making journalism in the future was an option– once one’s competence and capacity had been increased. For the timebeing, many young people felt marginal, and ill-prepared to participate injournalism:

Maybe when I’m older, I think that they don’t really listen to youngsters atthis age. I think you need to be older and have more authority, so anyonewould listen to you. (Anne)

Once motivation and a sense of the relevance of one’s own opinions andknowledge (adulthood) are achieved, new communication technologyappears to play a role in more interactive news-using practices. This can beread, for example, in the following comments explicating how, in the longrun, new communication technology can strengthen the practice ofcommenting on the work of journalists.

In an online paper it [feedback] could work better but maybe when you thinkof an ordinary newspaper, very few people think that someone gets so agitatedthat they’d write to the journalist. I don’t think it happens too often. (Pete)

It’s easier to send it [feedback] on the net via email, you just click and there itgoes, and it’s quicker. (Kaisa)

DISCUSSIONOur findings on the interactive usage of journalism among young Finnsform a heterogeneous and somewhat conflicting picture. Although young




Finns have relatively easy access to new communication technology, arefamiliar with using it and are keen on knowing recent world events, thesethree activities do not intermingle to any greater extent. In other words,while the youngsters use new communication technologies particularly forsocial contact, journalism is accessed predominantly via traditional means,i.e. television and newspapers. With increased opportunity to follow newsindividually according to one’s own time and taste – as marketed in ‘pickand choose’ discourse – the young Finns preferred the national news media.This result indicates that, regardless of an increasing news supply, theattraction of news still lies at least partly in its power to offer moments ofcommunal attachment and a sense of shared experience.

While nearly all the young Finns followed the news media regularly atthe turn of the millennium, almost one-fifth had participated in the newsmedia. This number can be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand,given the novelty of many of the means of participation and the genre ofnews, the number of participants can be regarded as quite considerable. Thisreading of the result lends support to the positional changes of news readersand viewers: the prediction of a gradual transition of ‘mere’ news recipientsto active participation brought up in ‘user in transition’ discourse seems tomaterialize partially. On the other hand, if audience activation is borne inmind, every fifth participant is a relatively small part of youth in general.Our findings indicate more heterogeneous transitions in youth participationthan is often assumed in ‘user in transition’ discourse; while the young Finnsused ‘old’ and ‘new’ means to participate to the same extent, the ‘traditional’news media were clearly preferred by the youngsters as a target ofparticipation. Consequently, participation does not only occur through newtechnology and in a virtual environment, but the ‘old’ and new possibilitiesand arenas overlap and coexist.

The findings show that participation by the young Finns is a mixture ofheterogeneous activities, including quizzing, voicing opinions andcommenting on journalism. For them, interactive use of journalism tookplace most often in the world of virtual quizzes, polls and questionnaires.This rather easy-going type of participation can be interpreted as proof thatjournalism is becoming more entertaining and lighter when it comes toaudience participation. The same applies to the characteristic usage ofjournalism on the internet. On the one hand, interactive usage seems to beindividualized entertainment rather than a platform for active citizenship.On the other hand, for few young Finns the motivation for interactiveusage lies precisely in voicing one’s own opinion and making a difference.These instances indicate that at times the potential of the new media toenhance public discussion and participation of citizens is materialized – assuggested in the multivoicing journalism discourse.




The fact that some young Finns participated in the news media givesneither an indication of the significance of such activity for them, nor doesthe type of activity automatically reveal the motivation for suchparticipation; while taking part in chat is entertaining babble for one, thesame activity may be influencing and participating in public discussion foranother. As with various discourses which overlap and together form acomplex – and, to an extent, contradictory – representation of the newmedia in journalism, the everyday practices of using journalism via the newmedia point towards the heterogeneous activity and conflicting meaningsgiven to them.

We were impressed by how effortlessly the young Finns adapt and movealong within and between the multiple and relatively rapidly changing(subject) positions available in the new(s) media world. It seems to us,therefore, that it is unfruitful to discuss interactive usage of the news mediaamong young Finns through polarized positions of either interactive or notinteractive, but rather to perceive the changing news world as an emergingand transforming continuum of possibilities which are taken up by some andbypassed by others, and which have different kinds of meanings for differentpeople at different moments. Even if the potential of the new media maynot be realised, or is realised differently in people’s everyday media use, inthe light of our findings we consider the existence of new communicationtechnology to be a chance for journalism to maintain and develop its role asa significant public discussion arena and as a resource for citizenship.

NoteThe article is part of a larger research project: ‘Emerging Finnish media culture:encounters between makers, texts and young people at the millennium’. The multi-disciplinary project is a three-year research project on changing Finnish media culture,examining the media usage of young Finns. The project is funded by the Academy ofFinland.

ReferencesAllan, S. (1999) News Culture. Buckingham: Open University Press.Bardoel, J. (1996) ‘Beyond Journalism. A Profession Between Information Society and

Civil Society’, European Journal of Communication 11(3): 283–302.Buckingham, D. (1998) ‘Muuttuvat lapsuudet, muuttuva media’ [Changing Childhoods,

Changing Media], Tiedotustutkimus 21(1): 4–15.Bucy, E.P. and K. S. Gregson (2001) ‘Media Participation. A Legitimizing Mechanism of

Mass Democracy’, New Media & Society 3(3): 357–80.Castells, M. and P. Himanen (2001) Suomen tietoyhteiskuntamalli [The Finnish Model of

the Information Society]. Helsinki: WSOY.Drotner, K. (2000) ‘Differences and Diversity. Trends in Young Dane’s Media Uses’,

Media, Culture & Society 22(3): 149–66.Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Fornas, J. (1999) ‘Digitaaliset rajaseudut. Identiteetti ja vuorovaikutteisuus kulttuurissa,

mediassa ja viestinnassa’ [Digital Borderlands. Identity and Interaction in Culture,




Media and Communication], in A. Jarvinen and I. Mayra (eds) Johdatus digitaaliseenkulttuuriin [Introduction to Digital Culture], pp. 29–50. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.Friedland, L.A. (1996) ‘Electronic Democracy and the New Citizenship’, Media, Culture

& Society 18(2): 185–212.Hall, S. (1997) ‘The Work of Representation’, in S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural

Representations and Signifying Practices, pp. 13–74. London: Sage.Hartley, J. (1996) Popular Reality. Journalism, Modernity, Popular Culture. London: Arnold.Heikkila, H. and R. Kunelius (1997) ‘Julkisen journalismin aarella’ [Access, Dialogue,

Deliberation], Tiedotustutkimus 20(4): 4–21.Heinonen, A. (1999) Journalism in the Age of the Net. Changing Society, Changing Profession,

Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 685. Tampere: University of Tampere.Heinonen, A., M. Makinen, S. Ridell, A. Martikainen, M. Halttu and E. Sirkkunen

(eds) (2001) Locality in the Global Net. The Internet as a Space of Citizen Communicationand Local Publicness. Tampere: Journalism Research and Development Center,University of Tampere.

Heinonen, A., S. Ridell and E. Sirkkunen (2001) ‘Lessons Learned from the Project’, inA. Heinonen, M. Makinen, S. Ridell, A. Martikainen, M. Halttu and E. Sirkkunen(eds) Locality in the Global Net. The Internet as a Space of Citizen Communication andLocal Publicness, pp. 121–9. Tampere: Journalism Research and Development Center,University of Tampere.

Hujanen, J. (2000) Journalismin maakunnallisuus. Alueellisuuden rakentuminen maakuntalehtienteksteissa ja tekijoiden puheessa [Regional Journalism. The Construction of Regions andRegionalism in Finnish Newspaper Texts and in Journalists’s Talk]. Jyvaskyla:Jyvaskyla Studies in Communication 11.

Hujanen, J. and S. Pietikainen (2001) ‘Osallistujaa etsimassa’ [Looking for Participants],in M.R. Luukka, J. Hujanen, A. Lokka, T. Modinos, S. Pietikainen and A. Suoninen(eds) Mediat nuorten arjessa. 13–19-vuotiaiden nuorten mediakaytot vuosituhannen vaihteessa[Media in Young People’s Daily Life], pp. 196–207. Jyvaskyla: Jyvaskylan yliopisto,Solki.

Johnsson-Smaragdi, U. and A. Jonsson (2001) From a Homogenous to Heterogenius MediaWorld. Access and Use of Media Among Teenagers Over Three Decades. Vaxjo: VaxjoUniversitet Institutionen for samhallsveteskap.

Kuusisto, P. and E. Sirkkunen (1999) Journalismi uuden kynnyksella [Journalism on theVerge of Novelty]. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto, Journalismin tutkimusyksikko,julkaisuja.

Luukka, M.R., J. Hujanen, A. Lokka, T. Modinos, S. Pietikainen and A. Suoninen (eds)(2001) Mediat nuorten arjessa. 13–19-vuotiaiden nuorten mediakaytot vuosituhannenvaihteessa [Media in Young People’s Daily Life]. Jyvaskyla: Jyvaskylan yliopisto, Solki.

Mills, S. (1997) Discourse. London: Routledge.Naranen, P. (1999) ‘Interaktiivisuus mediautopiana ja televisiojournalismin

mahdollisuutena’ [Interactivity as a Media Utopia and as a Possibility for TelevisionJournalism], Tiedotustutkimus 22(4): 50–61.

Papacharissi, Z. (2002) ‘The Virtual Sphere. The Internet as a Public Sphere’, New Media& Society 4(1): 9–27.

Pietikainen, S. (2000) Discourses of Differentiation. Ethnic Representations in Newspaper Texts,Jyvaskyla Studies in Communication 12. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.

Pietikainen, S. and J. Hujanen (2003) ‘At the Crossroads of Ethnicity: Representations ofNorthern People and Regions in Finnish News Discourse’, Media, Culture & Society25(2): 251–68.




Rosen, J. (1991) ‘Making Journalism More Public’, Communication 12(4): 267–84.Sirienni, C. and L. Friedland (2001) Civil Innovation in America. Community Empowerment,

Public Policy, and the Movement for Civic Renewal and Civic Innovation in America.Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Suss, D. (2001) ‘Computers and the Internet in School: Closing the Knowledge Gap’, inS. Livingstone and M. Bovill (eds) Children and Their Changing Media Environment. AEuropean Comparative Study, pp. 221–41. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tambini, D. (1999) ‘New Media and Democracy: the Civic Networking Movement’,New Media & Society 1(3): 305–29.

JAANA HUJANEN is a researcher in the Department of Communication at the University ofJyvaskyla, Finland. Her areas of interest include intertwined questions on journalism,citizenship and local identities, as well as young people’s practices of reading new(s) mediatexts. She has published several articles about these themes. Currently she is involved in aresearch project studying dialogue and citizens’ participant identity in journalism.Address: Department of Communication, University of Jyvaskyla , PO Box 35, FIN-40351Jyvaskyla, Finland. [email: [email protected]

SARI PIETIKAINEN is a researcher in the Department of Communication at the University ofJyvaskyla, Finland. Her research interests lie in critical discourse analysis, practices of makingand using journalism and questions of identity. Her recent articles are about ethnicrepresentations in the media and practices of making and using television news. She is also aco-editor (with Sirkka Laihiala-Kankainen and Hannele Dufva) of a recently published book,Multivoiced Finland. Currently she is researching Finnish ethnic media, with an emphasis onthe possibilities of using the internet for building digital bridges between diasporic minorities,and participant identity in journalism – a theme developed in this article. The research isfunded by the Academy of Finland.Address: Department of Communication, University of Jyvaskyla, PO Box 35, FIN-40351Jyvakyla. [email: [email protected]]




hujanen & pietikainen 2004 interactive uses of journalism crossing between technological...

Education

mediat nuorten arjessa

vuotiaiden nuorten mediakyt

jyv skyl studies

enhance public discussion

online discussion group

young peoples practices

traditional news media

news media regularly