Module 1: The News and the News User
Module 1 of the course, titled “The News and the News User,” explores who news consumers
are and how news is used in today’s digital, fragmented media environment. Drawing on Perloff
(Chapter 1: News in a Fragmented Age) and Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink (2020), the
module highlights the transformation of journalism and audience practices under conditions of
economic pressure, political distrust, and algorithmic mediation. The overarching goal is to
understand how people consume, interpret, avoid, and share news—and what this means for
journalism’s democratic role.
The Role and Crisis of News in Democracy
According to Perloff, news has always been central to democratic society. It informs citizens,
facilitates public debate, and serves as a watchdog that holds power to account. Journalism not
only monitors and exposes wrongdoing but also provides interpretation of complex events and
fosters empathy toward marginalized groups.
However, Perloff argues that the current era is journalistically turbulent—defined by economic
instability, digital fragmentation, and political hostility. Shrinking revenues and corporate
ownership weaken the investigative capacities of news organizations, especially local ones. At
the same time, people must navigate an “impossibly chaotic ocean of information” on digital
platforms where context, credibility, and coherence are often lacking.
Political leaders have further eroded trust in journalism by weaponizing the term “fake news” to
discredit unfavorable reporting. This strategy undermines journalistic legitimacy and fuels public
skepticism. Despite these pressures, Perloff observes a persistent “human thirst for news”—a
timeless desire to stay informed, even as the structures of information delivery change.
News Fragmentation and Its Consequences
Fragmentation describes the breakdown of linear, centralized news systems into decentralized,
piecemeal streams of information. Instead of reading a full newspaper or watching a nightly
broadcast, users encounter isolated headlines, videos, or social posts. This has led to a loss of
coherence and a severed relationship between audiences and the outlets that produce news.
In the digital environment, distribution and monetization are dominated by social media
platforms and search engines—new “gatekeepers” whose algorithms prioritize engagement
over accuracy. Their commercial logic favors emotionally charged content that elicits clicks,
comments, and controversy. These algorithms are opaque, rarely transparent, and tend to amplify
divisive or fear-inducing material, fostering filter bubbles where users are primarily exposed to
information that confirms their existing beliefs.
,The result is an increasingly polarized and homogeneous information landscape, in which
exposure to differing perspectives is rare. The traditional hope that the internet would expand
access to diverse viewpoints has been replaced by concerns over ideological echo chambers,
misinformation, and declining civic knowledge.
Changing Practices of News Use
Building on 15 years of research, Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink (2020) identified 24
distinct user practices—expressed as verbs—that describe what people do with news in
everyday life. These practices range from active and intense engagement to passive or
avoidance-based behaviors, showing that news use is not a uniform activity but a spectrum of
experiences.
1. Active and Intense Practices
Users who engage deeply with news often do so through Reading, Watching, and Listening,
seeking understanding rather than mere awareness. Others actively Search or Triangulate,
verifying stories by comparing multiple sources—an increasingly necessary skill in the face of
misinformation.
2. Passive and Laid-Back Practices
Many users consume news incidentally or for relaxation, through Hearing or Viewing in the
background, or by Glancing, Snacking, and Scrolling for quick impressions. While seemingly
passive, such practices are integral to modern news habits, and not clicking does not necessarily
signal disinterest.
3. Avoidance and Abstention
Some users deliberately Avoid specific topics (such as politics or negative news) or Abstain
from news altogether due to fatigue, distrust, or emotional strain. This reflects growing news
avoidance, a phenomenon linked to the overwhelming and often distressing character of today’s
information flow.
4. Social and Interactive Practices
Digital platforms have enabled new “small acts of communication” such as Liking, Sharing,
Commenting, Voting, or Tagging. These gestures are less about engagement with content and
more about signaling identity or opinion to others. Increasingly, such sharing occurs on private
channels (like WhatsApp) rather than public platforms, due to privacy concerns and reputational
risks.
,5. Multidimensional Practices
Actions like Clicking or Checking blur the lines between information-seeking and routine
behavior. Checking has become a habitual part of the “checking cycle”, where users briefly scan
news, emails, and social apps throughout the day—integrating news consumption into micro-
moments of daily life.
The Challenge of Fake News
In this fragmented context, Egelhofer and Lecheler (2020) distinguish two key meanings of
fake news:
1. The Fake News Genre – Intentionally deceptive, pseudo-journalistic content designed to
look like real news but containing deliberate falsehoods (disinformation). Such content
exploits the digital economy’s click-based incentives, spreading quickly and distorting
public understanding.
2. The Fake News Label – A rhetorical weapon used by political actors to discredit
legitimate journalism. This delegitimization undermines trust and increases perceptions
of media bias, particularly among politically polarized audiences.
Both phenomena reinforce distrust and make verification practices such as triangulation more
crucial. At the same time, the fatigue caused by these dynamics contributes to abstention and
avoidance, showing the interconnectedness of misinformation, audience behavior, and the
democratic crisis of news.
Social and Democratic Implications
The transformation of news use has deep social and democratic consequences. Trust in
journalism is declining, and political polarization shapes perceptions of media bias across
Western societies. As news merges with entertainment and advertising (e.g., native ads,
influencer content), journalism’s distinct social role is blurred.
Moreover, the fragmentation of news consumption has weakened journalism’s ability to create a
shared public sphere—a space where citizens encounter common facts and deliberate
collectively. Instead, people often operate in isolated informational silos shaped by algorithms
and personal preferences.
Despite these challenges, the enduring human drive to stay informed persists. Understanding the
diversity of news user practices—from checking and triangulating to avoiding and sharing—
helps explain how people navigate the contemporary information environment and what it means
for journalism’s future role in democratic life.
, In summary, Module 1 presents a comprehensive picture of the modern news ecosystem as
fragmented, algorithmically curated, and socially embedded. It bridges the macro-level crises
of journalism (as outlined by Perloff) with the micro-level realities of everyday user behavior (as
analyzed by Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink). Together, they reveal a world in which news
remains essential but increasingly contested—its consumption intertwined with emotion,
identity, and the digital architectures that shape public life.
Module 2 – Journalism: Defining News and Journalism in the 21st Century
Module 2, titled “Journalism: Defining News and Journalism in the 21st Century,” explores
the origins, ideals, and transformations of journalism as both a democratic institution and a
cultural practice. It builds on Perloff (Chapters 2–4), the Knowledge Clip on Habermas and
Anderson, and comparative research by Hallin & Mancini, examining how journalism’s role,
boundaries, and ethics evolve in a digitized and globalized information environment.
The module addresses key questions: What defines news and journalism? How did journalism
emerge historically? Which ideals guide it? And how do journalistic practices vary across media
systems worldwide?
I. Journalism in the 21st-Century Milieu (Perloff – Chapter 2)
Perloff opens Chapter 2 by describing the “dazzlingly digital era” that has fundamentally
reshaped journalism’s environment. The online world has displaced print and broadcast as
dominant sources of information, transforming how news is produced, distributed, and
consumed. Four major developments define this new landscape.
1. Multifaceted and Fragmented Architecture
The modern news environment is fragmented, non-linear, and overwhelming in both
informational depth and questionable veracity. Users now encounter scattered headlines,
images, and updates on mobile phones and social feeds rather than cohesive newspaper editions
or evening broadcasts. This decentralization severs the traditional, direct bond between
audiences and specific news outlets.
2. Diminished Gatekeeping Role
Where journalists once acted as the principal gatekeepers of public information—deciding what
was “fit to print”—that function has weakened. The new digital ethos favors sharing over
editorial selection: “All the news that’s fit to share.” Content spreads horizontally through
networks, and the authority to define newsworthiness has become democratized, but also
destabilized.
Module 1 of the course, titled “The News and the News User,” explores who news consumers
are and how news is used in today’s digital, fragmented media environment. Drawing on Perloff
(Chapter 1: News in a Fragmented Age) and Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink (2020), the
module highlights the transformation of journalism and audience practices under conditions of
economic pressure, political distrust, and algorithmic mediation. The overarching goal is to
understand how people consume, interpret, avoid, and share news—and what this means for
journalism’s democratic role.
The Role and Crisis of News in Democracy
According to Perloff, news has always been central to democratic society. It informs citizens,
facilitates public debate, and serves as a watchdog that holds power to account. Journalism not
only monitors and exposes wrongdoing but also provides interpretation of complex events and
fosters empathy toward marginalized groups.
However, Perloff argues that the current era is journalistically turbulent—defined by economic
instability, digital fragmentation, and political hostility. Shrinking revenues and corporate
ownership weaken the investigative capacities of news organizations, especially local ones. At
the same time, people must navigate an “impossibly chaotic ocean of information” on digital
platforms where context, credibility, and coherence are often lacking.
Political leaders have further eroded trust in journalism by weaponizing the term “fake news” to
discredit unfavorable reporting. This strategy undermines journalistic legitimacy and fuels public
skepticism. Despite these pressures, Perloff observes a persistent “human thirst for news”—a
timeless desire to stay informed, even as the structures of information delivery change.
News Fragmentation and Its Consequences
Fragmentation describes the breakdown of linear, centralized news systems into decentralized,
piecemeal streams of information. Instead of reading a full newspaper or watching a nightly
broadcast, users encounter isolated headlines, videos, or social posts. This has led to a loss of
coherence and a severed relationship between audiences and the outlets that produce news.
In the digital environment, distribution and monetization are dominated by social media
platforms and search engines—new “gatekeepers” whose algorithms prioritize engagement
over accuracy. Their commercial logic favors emotionally charged content that elicits clicks,
comments, and controversy. These algorithms are opaque, rarely transparent, and tend to amplify
divisive or fear-inducing material, fostering filter bubbles where users are primarily exposed to
information that confirms their existing beliefs.
,The result is an increasingly polarized and homogeneous information landscape, in which
exposure to differing perspectives is rare. The traditional hope that the internet would expand
access to diverse viewpoints has been replaced by concerns over ideological echo chambers,
misinformation, and declining civic knowledge.
Changing Practices of News Use
Building on 15 years of research, Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink (2020) identified 24
distinct user practices—expressed as verbs—that describe what people do with news in
everyday life. These practices range from active and intense engagement to passive or
avoidance-based behaviors, showing that news use is not a uniform activity but a spectrum of
experiences.
1. Active and Intense Practices
Users who engage deeply with news often do so through Reading, Watching, and Listening,
seeking understanding rather than mere awareness. Others actively Search or Triangulate,
verifying stories by comparing multiple sources—an increasingly necessary skill in the face of
misinformation.
2. Passive and Laid-Back Practices
Many users consume news incidentally or for relaxation, through Hearing or Viewing in the
background, or by Glancing, Snacking, and Scrolling for quick impressions. While seemingly
passive, such practices are integral to modern news habits, and not clicking does not necessarily
signal disinterest.
3. Avoidance and Abstention
Some users deliberately Avoid specific topics (such as politics or negative news) or Abstain
from news altogether due to fatigue, distrust, or emotional strain. This reflects growing news
avoidance, a phenomenon linked to the overwhelming and often distressing character of today’s
information flow.
4. Social and Interactive Practices
Digital platforms have enabled new “small acts of communication” such as Liking, Sharing,
Commenting, Voting, or Tagging. These gestures are less about engagement with content and
more about signaling identity or opinion to others. Increasingly, such sharing occurs on private
channels (like WhatsApp) rather than public platforms, due to privacy concerns and reputational
risks.
,5. Multidimensional Practices
Actions like Clicking or Checking blur the lines between information-seeking and routine
behavior. Checking has become a habitual part of the “checking cycle”, where users briefly scan
news, emails, and social apps throughout the day—integrating news consumption into micro-
moments of daily life.
The Challenge of Fake News
In this fragmented context, Egelhofer and Lecheler (2020) distinguish two key meanings of
fake news:
1. The Fake News Genre – Intentionally deceptive, pseudo-journalistic content designed to
look like real news but containing deliberate falsehoods (disinformation). Such content
exploits the digital economy’s click-based incentives, spreading quickly and distorting
public understanding.
2. The Fake News Label – A rhetorical weapon used by political actors to discredit
legitimate journalism. This delegitimization undermines trust and increases perceptions
of media bias, particularly among politically polarized audiences.
Both phenomena reinforce distrust and make verification practices such as triangulation more
crucial. At the same time, the fatigue caused by these dynamics contributes to abstention and
avoidance, showing the interconnectedness of misinformation, audience behavior, and the
democratic crisis of news.
Social and Democratic Implications
The transformation of news use has deep social and democratic consequences. Trust in
journalism is declining, and political polarization shapes perceptions of media bias across
Western societies. As news merges with entertainment and advertising (e.g., native ads,
influencer content), journalism’s distinct social role is blurred.
Moreover, the fragmentation of news consumption has weakened journalism’s ability to create a
shared public sphere—a space where citizens encounter common facts and deliberate
collectively. Instead, people often operate in isolated informational silos shaped by algorithms
and personal preferences.
Despite these challenges, the enduring human drive to stay informed persists. Understanding the
diversity of news user practices—from checking and triangulating to avoiding and sharing—
helps explain how people navigate the contemporary information environment and what it means
for journalism’s future role in democratic life.
, In summary, Module 1 presents a comprehensive picture of the modern news ecosystem as
fragmented, algorithmically curated, and socially embedded. It bridges the macro-level crises
of journalism (as outlined by Perloff) with the micro-level realities of everyday user behavior (as
analyzed by Costera Meijer & Groot Kormelink). Together, they reveal a world in which news
remains essential but increasingly contested—its consumption intertwined with emotion,
identity, and the digital architectures that shape public life.
Module 2 – Journalism: Defining News and Journalism in the 21st Century
Module 2, titled “Journalism: Defining News and Journalism in the 21st Century,” explores
the origins, ideals, and transformations of journalism as both a democratic institution and a
cultural practice. It builds on Perloff (Chapters 2–4), the Knowledge Clip on Habermas and
Anderson, and comparative research by Hallin & Mancini, examining how journalism’s role,
boundaries, and ethics evolve in a digitized and globalized information environment.
The module addresses key questions: What defines news and journalism? How did journalism
emerge historically? Which ideals guide it? And how do journalistic practices vary across media
systems worldwide?
I. Journalism in the 21st-Century Milieu (Perloff – Chapter 2)
Perloff opens Chapter 2 by describing the “dazzlingly digital era” that has fundamentally
reshaped journalism’s environment. The online world has displaced print and broadcast as
dominant sources of information, transforming how news is produced, distributed, and
consumed. Four major developments define this new landscape.
1. Multifaceted and Fragmented Architecture
The modern news environment is fragmented, non-linear, and overwhelming in both
informational depth and questionable veracity. Users now encounter scattered headlines,
images, and updates on mobile phones and social feeds rather than cohesive newspaper editions
or evening broadcasts. This decentralization severs the traditional, direct bond between
audiences and specific news outlets.
2. Diminished Gatekeeping Role
Where journalists once acted as the principal gatekeepers of public information—deciding what
was “fit to print”—that function has weakened. The new digital ethos favors sharing over
editorial selection: “All the news that’s fit to share.” Content spreads horizontally through
networks, and the authority to define newsworthiness has become democratized, but also
destabilized.
