Personalisation in Journalism: Ethical insights and blindspots in Finnish legacy media

Henrik Rydenfelt, L. Haapanen, Jesse Haapoja, T. Lehtiniemi
{"title":"Personalisation in Journalism: Ethical insights and blindspots in Finnish legacy media","authors":"Henrik Rydenfelt, L. Haapanen, Jesse Haapoja, T. Lehtiniemi","doi":"10.1177/14648849221138424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The algorithmic personalisation and recommendation of media content has resulted in considerable discussion on related ethical, epistemic and societal concerns. While technologies of personalisation are widely employed by social media platforms, they are currently also being instituted in journalistic media. The objective of this study is to explore how concerns about algorithms are articulated and addressed when technologies of personalisation meet with long-standing journalistic values, norms and publicist missions. It first distinguishes five normative concerns related to personalisation: autonomy, opacity, privacy, selective exposure and discrimination. It then traces the ways that these issues are navigated in the context of journalistic media in Finland where the implications of algorithmic media technologies have received considerable attention. The results indicate that personalisation challenges traditional notions of journalism, including those of choosing what is important and relevant and providing the same content to everyone. However, aspects of personalisation also have a long history within journalistic practices, and new technologies of personalisation are being adapted to accord with journalistic norms and aims. Based on these results, ethical blindspots concerning privacy and discrimination are also identified.","PeriodicalId":74027,"journal":{"name":"Journalism (London, England)","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849221138424","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The algorithmic personalisation and recommendation of media content has resulted in considerable discussion on related ethical, epistemic and societal concerns. While technologies of personalisation are widely employed by social media platforms, they are currently also being instituted in journalistic media. The objective of this study is to explore how concerns about algorithms are articulated and addressed when technologies of personalisation meet with long-standing journalistic values, norms and publicist missions. It first distinguishes five normative concerns related to personalisation: autonomy, opacity, privacy, selective exposure and discrimination. It then traces the ways that these issues are navigated in the context of journalistic media in Finland where the implications of algorithmic media technologies have received considerable attention. The results indicate that personalisation challenges traditional notions of journalism, including those of choosing what is important and relevant and providing the same content to everyone. However, aspects of personalisation also have a long history within journalistic practices, and new technologies of personalisation are being adapted to accord with journalistic norms and aims. Based on these results, ethical blindspots concerning privacy and discrimination are also identified.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新闻中的个性化:芬兰传统媒体的伦理见解和盲点
媒体内容的算法个性化和推荐引起了对相关伦理、认知和社会问题的大量讨论。虽然个性化技术被广泛应用于社交媒体平台,但它们目前也被应用于新闻媒体。本研究的目的是探讨当个性化技术满足长期的新闻价值观、规范和宣传使命时,如何表达和解决对算法的关注。它首先区分了与个性化相关的五个规范性问题:自主性、不透明性、隐私、选择性曝光和歧视。然后,它追溯了这些问题在芬兰新闻媒体背景下的处理方式,在芬兰,算法媒体技术的影响受到了相当大的关注。结果表明,个性化挑战了传统的新闻观念,包括选择重要和相关的内容,并为每个人提供相同的内容。然而,个性化的各个方面在新闻实践中也有很长的历史,并且正在适应新的个性化技术,以符合新闻规范和目标。基于这些结果,还确定了有关隐私和歧视的伦理盲点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Shifting the protest paradigm? Legitimizing and humanizing protest coverage lead to more positive attitudes toward protest, mixed results on news credibility “Remember that?” A temporal perspective on how audiences make sense of the news China’s metaphorically “othered” image in The New York Times (1949-2020) Prehistory of journalism studies: Discovering the Brazilian tradition The digital turn from a newsroom perspective – How German journalists from different generations reflect on the digitalization of journalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1