Cultural Differences and Algorithmic Journalism: A Cross-National Study on the Perception of Algorithm-Generated News by Recipients

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence technologies for algorithm-generated text production is one of the most controversial recent developments in journalism. Generally, studies on algorithmic journalism examine its challenges and risks for media organizations and journalists. Very few studies, however, analyse the perception of automated content by recipients. Knowing how cultural differences influence the perception of algorithm-generated news is also important, since culture has a significant impact on how information is perceived by recipients. The purpose of this study is to examine differences in recipients’ perception of automated news using Hall’s (1976) model of high-context and low-context culture. For this, semi-structured interviews with twelve participants — some from a high-context culture, Turkey, and others from a low-context culture, Austria — were conducted between September 2019 and February 2020, and analysed in a comparative perspective to explore their perceptions of news stories generated by algorithms. The results of the study confirm the existence of cultural differences in the perception of algorithm-generated news between high-context and low-context cultures with regard to journalistic quality criteria. Furthermore, it can be noted that Austrian news readers generally looked favourably upon the use of algorithms in journalism and assessed automatically generated news more positively than Turkish recipients.

Keywords

• Cultural Differences
• Algorithmic Journalism
• High-Context Culture
• Low-Context Culture

Kültürel Farklılıklar ve Algoritmik Gazetecilik: Algoritma Üretimi Haberlerin Hedef Kitle Algısına Dair Milletlerarası Bir Çalışma

Öz

Gazetecilikteki en tartışmalı yakın dönem gelişmelerden biri de algoritma üretimi metinler hazırlamak için yapay zekâ teknolojilerin kullanımıdır. Algoritma gazeteciliği üzerine yapılan çalışmalar genel olarak bunun medya organizasyonları ve gazetecilere dair risklerini ve zorluklarını incelemektedir. Çok az çalışma ise hedef kitlenin otomatik üretilmiş içeriklere karşı tepkisini ele almaktadır. Kültürel farklılıkların algoritma üretimi, haberlerin algılanmasını nasıl etkilediği de önemlidir çünkü kültür hedef kitlenin verilen bilgileri algılamasında önemli bir rol oynar. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Hall’ın (1976) yüksek-bağlamlı ve düşük-bağlamlı kültür kuramını kullanarak hedef kitlenin algısındaki farklılıkları ele almaktır. Bunun için bazıları yüksek-bağlamlı bir kültür olan Türkiye’den, bazıları ise düşük-bağlamlı bir kültür olan Avusturya’dan olmak üzere on iki katılımcıyla yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler Eylül 2019 ve Şubat 2020 tarihleri arasında gerçekleştirilmiş ve karşılaştırmalı bir biçimde analiz edilerek katılımcıların algoritma tarafından üretilmiş haber içeriklerini nasıl algıladığı incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, gazetecilik kriterleri bakımından ele alındığında yüksek-bağlamlı ve düşük-bağlamlı kültürlerin algoritma üretimi haberleri algılamasında farklılıklar olduğunu doğrular niteliktedir. Buna ek olarak, Avusturyalı haber okuyucuları genel olarak algoritma üretimi haberlere daha açık olduğu ve otomatik üretilmiş haber içeriklerini Türkiyeli katılımcılardan daha pozitif bir şekilde değerlendirdikleri belirtilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kültürel Farklılıklar
• Algoritmik Gazetecilik
• Yüksek-Bağlamlı Kültür
• Düşük-Bağlamlı Kültür

References

1. Arnold, K. (2016). Qualität des Journalismus. [Quality of journalism.] In: Löffeholz, M. and Rothenberger, L. (Eds.). Handbuch Journalismustheorien. [Handbook theories of journalism.] Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 551–563.
2. Bentele, G. (1998). Vertrauen/Glaubwürdigkeit. [Trust/credibility.] In: Jarren, O., Sarcinelli, U. and Saxer, U. (Eds.). Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft. Ein Handbuch. [Political communication in the democratic society. A handbook.] Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 305–311.
3. Berry, D. M. (2011). The computational turn: Thinking about the digital humanities. In: Culture Machine 12, 1–22.
4. Bucher, H. J. and Altmeppen, K. D. (Eds.) (2003). Qualität im Journalismus. Grundlagen – Dimensionen – Praxismodelle. [Quality in journalism. Basics, dimensions, Practical models] Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
5. Chua, E. G. and Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution in low- and high-context cultures. In: Communication Research Reports 4, 32–37.
6. Clerwall, C. (2014). Enter the Robot Journalist. In: Journalism Practice 8(5), 519–531. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2014.883116.
7. Graefe, A. (2016). Guide to automated journalism. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c56d/609b3cb2ff85a3e657d2614a6de45ad2d583.pdf (10. 04. 2020).
8. Graefe, A., Haim, M., Haarmann, B., Brosius, H. B. (2016). Readers’ perception of computergenerated news: Credibility, expertise, and readability. In: Journalism: Theory Practice and Criticism, 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/1464884916641269.

9. Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K. and Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. In: Human Communication Research 22, 510–543.
10. Gudykunst, W. B. and Nishida, T. (1986). Attributional confidence in low- and high-context cultures. In: Human Communication Research 12, 525–549.
11. Haim, M. and Graefe, A. (2018). Automatisch interessant? Der Einfluss von Involvement auf die Wahrnehmung computergenerierter Texte. [Automatically interesting? Involvement’s influence on the perception of computer-generated texts.] In: Rössler, P. and Rossmann, C. (Eds.). Kumulierte Evidenzen. Replikationsstudien in der empirischen Kommunikationsforschung. [Cumulative evidence. Replication studies in empirical communication research.] Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 189–206. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-18859-7_9.
12. Haim, M. and Graefe, A. (2017). Automated News. Better than expected? In: Digital Journalism 5(8), 1044–1059. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1345643.
13. Hall, E. T. (2000). Context and meaning. In: Samovar, L. A. and Porter, R. E. (Eds.). Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co, 34–43.
14. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor books/Doubleday.
15. Hasebrink, U. (2000). Journalistische Qualität aus der Perspektive des Publikums. [Journalistic quality from the perspective of the audience.] In: Medienwissenschaft Schweiz 1, 6–9.
16. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17. Jung, J., Song, H., Kim, Y., Im, H. and Oh, S. (2017) Intrusion of software robots into journalism. The public’s and journalists’ perceptions of news written by algorithms and human journalists. In: Computers in Human Behavior 71, 291–298. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.022.
18. Jungnickel, K. (2011). Nachrichtenqualität aus Nutzersicht. Ein Vergleich zwischen Leserurteilen und wissenschaftliche-normativen Qualitätsansprüchen. [Quality in news journalism from the point of view of the audience. A comparison of readers’ evaluation and normative quality standards.] In: M&K – Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 59(3), 360–378.
19. Kluckhohn, F. R. and Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientation. Chicago, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.
20. Kowner, R. and Wiseman, R. (2003). Culture and status-related behavior: Japanese and American Perceptions of interaction in asymmetric dyads. In: Cross-Cultural Research 37, 178–210.
21. Maletzke, G. (1996). Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Zur Interaktion zwischen Menschen verschiedener Kulturen. [Intercultural communication. On the interaction between individuals from different cultures.] Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
22. Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. [Qualitative content analysis. Principles and techniques.] Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag.
23. Napoli, P. M. (2014). On automation in media industries: Integrating algorithmic media production into media industries scholarship. Media Industries Journal 1(1), 33–38. DOI: 10.3998/mij.15031809.0001.107.
24. Neuberger, C. (2012). Journalismus im Internet aus Nutzersicht. Ergebnisse einer Onlinebefragung. [Journalism in the Internet from the user’s perspective. Results of an online survey.] In: Media Perspektiven 1, 40–45.
25. Pöttker, H. (2000). Kompensation von Komplexität. Journalismustheorie als Begründung journalistischer Qualitätsmaßstäbe. [Compensation of complexity. Using journalism theory to establish journalistic quality standards.] In: Löffelholz, M. (Ed.). Theorien des Journalismus. Ein diskursives Handbuch. [Theories of journalism. A discursive handbook.] Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 375–390.
26. Thurman, N., Dörr, K. and Kunert, J. (2017). When Reporters get Hands-on with Robo-Writing. In: Digital Journalism 5(10), 1240–1259. DOI: 10.4324/9781315167497.
27. Van Dalen, A. (2012). The algorithms behind the headlines. How machine-written news redefines the core skills of human journalists. In: Journalism Practice 6(5–6), 648–658.
28. Van der Kaa, H. A. J. and Krahmer, E. J. (2014). Journalist versus news consumer. The perceived credibility of machine written news. In: Proceedings from the Computation+Journalism conference, New York. Retrieved from: https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/4314960/cj2014_session4_paper2.pdf (10. 04. 2020).
29. Weischenberg, S. (2001). Nachrichten-Journalismus. [News journalism.] Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
30. Wölker, A. and Powell, T. E. (2018). Algorithms in the newsroom? News readers’ perceived credibility and selection of automated journalism. In: Journalism, 1–18. DOI: 10.1177/1464884918757072.