Journalism Studies: To Cite This Article: Marcel Machill & Markus Beiler (2009) THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET FOR

This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]
On: 12 May 2015, At: 05:10

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journalism Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET

FOR JOURNALISTIC RESEARCH
Marcel Machill & Markus Beiler
Published online: 25 Feb 2009.
To cite this article: Marcel Machill & Markus Beiler (2009) THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET FOR
JOURNALISTIC RESEARCH, Journalism Studies, 10:2, 178-203, DOI: 10.1080/14616700802337768
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616700802337768
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET FOR
JOURNALISTIC RESEARCH
A multi-method study of the research
performed by journalists working for daily
newspapers, radio, television and online
Marcel Machill and Markus Beiler
This article reports how journalists integrate online research procedures into the overall research
process, how they assess the Internet and search engines, and how highly developed their
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 05:10 12 May 2015
competences are in using search engines. Observation of 235 journalists from newspaper, radio,
television and online media platforms provide the data base. To this is added a written survey of
601 journalists and the participation of 48 journalists in an experiment. The observation phase
revealed that journalists employ computer-aided research tools more frequently but for shorter
periods than classical, non-computer-aided research tools. The telephone remains the most
important research tool. Search engines, in particular Google, dominate the source-determination
process and thereby have a decisive influence on the entire course of journalists’ research. The
survey showed that a high level of journalistic attention focused on only a few Internet offerings.
The surveyed journalists exhibit a pragmatic attitude towards the Internet and search engines as a
research tool, even though they are aware of possible problems. The search-engine experiment
revealed that journalists only achieved moderate success in their research. The greatest search
success was achieved by journalists who entered the search terms in a thought-out manner and
combined them logically. Overall, the study shows that computer-aided research supplements but
does not displace classical research. Instead, the Internet gains in significance in those tasks which
it helps to fulfil more efficiently. However, the increased self-referentiality in journalism and the
‘‘Google-ization’’ of research represent a cause for concern.
KEYWORDS Google; Internet; investigation; journalists; observation; research; search engines
Introduction and Aims

During the last 15 years the Internet has brought lasting changes to the work
performed by journalists worldwide. Various studies show that the Internet has established
itself as a naturally employed research instrument among journalists in both the United
States and Europe. The series of studies performed by Middleberg and Ross (2001, 2005)
demonstrates this with regard to American journalists: in 1994 only 17 per cent went
online to search for information at least once a day. By 2000, 81 per cent already did so.
The vast majority of the surveyed journalists revealed satisfaction with the changes to their
work. The series of investigations performed by News aktuell (2000, 2002, 2007) reveals
similar trends for German editorial offices. Online usage increased from 38 per cent in 1997
to 98 per cent in 2002. German journalists used the largest share of this increasing online
Journalism Studies, Vol. 10, No 2, 2009, 178203
ISSN 1461-670X print/1469-9699 online
– 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14616700802337768
IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET FOR RESEARCH 179
time for research; 82 per cent regard search engines to be by far the most important
research instrument (News aktuell, 2002, p. 5).
Two surveys performed by Keel and Bernet (2005) provide evidence concerning
print and broadcast journalists in German-speaking Switzerland. The proportion of
journalists making daily use of the Internet in their work increased from 80 to 92 per
cent. The time spent on online research has increased markedly. Search engines are
considered by users to be very important or important. At 97 per cent, Google is the most
utilized search engine (Keel and Bernet, 2005, pp. 168).
The Internet possesses some obvious advantages for journalists: it can facilitate
preliminary research, simple facts can be checked more readily, information is available
without the limitations imposed by time and space. However, risks also attach to online
research, in particular if research methods beyond the Internet are largely dispensed with.
Of particular importance is the risk of a distorted reality. This runs counter to the function
of journalism and the self-perceived role of journalists in mirroring reality (‘‘objective
reporting’’). As a result of the Internet, the way in which the reality that is to be conveyed
is presented to journalists has altered radically. The problem is due firstly to the credibility
and reliability of sources on the Internet which, as a result of the low barriers to access, can
be easily manipulated and are not subject to professional quality criteria.
A distortion of reality can occur during the use of search engines in particular
because their ranking and updating algorithms are highly selective: certain websites*and,
as a result, the information and opinions contained there*have no chance of being listed
in perceptible ranking positions. A further factor is search engines’ susceptibility to
manipulation. These problems are amplified by search engines as a result of the risk posed
by dependence on a single search engine (‘‘Google-ization’’). An associated question is
whether the consequence is an increased journalistic self-referentiality because only
information that has already been published is adopted.
However, Wegner (2005) advances the contrary thesis according to which the use of
search engines has raised minimum standards in research because even editorial offices
with poor research capacities now have at their disposal a relatively good means of
conducting research. At the same time, Wegner asks one to bear in mind that the
minimum standard that is referred to is frequently also the maximum standard
encountered in journalistic research. In this connection, Wyss and Keel (2007, p. 160)
talk of Google as a ‘‘Trojan horse’’. Alluding to the Greek myth, they urge caution with
regard to the search engines that are introduced into journalism, even if they are a gift.
Previously performed studies are, in particular, quantitative surveys that are only
able to determine in general terms the use of the Internet or the utilization of certain
online offerings during journalistic work. They fail to provide any deep qualitative insight
into the complex journalistic research process which encompasses a range of different
activities. The aim of this study is to close this gap in international journalism research.
In a first step, the specific integration of online research procedures into the overall
research process is examined comprehensively and in detail through observation. The aim
here is to identify typical research patterns. This is supplemented by a survey-based
consideration of how journalists estimate and assess the Internet and search engines as
research tools. With reference to the example of Google, an exploratory experiment
considers the search-engine research competence of journalists. This study focuses
uniquely on German journalists but the central trends identified generate ideas for
countries with similar prevailing conditions in journalism.
180 MARCEL MACHILL AND MARKUS BEILER
Observation of the Journalistic Research Process in Everyday Work at

Editorial Offices
Implementation of the Method
In contrast to quantitative surveys, an observation permits a comprehensive
description of the journalistic research process through analysis of the integration of a
variety of research tools for various research actions. Only observation allows intensive,
qualitative and direct insights into ‘‘natural’’ research work. It was performed on an open
and non-participating basis at the journalists’ normal workplace.
The systematic nature of the observation phase was ensured by using an
observation code book. Various research actions and, in a general manner, all actions
without relevance for the research have been recorded. The research actions are
subdivided into three research sub-processes. On the basis of theoretical considerations
(e.g. Haller, 2004, p. 84), a distinction was made between (1) finding topics and assessing
their relevance, (2) cross-checking research and (3) scope-extension research, which are
subdivided into various research steps.
Within the framework of finding topics and assessing their relevance, all of the
research actions which serve in the finding of news and topics as well the assessment of
their relevance for a publication or the public were coded. The partial process is
subdivided into the steps news and topics monitoring, processing the material that has
been received and assessing the topic. Cross-checking research consists of the research
steps of performing a source check and checking the facts. It encompasses activities
performed by a journalist to validate the credibility of a source or the correctness of the
information available to him or her. Scope-extension research involves activities by means
of which a journalist attempts to supplement and extend the starting information for the
creation of a contribution. Distinctions are made between the steps identifying additional
sources, acquiring additional information, and searching for and sifting-through additional
material.
The research tool used in each particular case was recorded in connection with each
observed research action. This dimension is sub-divided into 13 computer-aided and nine
non-computer-aided research tools as well as a ‘‘special category’’ news agencies. The
category computer-aided research tools covers all of the activities in which a journalist
resorts to the Internet or the computer during his or her research, e.g. e-mails, search
engines, various Web offerings or computer-aided databases and archives such as
Wikipedia. The non-computer-aided research tools represent the ‘‘classical’’ instruments
of research such as phone calls, letter post and faxes, on-site appointments and interviews,
printed reference works or internal editorial discussions.
In conclusion, the practical applicability and reliability of the observation code book
was tested in a simulated editorial office on the basis of predetermined activities
performed by a journalist. The mean level of agreement between the 11 encoders and the
predetermined encodings amounted to a very satisfactory 72 per cent in the case of the
research steps and to an excellent 87 per cent (or rather to 99 for correctly encoded
research steps) in connection with the research tools.
The population of the study consists of journalists that work in Germany on a
permanent or freelance basis for daily newspapers, for radio and television companies
belonging to the public-service or private sector and online media which are (also)
involved in reporting current, national political events. During the process of sample
selection, in an initial stage involving a quota plan, various media or editorial offices were
asked to participate in the observation phase. For reasons of research pragmatism and
access to the field, the selection of specific journalists that were to be observed was
performed ad hoc on site in editorial offices. In order to obtain a comprehensive picture of
everyday research work, each journalist was observed for a complete working day. A total
of 235 journalists involved in 34 media companies (in part with several editorial offices)
were observed. Thirteen daily newspapers (two national, 11 local), eight radio stations (five
public-service, three private), seven television stations (three public-service, four private)
and six online offerings (one a purely Internet newspaper, five offshoots of other media)
participated. It was possible to achieve a sample of journalists which, in terms of the
fundamental tendencies, corresponds to the population of the four areas of the media that
were included (cf. Weischenberg et al., 2006). This permits generalizing statements to be
made.
Overall, 30,057 activities were encoded, 21,145 of them being relevant to research.
The total observation period was calculated as 1959:34 hours1 (8:20 hours per journalist).
As a result, from an international perspective, this investigation can be regarded as the
most extensive observation study on journalistic research.

In order to be able to assess the significance of the sub-processes or steps in the
research as well as the research tools, in the following they are evaluated on the basis of
the share of the frequencies with which certain activities are performed and, secondly, on
the basis of the share of the duration which is taken up by the relevant action. The
frequency and duration shares were aggregated at the person-related level so that each
observed journalist is included in the analysis with equal weighting in spite of differences
in the number of observed activities.
Results
On average, the 235 observed journalists spent 43.0 per cent of their working time
or 3:55 hours per day on research. Online journalists and journalists working for private
radio spent the least time on research (38.7 or 38.9 per cent), editors at public-service
television the most (49.9 per cent). Daily newspaper journalists (42.1 per cent), those
working for public-service radio (42.5 per cent) and private television (44.5 per cent) made
up the middle ground. The reason for the low research time among online journalists is
presumably due to the fact that they have to perform a number of activities that are not
originally journalistic in nature. The situation is similar with private radio. By contrast, there
is considerable division of labour at television companies.
Frequency and duration of the sub-processes and steps in research. The research sub-
process ‘‘finding topics and assessing their relevance’’ accounts for an average frequency
share of the research performed per journalist of 40.8 per cent (Table 1). The
corresponding share of the duration amounts to 47.8 per cent. Consequently, journalists
spend on average 1:46 hours per day searching for news items and topics and assessing
their relevance. This research sub-process consists in detail of the research steps ‘‘news
and topics monitoring’’ (frequency and duration share of 16.9 and 18.4, respectively),
‘‘processing received material’’ (13.2 and 11.9 per cent, respectively) and ‘‘assessing a
topic’’ (10.5 and 17.2 per cent, respectively).
TABLE 1
Research sub-processes and steps: frequency and durations
Percentage share per Number Duration Duration

journalist of actions per per action
per journalist in minutes
Frequency Duration journalist in hours
Finding topics and assessing their 40.8 47.8 38.4 1:46:14 2:46
relevance
News and topics monitoring 16.9 18.4 16.5 0:41:09 2:29
Processing received material 13.2 11.9 12.3 0:24:52 2:01
Assessing a topic 10.5 17.2 9.3 0:39:25 4:14
Other 0.2 0.2 0.2 0:00:48 3:46
Cross-checking research 7.9 5.5 6.6 0:11:22 1:43
Source check 0.9 0.6 0.8 0:01:21 1:45
Facts check 6.9 4.7 5.8 0:09:11 1:35
Other 0.1 0.3 0.1 0:00:50 10:22
Scope-extension research 51.3 46.7 45.0 1:37:09 2:10
Identifying additional sources 14.9 8.6 14.0 0:19:31 1:23

Acquiring additional information 28.4 29.3 24.0 1:00:04 2:29
Searching for and sifting-through 7.7 7.9 6.6 0:15:42 2:21
additional material
Other 0.3 0.8 0.3 0:01:52 6:44
Total 100.0 100.0 90.0 3:34:45 2:23
N 235 journalists.
Cross-checking research only accounts for a frequency share of 7.9 per cent and a
duration share of 5.5 per cent. Consequently, journalists only spend about 11 minutes per
day checking sources and information in terms of plausibility or correctness. It is even the
case that a source check hardly occurs at all (frequency and duration share of 0.9 and 0.6,
respectively). The frequency and duration share of the research step ‘‘facts check’’ amounts
to 6.9 and 4.7 per cent, respectively. The low share accounted for by cross-checking
research can be explained, on the one hand, by the lack of any necessity to do so since
journalists know the majority of the sources and consider the material provided by news
agencies to be trustworthy. The second explanation may be due to the lack of the
necessary financial and time-related resources at many editorial offices.
The scope-extension research accounts for a frequency share of 51.3 per cent and a
duration share of 46.7 per cent. With regard to frequency, it is therefore the most
important research sub-process. In terms of the duration, it is almost on a par with finding
topics and assessing their relevance. Scope-extension research comprises the steps
‘‘identifying additional sources’’ (frequency and duration share of 14.9 and 8.6,
respectively), ‘‘acquiring additional information’’ (28.4 or 29.3 per cent) and ‘‘searching
for and sifting-through additional material’’, for example, infographics or photos (7.7 or 7.9
per cent). The core journalistic research activity is therefore acquiring additional
information for a journalistic contribution.
The older the journalists are, the larger the frequency and duration share relating to
‘‘finding topics and assessing their relevance’’ and the lower the corresponding shares
relating to scope-extension research. They are therefore more involved in the selection of
news and setting the topics and less preoccupied with content production. It is in fact the
case that journalists with a leading role are much more involved in ‘‘finding topics and
assessing their relevance’’ and much less concerned with scope-extension research than
editors or on-the-job trainees.
With a frequency share of 53.5 and 50.9 per cent, respectively, the main focus of the
activity of online and radio journalists (Table 2) is on finding topics and assessing their
relevance.2 Scope-extension research only accounts for a share of 39.9 or 43.5 per cent. By
contrast, in the case of television and the daily newspaper, the process of finding topics
and assessing their relevance is fairly low (33.0 and 38.0 per cent). Conversely, scope-
extension research achieves the greatest frequency share in these two areas of the media
(55.5 and 55.0 per cent, respectively).
This can be explained by differences in production frequency: radio features the
news at least hourly. Online journalists work to a continous deadline and must be
constantly up-to-date. Consequently, these media are occupied to a greater extent with
the monitoring of the news situation and the selection of topics. At the same time,
they lack the capacity to extend comprehensively all of the news topics. By contrast,
there is only one editorial deadline per day at daily newspapers and consequently the
TABLE 2
Research sub-processes and steps: frequency shares according to types of media (%)
Daily Radio (public- Television Online Total

news- service/private) (public-service/
papers private)
Finding topics and 38.0 50.9 (53.2/48.0) 33.0 (28.6/39.4) 53.5 40.8
assessing their
relevance
News and topics 11.5 27.0 (31.7/20.9) 12.4 (11.4/13.8) 31.7 16.9
monitoring
Processing received 16.1 13.9 (11.0/17.7) 8.2 (7.0/10.1) 13.4 13.2
material
Assessing a topic 10.3 9.7 (10.0/9.3) 12.1 (9.7/15.6) 8.3 10.5
Other 0.1 0.3 (0.5/0.1) 0.3 (0.5/0.0) 0.0 0.2
Cross-checking research 7.0 5.5 (4.8/6.5) 11.5 (13.8/8.0) 6.6 7.9
Source check 0.3 0.7 (1.1/0.3) 2.1 (2.6/1.4) 0.1 0.9
Facts check 6.5 4.8 (3.7/6.2) 9.3 (11.0/6.7) 6.5 6.9
Other 0.1 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 0.1 (0.1/0.0) 0.0 0.1
Scope-extension 55.0 43.5 (42.0/45.5) 55.5 (57.6/52.6) 39.9 51.3
research
Identifying additional 17.4 13.7 (13.7/13.7) 14.6 (13.3/16.5) 7.5 14.9
sources
Acquiring additional 30.0 25.4 (24.0/27.3) 31.7 (33.6/28.9) 19.1 28.4
information
Searching for and 7.1 4.4 (4.3/4.5) 9.0 (10.2/7.2) 13.2 7.7
sifting-through
additional material
Other 0.5 0.0 (0.0/0.1) 0.3 (0.5/0.0) 0.0 0.3
Total 100.0 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 100.0
Basis (number of 100 46 (26/20) 64 (38/26) 25 235
journalists)
TABLE 3
Research tools: frequency and duration
Percentage share per Number of Duration Duration

journalist actions per per action
per journalist in minutes
Frequency Duration journalist in hours
Computer-aided 47.0 37.2 43.3 1:18:15 1:48
E-mail 12.1 10.7 11.0 0:22:09 2:01
Search engines and Web 8.3 4.1 7.8 0:09:16 1:11
catalogues
Google 7.6 3.7 6.9 0:08:07 1:10
Various online offerings 8.0 5.9 7.1 0:12:49 1:48
Companies 2.2 1.7 2.4 0:03:51 1:38
Ministries, authorities and cities 2.1 1.5 1.7 0:03:05 1:46
Clubs, associations and NGOs 2.1 1.6 1.7 0:03:29 2:05
Scientific establishments 0.9 0.6 0.7 0:01:15 1:46
Private persons 0.3 0.2 0.3 0:00:30 1:28
Parties and politicians 0.3 0.3 0.3 0:00:40 2:19
Online offerings from editorial 7.5 6.7 7.1 0:14:19 2:01

media
In-house archives 7.1 6.6 6.6 0:12:44 1:55
Databases and archives 3.3 2.6 3.1 0:05:50 1:51
Interactive forms 0.5 0.5 0.5 0:00:55 1:41
Other 0.1 0.1 0.1 0:00:13 1:57
Non-computer-aided 40.6 51.3 35.2 1:52:33 3:12
Phone calls 15.0 13.9 13.3 0:30:22 2:16
Internal editorial discussions 12.9 19.3 11.5 0:43:10 3:45
Personal filing system, in-house 3.8 2.8 3.0 0:05:24 1:49
archives and reference works
Print media, radio and 3.4 5.0 3.2 0:11:52 3:41
television
Raw material 1.5 2.1 1.1 0:03:48 3:34
On-site appointments and 1.4 5.9 0.9 0:12:51 14:22
interviews
Letter post and faxes 1.3 1.1 1.1 0:02:20 2:03
Documents and writings 1.1 1.1 1.0 0:02:29 2:33
Other 0.2 0.1 0.1 0:00:17 2:26
Agencies 11.5 11.5 11.5 0:23:57 2:04
Total 100.0 100.0 90.0 3:34:45 2:23
N 235 journalists.
scope-extension element of research prevails there. A mixture of both production

frequencies is to be found in television.
The strikingly high share relating to cross-checking research at the public-service
television stations (13.8 per cent) is probably attributable to their high level of funding and
high-quality journalistic standards.
Frequency and duration of the research tools. The research tool used for each
research action was recorded (Table 3). Computer-aided research tools have established
themselves across the board and accounted for almost half of the frequency share for the
entire research process (47.0 per cent). The ‘‘classical’’ non-computer-aided research tools
possess a frequency share of 40.6 and the news agencies 11.5 per cent. In the case of the
share of the duration, the proportion of computer-aided and non-computer-aided
research tools is inverted (37.2 and 51.3 per cent, respectively; new agencies 11.5 per
cent). Computer-aided research tools are therefore used more frequently but for shorter
periods than classical research tools. Time-wise they are therefore highly efficient.
Accordingly, at 1:48 minutes, a computer-aided research action takes only half the time
of a non-computer-aided one (3:12 minutes). Overall, journalists conduct research for an
average of 1:18 hours per working day by computer, for almost two hours without
(1:53 hours) and 24 minutes by means of news agencies.
The most important computer-aided research tool is e-mail. In relation to all of the
research tools it has a frequency share of 12.1 per cent and a duration share of 10.7 per
cent. Overall, in terms of both frequency and duration, it is the third most important
research tool. With regard to frequency, search engines are the second most computer-
aided research tool and the fourth most important one overall (8.3 per cent). Its duration
share (4.1 per cent) is only half as great as the frequency share. They therefore represent
highly effective research tools which are frequently used and only require a small amount
of time. A research action involving search engines is by far the shortest (1:11 minutes) of
all of the research tools. Google accounts for 90.4 of the frequency of the search-engine
research.
If one adds to this the use of websites of various primary sources that are, as a rule,
interest-driven, with a frequency share of 8.0 per cent, they are the third most important
computer-aided research tool. Each of the Web offerings summarized here is, by contrast,
insignificant if considered in isolation. In terms of frequency, the Web offerings of editorial
media (7.5 per cent) are of almost the same importance as the various summarized online
pages. From the point of view of duration, editorial media Web offerings are even
somewhat more important (6.7 as against 5.9 per cent). They are followed by computer-
aided in-house archives (frequency and duration share of 7.1 and 6.6 per cent, respectively)
and computer-aided databases and archives (3.3 and 2.6 per cent, respectively). Interactive
forms such as, for example, weblogs or chats are hardly used at all (frequency and duration
share of 0.5 per cent each).
In the case of the non-computer-aided research tools as well as overall, with regard to
their frequency share of 15.0 per cent, phone calls are the most important, followed by
internal editorial discussions (12.9 per cent). In terms of the duration share, the internal
editorial discussions are the most significant (19.3 per cent; phone calls 13.9 per cent).
Almost one-fifth of research time is taken up with editorial conferences or short questions
to colleagues. Other classical research tools are of lesser significance overall: a personal
filing system, in-house archives and reference works (frequency and duration shares of 3.8
and 2.8 per cent, respectively), print media, radio and television (3.4 and 5.0 per cent,
respectively), raw material (1.4 and 5.9 per cent, respectively), on-site appointments and
face-to-face interviews (1.4 and 5.9 per cent, respectively), letter post and faxes (1.3 and 1.1
per cent, respectively) as well as documents and writings (1.1 per cent each).
Computer-aided research tools are therefore a permanent feature of everyday
research and have supplemented the classical research instruments. Although it no longer
appears possible to imagine a situation without e-mail, the telephone continues to assume
a key role in research. Internal editorial discussions also have a significant role to play.
Search engines appear to be highly specialized, efficient research tools. If the online and
offline use of journalistic offerings for research is added together, the result is a frequency
and duration share of 10.9 and 11.7 per cent, respectively; this is an indication of the
strongly self-referential tendencies in journalism.
With increasing age, the frequency and duration share of computer-aided research
decreases whereas the use of non-computer-aided research tools remains roughly
constant and the use of the news agencies increases. An exception here is e-mails which
are used equally by all age groups perhaps reflecting the fact that no journalist can refuse
to participate in this form of communication. The increase in the share of news agencies
with age can be explained on the basis that older journalists are more involved in finding
topics and assessing their relevance. Key to understanding this finding is the professional
position assumed by this group. Leading journalists fall back on news agencies almost
twice as frequently as normal editors.
The highest share in terms of the frequency and duration of computer-aided
research tools was observable in the area of entertainment and tabloid journalism. The
shares are slightly lower in the culture or feature sections as well as in the sphere of
business. Heavy utilization of news agencies is to be found in the areas politics/current
affairs, business, and sport. Very low usage of agencies occurs in connection with
entertainment/tabloid journalism and, in particular, with local news since news agencies
do not focus on these two areas.
Online journalists differ greatly from their colleagues (Table 4).3 They are
characterized by the second heaviest use of computer-aided research tools (frequency
share of 50.9 per cent), by far the lowest use of non-computer-aided research tools (19.0
per cent) and make by far the greatest use of agencies (30.1 per cent). This is attributable
to considerable significance being placed on finding topics and assessing their relevance.
Daily newspaper journalists exhibit a comparatively low use of computer-aided
research tools and a high use of non-computer-aided ones (44.9 and 46.1 per cent,
respectively). They are therefore somewhat more conservative. In addition, computer-
aided research tools do not always make sense in the case of local reporting which
represents a key part of the fare offered by daily newspapers in Germany. The use of news
agencies here is slightly below the total average (9.0 per cent) due to their lack of coverage
of local affairs.
Similar to online editors, radio journalists mainly conduct computer-aided research
(50.6 per cent). In private radio the use of news agencies is extremely low (1.4 per cent)
since many stations have not subscribed to any agencies. Instead, the news is selected and
processed by central editorial offices or service providers and made available in the in-
house archive. By contrast, agency use of the public-service providers is the second
highest of all of the media (22.5 per cent). The role and the updating rhythm that finds
expression here is similar to that found in the online media.
The share of the research tools within the individual steps in research. In the
following, the research steps and tools are considered in combination. For this purpose,
the frequency shares of the research tools are broken down according to the eight
individual research steps and subdivided on the basis of the particular media sector. This
permits statements to be made about the specialization of individual research tools and
about certain patterns of research. In the corresponding tables, only those research tools
which can still be regarded as relevant at all in terms of their frequency share are listed for
each research step. The remaining research tools are summarized in the category ‘‘other’’.
TABLE 4
Research tools: frequency shares according to types of media (%)
Daily Radio (public- Television (public-ser- Online Total

news service/private) vice/private)
papers
Computer-aided 44.9 50.6 (47.3/55.0) 46.1 (48.5/42.7) 50.9 47.0

E-mail 14.6 10.6 (7.7/14.3) 9.2 (9.0/9.6) 12.7 12.1
Search engines and 7.5 7.5 (8.1/6.6) 11.4 (11.9/10.6) 5.7 8.3
Web catalogues
Various online 8.8 6.3 (7.6/4.6) 10.1 (11.8/7.6) 2.7 8.0
offerings
Online offerings of 4.4 9.2 (9.1/9.3) 8.3 (7.3/9.6) 14.4 7.5
editorial media
In-house archives 5.0 13.3 (11.0/16.3) 4.6 (5.3/3.5) 10.6 7.1
Databases and 4.0 3.4 (3.8/3.0) 2.3 (2.9/1.3) 3.1 3.3
archives
Interactive forms 0.4 0.4 (0.0/0.8) 0.2 (0.1/0.4) 1.5 0.5
Other 0.2 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 0.1 (0.1/0.1) 0.2 0.1
Non-computer-aided 46.1 36.0 (30.2/43.7) 43.6 (40.3/48.5) 19.0 40.6

Phone calls 19.4 11.5 (7.7/16.5) 14.9 (14.0/16.0) 3.7 15.0
Internal editorial 11.7 15.5 (14.6/16.6) 13.5 (12.5/14.9) 11.3 12.9
discussions
Personal filing 5.4 2.1 (2.1/2.1) 3.8 (3.3/4.5) 0.6 3.8
system, in-house
archives and
reference works
Print media, radio 2.7 4.3 (4.2/4.3) 4.2 (4.1/4.4) 2.5 3.4
and television
Raw material 0.3 0.5 (0.2/0.9) 4.8 (3.8/6.3) 0.1 1.5
On-site 2.6 0.8 (0.1/1.7) 0.5 (0.4/0.7) 0.0 1.4
appointments
and interviews
Letter post and 1.8 0.8 (0.5/1.2) 1.1 (1.6/0.5) 0.6 1.3
faxes
Documents and 2.0 0.3 (0.2/0.5) 0.7 (0.5/1.1) 0.0 1.1
writings
Other 0.2 0.3 (0.5/0.0) 0.1 (0.2/0.0) 0.2 0.2
Agencies 9.0 13.3 (22.5/1.4) 10.3 (11.2 8.8) 30.1 12.5
Total 100.0 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 100.0
Basis (number of 100 46 (26/20) 64 (38/26) 25 235
journalists)
For reasons of clarity, an analysis of the duration shares is dispensed with because they
tend to permit the same interpretations.
In the case of news and topics monitoring, only three research tools are relatively
significant (Table 5). The most important are news agencies, with a frequency share of
more than one-third (34.8 per cent); computer-aided research tools have a slightly higher
share (39.9 per cent). Among the computer-aided research tools, journalistic Web offerings
are the most important here and are the second most important (22.9 per cent) in this
research step overall. All of the non-computer-aided research tools only reach a frequency
TABLE 5
News and topics monitoring: frequency shares of the research tools according to types of
media (%)
Daily Radio (public- Television (public- Online Total

news service/private) service/private)
papers
Computer-aided 35.8 48.1 (35.2/66.7) 39.1 (33.3/47.1) 40.2 39.8
Web catalogues
Various online 4.4 2.7 (4.3/0.3) 0.5 (0.9/0.0) 0.4 2.5
offerings
editorial media
Other 6.5 5.6 (4.8/6.9) 2.1 (3.3/0.4) 4.9 4.9
Phone calls 3.4 0.6 (0.7/0.6) 0.1 (0.0/0.2) 0.7 1.6
discussions
and television
Other 5.2 2.0 (2.5/1.3) 3.2 (1.5/5.7) 0.0 3.4
Agencies 34.3 30.4 (47.7/5.4) 32.7 (41.6/20.4) 49.0 34.8
Total 100.0 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 100.0
Basis (number of 86 44 (26/18) 57 (32/24) 25 212

journalists)
share of a quarter (25.5 per cent). The greatest share here belongs to the print media, radio
and television (17.9 per cent of all research tools).
In a comparison of the various media, the highest share for news agencies is found
among journalists working for online media and public-service radio (49.0 and 47.7 per
cent, respectively). In particular, private television and radio journalists (38.6 and 31.1 per
cent, respectively) as well as online editors (28.0 per cent) fall back on the online offerings
of editorial media.
Self-referentiality has a special quality in online journalism because online journalists
mainly search within their own sector of the media. Expressed in a positive light, one could
say that online journalists observe their competitors in order to differentiate themselves
from them when setting topics. Overall, the greatest self-referentiality is discernible in
private television. Online and offline media arrive at a share of two-thirds.
The heavy use of online media in private radio seems to be a substitute for the lack
of news agencies (5.4 per cent). The high share of computer-aided in-house archives in
radio (17.6 per cent) among the private stations (26.2 per cent) can be explained by the
feeding of preselected and transmission-ready announcements by external service
providers or central editorial offices. In public-service radio announcements and
contributions are exchanged between the stations.
With a frequency share of 76.6 per cent (Table 6), the only research tool to feature
significantly during the processing of received material that is made available to journalists is
TABLE 6
Processing received material: frequency shares of the research tools according to types of
media (%)

papers
Computer-aided 71.4 78.3 (73.7/84.5) 91.7 (92.8/90.2) 91.1 80.2
E-mail 69.5 68.2 (64.4/73.3) 91.4 (92.8/89.5) 83.2 76.6
Interactive forms 0.2 0.0 (0.0/0.1) 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 4.4 0.6
Other 1.2 1.1 (0.8/1.2) 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 1.2 0.8
Phone calls 12.2 7.4 (10.8/2.9) 0.7 (0.7/0.6) 4.1 7.4
discussions
Raw material 0.6 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 2.5 (0.0/4.5) 0.1 0.8
Letter post and 7.3 5.2 (1.6/10.0) 2.1 (2.4/1.8) 3.9 5.1
faxes
Other 3.7 2.3 (3.3/1.0) 2.3 (2.0/2.5) 0.1 2.6

Agencies 3.9 3.7 (6.4/0.2) 0.6 (0.6/0.5) 0.4 2.6
Total 100.0 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 100.0
Basis (number of 100 42 (24/18) 60 (35/25) 25 227
journalists)
e-mail, e.g. subscription-based newsletters, received press releases or announcements from

reporters on site. Overall, phone calls also still have a certain importance (7.4 per cent).
The dominance of e-mail is discernible across all of the media sectors, in particular in
the case of television (91.7 per cent) and online media (91.1 per cent). At daily newspapers
phone calls are more important than all the other media (12.2 per cent). Importance still
attaches to letter post and faxes, too (7.3 per cent). Both appear plausible given the
locality of the reporting. Computer-aided in-house archives are important in radio (9.0 per
cent). The greatest share of letter post and faxes occurs in private radio (10.0 per cent). As
with the daily newspaper, this can be explained by the locality as well as by the inclusion
of the listeners.
The assessment of a topic with regard to its relevance for the public and its suitability
for the medium mainly occurs within the framework of internal editorial discussions
(frequency share of 80.9 per cent; Table 7) whether in the form of a large editorial
conference or shorter discussions with colleagues. The editorial conferences also explain
why, with an average of 4:14 minutes, activities relating to this research step are by far the
longest of all of the observed activities. Phone calls are also of importance (11.8 per cent).
Overall, non-computer-aided research tools arrive at a share of 94.8 per cent.
The greatest share of internal editorial discussions is revealed for online journalists
(90.8 per cent). The reason for this lies in the fact that they must not only achieve
agreement within their editorial office but also with the parent medium.
Only 53 of the 235 observed journalists performed a source check at least once
during the working day under observation. This low case number prevents a more detailed
interpretation of the research tools used. It was found that 202 of the 235 journalists
TABLE 7
Assessing a topic: frequency shares of the research tools according to types of media (%)

papers
Computer-aided 5.4 7.2 (8.6/5.3) 1.3 (1.7/0.6) 3.0 4.3
E-mail 4.1 3.7 (4.2/3.1) 0.8 (1.0/0.6) 0.8 2.8
Other 1.2 3.5 (4.5/2.2) 0.5 (0.7/0.0) 2.2 1.5
Phone calls 14.0 6.7 (8.6/4.1) 14.4 (8.5/22.9) 4.8 11.8
discussions
Other 3.1 0.9 (0.6/1.5) 1.9 (2.6/0.8) 0.2 2.1
Agencies 1.1 0.7 (1.2/0.0) 0.3 (0.0/0.8) 1.1 0.8
Total 100.0 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 100.0
Basis (number of 98 41 (24/17) 63 (37/26) 24 226
journalists)
performed a facts check at least once. However, this research step only accounts for a
frequency share of 6.9 per cent of all of the research actions. Consequently, it is difficult to
make statements here, too. Similar to the source check, the accuracy of information is
validated by phone calls, internal editorial discussions and various online offerings. The
personal filing system, in-house archives and reference works also still play an important
role. Taking the entire research sub-process of cross-checking research, it is possible to
additionally conclude that, with a frequency share of 61.8 per cent, non-computer-aided
research tools are the most important (computer-aided research tools 34.5 per cent, news
agencies 3.7 per cent).
During the identification of additional sources (Table 8) computer-aided research
accounts for two-thirds (66.1 per cent) and non-computer-aided research for one-third
(33.1 per cent). Search engines are by far the most important research tools. Almost half of
the research actions (43.7 per cent) relating to searches for additional sources by
journalists are influenced by search engines. Consequently, search engines in general and
Google in particular have a decisive effect on the entire course of research, at least within
the area relating to scope-extension research. It is namely the case that the subsequent
steps involving the acquisition of additional information and supplementary material
depend in part on the previously selected sources. The thesis regarding the Google-ization
of research can therefore be regarded as confirmed. The risk of a distortion of reality exists.
Phone calls are also important (18.7 per cent). Various websites relating to primary
sources (9.9 per cent) at which contact persons can be identified also have a certain
significance. Now and again colleagues are also asked about an additional source in
internal editorial discussions (5.9 per cent).
Online journalists identify additional sources in a computer-aided manner by far the
most frequently (80.9 per cent), particularly using search engines (53.8 per cent). At the
same time, they resort to the telephone much less (9.8 per cent). Daily-newspaper
TABLE 8
Identifying additional sources: frequency shares of the research tools according to types of
media (%)

papers
Computer-aided 60.8 65.3 (71.7/57.4) 69.7 (73.0/65.4) 80.9 66.1
E-mail 2.6 0.6 (0.9/0.3) 4.4 (3.3/5.8) 3.9 2.8
Web catalogues
Various online 7.7 4.7 (5.9/3.3) 18.9 (26.1/9.4) 6.3 9.9
offerings
editorial media
Databases and 2.9 0.4 (0.3/0.5) 1.8 (1.0/3.0) 4.3 2.3
archives
Other 0.6 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 0.1 (0.0/0.2) 0.0 0.3

Phone calls 20.5 17.2 (10.7/25.4) 20.4 (19.0/22.3) 9.8 18.7
discussions
Personal filing 13.8 3.9 (2.4/5.8) 4.2 (4.5/3.8) 1.0 7.9
system, in-house
archives and
reference works
Other 1.5 0.1 (0.0/0.2) 0.4 (0.0/1.0) 0.3 0.8
Agencies 0.6 1.1 (2.0/0.0) 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 0.0 0.5
Total 100.0 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 100.0
Basis (number of 95 45 (25/20) 58 (33/25) 23 221
journalists)
journalists utilize computer-aided research tools comparatively little (60.8 per cent). They
make more than average use of non-computer-aided research tools (38.6 per cent). One
particularly striking feature is their use of a personal filing system, in-house archives and
reference works (13.8 per cent). This can be explained particularly in terms of the locality of
daily newspapers. Their journalists possess a number of short-term contacts and the
editorial offices have exclusive archive material at their disposal. The fear here, though, is
the creation of an internal self-referentiality in which the same contacts are repeatedly
called upon.
In the case of acquiring additional information, a significant role is played by a wider
range of research tools than in the other research steps (Table 9). In spite of the fairly one-
sided selection of the sources, the journalists therefore use a variety of contents in order to
enrich the core of a journalistic contribution with further information. The computer-aided
research tools dominate with a 47.4 per cent share. All the same, the non-computer-aided
research tools have a share of 38.0 per cent. Once again, the news agencies also feature in
this research step (14.6 per cent). The most important research tool is the telephone (19.7
per cent). It is followed by various Web offerings of primary sources (15.7 per cent) and
TABLE 9
Acquiring additional information: frequency shares of the research tools according to types of
media (%)

papers
Computer-aided 42.7 51.8 (52.2/51.2) 50.6 (53.8/45.9) 49.7 47.4
E-mail 5.5 3.4 (0.6/6.8) 3.7 (5.0/1.8) 4.6 4.5
Web catalogues
Various online 17.4 16.5 (18.3/14.1) 16.1 (15.8/16.4) 6.0 15.7
offerings
editorial media
Databases and 7.6 6.6 (5.8/7.5) 3.8 (5.1/1.8) 7.4 6.3
archives
Other 0.7 0.8 (0.0/1.9) 0.5 (0.2/1.0) 0.2 0.6

Phone calls 27.5 17.8 (12.5/24.4) 15.4 (15.3/15.6) 3.1 19.7
discussions
and television
Personal filing 5.6 1.9 (1.7/2.1) 4.1 (3.2/5.4) 0.5 3.9
system, in-house
archives and
reference works
On-site 4.9 2.0 (0.4/3.9) 1.1 (1.1/1.1) 0.1 2.8
appointments
and interviews
Documents and 4.7 1.0 (0.6/1.5) 1.6 (0.6/3.1) 0.0 2.6
writings
Other 1.4 1.7 (2.1/1.0) 3.4 (4.4/2.1) 0.4 1.8
Agencies 7.7 11.5 (19.9/0.9) 17.5 (16.9/18.6) 40.2 14.6
Total 100.0 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 100.0
Basis (number of 98 45 (25/20) 64 (38/26) 24 231
journalists)
editorial online offerings (11.1 per cent). Computer-aided databases and archives (6.3 per
cent) and computer-aided in-house archives (5.7 per cent) continue to play a part.
In comparison with other media, online journalists use news agencies (40.2 per cent)
and journalistic online offerings (19.8 per cent) by far the most frequently. Online
journalists therefore tend to be ‘‘copiers’’ who hardly perform any genuine research, inter
alia, because they have less time overall for research. In the case of the daily-newspaper
journalists, the non-computer-aided research tools slightly outweigh the computer-aided
research tools (49.5 compared to 42.7 per cent). They resort disproportionately to the
telephone (27.5 per cent).
Searching for and sifting-through additional material was only to be observed among
four out of five journalists (Table 10). The reason is presumably that this activity already
begins to form part of production work. The computer-aided research tools outweigh the
TABLE 10
Searching for and sifting-through additional material: frequency shares of the research tools
according to types of media (%)

papers
Computer-aided 51.5 76.5 (80.9/72.9) 28.2 (28.2/28.4) 60.4 50.6
E-mail 10.7 0.5 (1.0/0.0) 1.5 (2.6/0.0) 0.2 5.2
Various online 5.2 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 2.8 (3.4/1.9) 2.0 3.3
offerings
Databases and 7.3 2.4 (0.0/4.4) 1.8 (3.0/0.0) 4.8 4.7
archives
Other 2.5 3.2 (7.1/0.0) 2.3 (3.2/1.0) 2.5 2.6
Phone calls 15.6 2.7 (5.2/0.7) 16.8 (21.6/10.2) 0.5 11.9
discussions
Personal filing 1.3 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 9.9 (8.0/12.4) 0.6 3.3
system, in-house
archives and
reference works
Raw material 0.4 11.6 (2.4/19.1) 32.2 (26.7/39.7) 0.0 10.6
Other 4.2 0.0 (0.0/0.0) 4.1 (3.9/4.8) 1.6 3.2
Agencies 10.0 0.2 (0.4/0.0) 4.5 (6.0/2.4) 28.9 9.3
Total 100.0 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 (100.0/100.0) 100.0 100.0
Basis (number of 83 31 (14/17) 50 (29/21) 24 188
journalists)
non-computer-aided ones (50.6 compared to 40.1 per cent). News agencies that also offer
photographic and film material account for a frequency share of only 9.3 per cent. At over
one-third (34.8 per cent), computer-aided in-house archives are the most important
research tools. For reasons of pragmatism, journalists therefore ‘‘recycle’’ material that is
already published in their own medium or that is available in their own company.
Supplementary material is also requested by phone (11.9 per cent) and acquired by
checking with colleagues (11.1 per cent).
The share of computer-aided research tools is particularly large in the case of
radio (76.5 per cent). Computer-aided in-house archives account for an important part
here (70.5 per cent). This is due to the fact that every type of acoustic material is
available there. By contrast, in television the non-computer-aided research tools
predominate (67.3 per cent). Raw material, e.g. uncut footage by reporters, makes
up almost one-third (32.2 per cent) of all research tools. Daily-newspaper reporters
make great use of internal editorial discussions (17.0 per cent), telephone (15.6 per
cent) and e-mail (10.7 per cent). It appears that they frequently first request additional
material or the production of it. Online journalists mainly limited themselves to
computer-aided in-house archives (50.9 per cent) and news agencies (28.9 per cent).
The high share of computer-aided in-house archives is also due to the fact that
hypertextuality, the dominant characteristic of online journalism, requires that a new
article be linked with already published contributions.
Survey of Journalists’ Online and Search-engine Use

In addition to the observation phase, the survey provides further insights into
journalistic research on the Internet. It is only possible to obtain opinions and attitudes of
journalists towards the Internet and search engines as a research instrument by
conducting a survey. Furthermore, the survey provides insights from a wider group of
persons than is possible using a time-consuming observation procedure. The survey was
standardized quantitatively and conducted in written form.
The population corresponded to that of the observation phase. In the initial step of
selecting the sample, all of the editorially independent media in Germany involved in the
reporting of current national affairs from the areas relating to newspapers, radio, television
and online media were first identified using the trade directory Zimpel. Within the
framework of a comprehensive survey, the editors-in-chief of all of the identified 389
media were contacted and, as a rule, 10 questionnaires were enclosed with the request for
distribution. A total of 3921 questionnaires were distributed. They were returnable free-of-
charge by the individual respondents. The response was 601 usable questionnaires or 15.7
per cent. As a result, a sample which is similar in key aspects to the population is also
available for the survey.
Results
The 601 questioned journalists indicate that they spend 2:44 hours on research
every working day. This is far less than the 3:35 hours established by the observation
phase. The explanation here is that, in the observation phase, the term research was
deliberately interpreted in a broad way whereas the journalists themselves applied a much
narrower measure. The journalists estimated the share of the total research time
attributable to the share of research on the Internet to be 47.9 per cent (1:19 hours per
day). The time-related share of the online research in relation to the total time expended
on research decreases clearly with the increasing age of the respondents. The time-related
share of Internet research is by far the greatest among online journalists (65.0 per cent). It
is lowest among the daily newspaper journalists (38.9 per cent). In radio and television,
whether public-service or private, the share amounts to approximately half in each case.
The respondents were asked to estimate how frequently they use the Internet for the
various research steps (Table 11): 71.3 per cent use it very frequently to acquire additional
information, 70.1 per cent for the purpose of finding additional sources and contact data,
64.7 per cent for news and topics monitoring, and 56.5 per cent in the checking of facts.
The Internet is used less frequently to research thoroughly complex issues or to estimate
the relevance of a topic (36.4 and 35.5 per cent, respectively). This corresponds to the
trends determined in the observation phase. The rate of use of the Internet for the various
research actions is higher among younger journalists with an affinity to technology as well
as in the online media and private radio sectors.
Overall, the questioned journalists attach great importance to the Internet for
various research actions. The considerable agreement with regard to its use for the
purpose of acquiring additional information and finding additional sources indicates that
the Internet can decisively influence the research conducted by journalists.
TABLE 11
Frequency of online use for various research steps
What do you use the Internet for in Distribution (%) Mean

your work?
Never Rarely Occasionally Very often
(1) (2) (3) (4)
For acquiring additional information 0.2 1.5 27.1 71.3 3.69
For identifying additional sources/ 0.5 3.7 25.8 70.1 3.65
contact data
For news and topics monitoring 3.7 10.6 21.0 64.7 3.47
For checking facts 1.2 8.1 34.2 56.5 3.46
For assessing a topic 4.4 15.5 44.7 35.5 3.11
For thoroughly researching complex 2.5 20.5 40.6 36.4 3.11
issues
For checking the credibility of 4.7 27.3 45.0 22.9 2.86
sources
For searching for and sifting-through 11.3 39.2 29.9 19.6 2.58
additional material (images,
videos etc.)
N 592598.
In an open question the journalists were asked to state the five most important
Internet sites for their work. Google represents the most important online offering. Three-
quarters (74.9 per cent) of the journalists cited the search engine. The second place, at 53.4
per cent, is occupied by Spiegel Online (offshoot of the weekly news magazine Der Spiegel)
which is the journalistic offering with the greatest reach in Germany. The third place goes
to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (37.4 per cent). Quite some way behind follow the
online offshoots of the national daily Süddeutsche Zeitung (9.8 per cent), the central news
portal of the public-service Das Erste Deutsche Fernsehen (tagesschau.de, 9.5 per cent) as
well as the offering from the largest German tabloid Bild (9.2 per cent). The seventh place
is occupied by Yahoo, a further search engine (7.2 per cent). The top 10 are completed by
three further editorial offerings. Overall, besides Wikipedia and the two search engines
Google and Yahoo, exclusively online offerings of editorial media are of the greatest
importance to journalists in their work. Journalistic offerings accounted for a total of 43.0
per cent of the sites named. Only 11.3 per cent of the named sites were primary sources
such as public authorities, companies or associations. A trend towards self-referentiality
and Google dominance is therefore discernible.
The questioned German journalists show more reserve with regard to new Internet
applications that are also suitable for journalistic work. All the same, slightly more than half
of the journalists (51.8 per cent) still use those Internet forums that have been in existence
for some time. Less than a third (29.3 per cent) fall back on weblogs. About a quarter (24.3
per cent) utilize podcasts and approximately one-fifth (18.9 per cent) RSS newsfeeds. Only
5.5 state that they use vodcasts. Social bookmarking is only used by 4.0 per cent of
journalists. The younger and the greater the journalist’s affinity to technology, the more of
these Internet applications he or she uses. Daily-newspaper journalists use the least
number of these offerings (on average, 1.02 out of five), online journalists the most (2.56
out of five).
TABLE 12
Assessment of the Internet for journalistic work
To what extent do you think that the Distribution (%) Mean

following statements generally
apply?
Doesn’t Tends Tends to Is fully
apply at not to apply applicable
all apply
(1) (2) (3) (4)
The Internet makes journalistic work 0.2 0.5 27.7 71.7 3.71
easier.
Journalistic work is no longer 1.0 5.0 28.2 65.8 3.59
conceivable without the Internet.
The pressure on journalists to be 2.0 18.9 42.9 36.2 3.13
up-to-the-minute has increased
due to the Internet.
The Internet is in competition with 5.7 30.3 37.1 26.9 2.85
the other media*print, radio and
televison.
As a result of the Internet, the 6.1 32.7 46.1 15.2 2.70
selection of information becomes
more important to journalists
than the acquisition of new
information.
Journalistic quality suffers as a result 9.7 36.7 36.5 17.1 2.61
of the fact that anyone can
disseminate information via the
Internet.
N 594600.
In the course of the general assessment of the Internet for journalistic work (Table 12),
almost all journalists agreed in full or in part that the Internet had made journalistic work
easier (99.4 per cent) and that journalistic work without the Internet would no longer be
conceivable (94.0 per cent). The respondents not only confirm the need for the Internet in
their work, they are also well aware of possible problems arising from this: 79.1 per cent
agree in full or in part that the pressure on journalists to be up-to-the-minute has
increased as a result of the Internet, 61.3 per cent state that, due to the Internet, the
selection of information is more important than the acquisition of new information and
53.6 per cent that journalistic quality suffers as a result of everyone being able to
disseminate information via the Internet. Overall, therefore, a positive-pragmatic
assessment of the Internet outweighs a critical-sceptical one. The younger the journalists,
the more pragmatic their attitude.
In an open-ended question journalists were asked to name the three most frequently
utilized search engines. In spite of this, on average, only 1.7 was provided by each journalist;
39.4 per cent of the journalists indicated that they only resorted to one search engine for
the purpose of their research. Almost every respondent mentioned Google (99.3 per cent).
Besides Google, only Yahoo achieves a significant position (35.7 per cent). If only the
search engine that journalists use most frequently is considered, only three are cited,
namely Google (98.6 per cent), Yahoo (1.0 per cent) and the German meta-search engine
TABLE 13
Importance of search engines for certain research activities
How important do you Distribution (%) Mean

consider search engines to
be for the following
journalistic tasks?
Unimportant Not so Important Very important
important
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Finding persons’ contact data 0.8 8.7 38.7 51.8 3.42

Researching a topic 1.3 17.7 45.8 35.1 3.15
extensively
Checking facts 1.8 15.0 55.0 28.2 3.10
Checking sources 2.7 26.9 49.9 20.5 2.88
Identifying topics/ideas 11.4 39.7 33.5 15.3 2.53
N 594600.
Metager (0.3 per cent). These figures demonstrate the clear dominance of Google. From
this perspective, the Google-ization of research is a reality.
The assessment of the importance of search engines for certain research actions
(Table 13) showed that journalists not only consider search engines to be important for
rapid searching of readily available basic information such as contact data, something
which is important or very important to 90.5 per cent, 80.9 per cent of the responding
journalists also indicated that search engines are important or very important for
extensively researching a topic. Against the background of the demonstrated dominance
of Google, this must be regarded as critical because the focus of the research remains
limited to the database and the logic of this search engine. Search engines are considered
important or very important for checking facts and sources by 83.2 and 70.4 per cent,
respectively. In connection with finding topics and ideas, this still applies to 48.8 per cent.
TABLE 14
General assessment of search engines
To what extent do you think that the Distribution (%) Mean

following statements generally
apply?
Doesn’t Tends Tends to Is fully
apply at not to apply applicable
all apply
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Search engines are an essential tool. 0.8 2.2 26.3 70.7 3.67
Search engines enable rapid and 0.5 2.8 35.0 61.6 3.58
cost-effective research.
Search engines are a good tool for 0.2 7.9 68.2 23.7 3.15
finding what one needs.
Search engines are a means of 1.7 32.4 50.7 15.3 2.80
performing high-quality research.
Search engines produce neutral 19.0 53.9 25.2 1.8 2.10
search results.
N 594597.
Overall, the questioned journalists ascribe relevance to search engines with regard to
quite varied journalistic research actions.
In the general assessment of search engines (Table 14), 97.0 per cent of the journalists
agreed, either in full or in part, that search engines represent essential work tools and 96.6
per cent that search engines enable rapid and cost-effective research; 91.9 per cent found
the statements that the search engines are a good tool that enables one to find the
sought-for information to be applicable in full or in part; 66.0 per cent regarded the
statement that search engines represent a high-quality opportunity for research to apply
in full or in part. By contrast, 72.9 per cent of the journalists either do not agree at all or
tend not to agree that search engines provide neutral search results.
An Experiment Relating to the Search-engine Competences of Journalists

Both the survey and the observation phase revealed the key role played by search
engines in research. To date, no insights have been available concerning the way
journalists undertake research with search engines or how competently they proceed
here. Initial insights are permitted by an exploratory experiment. It was performed in a
controlled field situation at the workplace and computer of each of the journalists. The
journalists participating in the experiment were asked to perform three search tasks with
the aid of Google. During this process, their research behaviour was systematically
observed and coded. The success of the search was determined by getting the
journalists to answer in writing various questions before and after a search task in each
case. Using a code book, the answers were then evaluated content-analytically for
accuracy.
Within the framework of a simple retrieval task, the journalists had to find, within
five minutes, five facts about the chairman of a local branch of the German Social
Democratic Party (SPD), for example, his name, date of birth and his principal
occupation. As a difficult retrieval task they had to find, within ten minutes, eight facts
about the current bunker of the Swiss Federal Council that is the subject of military
secrecy, inter alia, its official name, the number of places available and the construction
costs. In a 15-minute research task, the participating journalists were asked to collect as
much information as possible about Prince Ali Khan, a famous playboy from the 1950s
and 1960s. All of the tasks were designed to involve topics for which no (German-
language) Wikipedia articles existed.
Forty-eight journalists from 16 editorial offices, a quarter in each case from the
media sectors daily newspaper, radio, television and online, took part in the experiment.
Two-thirds were men, one-third women. The journalists were on average 34.2 years old
and possessed more than 10.8 years of professional journalistic experience. On average,
they stated that they spent more than one-third of their working time on research, half on
the Internet, of which, in turn, half of the time was spent using Google.
Results
The 48 participants’ success in connection with the searches can be described as
moderate. They did not have any prior knowledge of the three search tasks. After
performing research using Google, the participating journalists had found, on average, 2.9
of the five facts about the SPD chairman and 4.5 facts about the Swiss Upper House
bunker. Regarding Prince Ali Khan they had collected 12.2 items of information from a
possible 20. The average amount of ascertained information relative to the maximum
available information therefore amounted to 58.3, 55.7 and 61.0 per cent.
Most of the journalists performed satisfactory, but not good, research. The search
success is comparable with the results from similar search experiments involving ‘‘normal’’
users (e.g. Machill et al., 2004). In spite of their daily and very extensive research work,
journalists do not automatically achieve greater search success with Google.
However, there was considerable scattering in the search success among the test
journalists. Three groups were identified reflecting their success with searching as a whole.
Thirteen journalists with a search success of under 50 per cent, represented the group of
the least successful searchers. A further 24 journalists formed the averagely successful
participants with search successes of between 50 and 74 per cent. A final group of 11
journalists were assigned to the group of the most successful test persons, their search
success amounting to 75 per cent or higher.
The tendency was for the least successful journalists to be slightly younger with less
professional experience as journalists. This appears plausible because experienced

journalists*regardless of the utilization of search engines*have learnt to categorize
and evaluate information. Journalists from private radio and daily-newspaper editorial
offices performed the worst, journalists from public-service television the best.
The journalists tended to use operators, with which a search query can be
limited, very rarely and not always correctly. The average share of search queries with
operators per journalist amounts to 4.4 per cent for the easy retrieval task and the
research task and to 7.8 per cent for the difficult retrieval task. Phrases allowing
searches for word combinations were used more frequently. On average, they occurred
per person in 23.3 per cent of the search queries in connection with the first task, in
37.0 per cent in the case of the third task and in 4.8 per cent of the search queries
relating to the second task even though, in the case of the latter, the use of phrases
was not appropriate.
Only rarely did the participating journalists flick through the pages in the Google
results list which is presented to the information-seeker after submitting the query and
includes 10 search results per page. In principle, per journalist and search query, no
further pages of the results list were called up in the case of the two retrieval tasks
(0.02 and 0.16), for the research task the result was 0.66. To solve the easy retrieval task
the journalists called up on average 5.40 target pages or search results, i.e. on websites
presenting the Google results list. In the case of the difficult retrieval task, for which
more time was available and more facts had to be found, 9.29 target pages were called
up. In connection with the research task for which, in turn, the allotted time was
greater and more information had to be obtained, the result was 11.31. The converse
applies with regard to the number of secondary websites called up per search task.
These are websites which do not present any target pages from the results list and can
be reached by continuing surfing. The number of secondary pages decreases from the
simple retrieval task (6.19), via the difficult retrieval task (4.69) through to the research
task (2.35).
A comparison of the three groups formed according to the degree of success with
the search explains what contributes to successful search behaviour. The most successful
journalists pursued a search strategy which can be interpreted as ‘‘in-depth’’ research. Their
search terms were semantically well thought-out. They were derived directly from the task
in hand and adapted successively to the search’s progress. The logical connection
between the search terms also appeared to be well considered. As a result of this precise
limitation of the search query, it was not necessary to wade through the results list in a
time-consuming manner, to call up a lot of target pages or surf to secondary websites.
Instead, the most successful journalists were able to head for certain target pages in a
focused manner and obtain the requisite information from them. Consequently, they
proceeded very effectively.
By contrast, the search behaviour exhibited by the least successful journalists can be
described as ‘‘sideways’’ research. These journalists submitted a large number of queries.
They frequently used general or indirect search terms which did not describe the desired
information precisely enough. The phrase-based search, of particular use in the case of
names, was not employed. Accordingly, the barely limited search queries provided barely
limited results lists which then had to be searched through on a chance-find basis. The
attempt was made to compensate for the low degree of limitation of the search queries by
leafing through the pages in the results list as well as by calling up a large number of
target pages and secondary pages which, however, do not (cannot), as a rule, contain the
sought-for information. This heuristic or random method of proceeding therefore resulted
in a slight degree of success.
Summary and Conclusion

Journalists have integrated computer-aided research tools into their daily research
work on a permanent basis. They rank alongside the classical research instruments. This at
the same time means that, in spite of all the fears to the contrary, non-computer-aided
research has not been displaced by the Internet. The observation phase has revealed that,
in relation to the use frequency, computer-aided research enjoys a greater share than the
non-computer-aided variety. Conversely, the classical research tools dominate in terms of
the duration of use.
It is not possible to talk about a wholesale use of computer-aided research. Instead,
journalists integrate computer-aided research tools into their research process in a highly
differentiated manner. Dependent on the particular research aim, journalists therefore
make use of the research tools that appear the most suitable. However, person-related
factors also influence this process. Indications of media-related influences on research
behaviour were also apparent.
The results of the observation phase indicate that, compared to the classical
research tools, the Internet plays an important role, above all in cases where it helps to
perform tasks more efficiently and opens up new research possibilities. This is supported
by the quite different shares of the computer-aided and non-computer-aided research
tools as well as the shares of the news agencies that were determined for the individual
steps in the research (see Figure 1).
The telephone continues to be the most important research tool. Search engines, and
in particular Google, dominate in connection with the identification of additional sources.
They are a highly specialized and efficient research tool. In many cases there appears to be no
alternative. Consequently, search engines have a crucial influence on the entire (further)
course of the research. Google-ization is therefore already a reality. This situation requires
careful reflection since the danger of a distortion of reality or of one-sided reporting exists if
Computer-aided tools Non-computer-aided tools News agencies
News and topics monitoring
their relevance Online offerings of editorial media Print media, radio, television
and assessing
Finding topics
Processing received material

Phone calls,
E-mail letter post, fax
Assessing a topic
Internal editorial discussions
checking
research
Source check
Cross-
Facts check
Identifying additional sources
Search engines Phone calls
Acquiring additional information

extension
research
Scope-
Various online offerings,

Phone calls
online offerings of editorial media
Searching for and sifting-through additional material

Computer-aided in-house archives Phone calls, editorial discussions, raw material
FIGURE 1
Model of the research process: mean frequency shares of the research steps and tools. The
model identifies, true to scale, the mean frequency shares of the research steps in relation to
the entire research process (vertical axis) and the mean frequency shares of the categories of
research tools (whitecomputer-aided, light grey non-computer-aided, dark greynews
agencies) within a research step (horizontal axis). Per research step, the research tools with
the highest mean frequency share within the computer-aided and non-computer-aided
research tools are entered in each case
trust is placed unhesitatingly in the logic of a single search engine. In addition, the
exploratory process points to only a moderate level of search-engine competence on the
part of journalists.
Further cause for concern is provided by the self-referentiality of the media, for
example, in the case of news and topics monitoring as well as in the acquisition of new
information. Against the background of the importance of the Internet for research, food for
thought is provided by the finding that a cross-check on research hardly occurs and that,
essentially, the validation of sources does not take place at all. An exception to this is only to
be found in the well-funded and high-quality public-service television stations. Good
journalism therefore clearly comes at a price.
The Internet has also assumed an important position in the estimation of the
journalists themselves as the supplementary survey has demonstrated. Google is regarded
as the most important online research tool. It is not the case that journalists lack an
awareness of the attendant problems here. However, the dominant attitude towards these
research tools is one of pragmatism, e.g. production pressures and economic factors.
Journalists are therefore competent enough to recognize possible problems. However, they
are not consistent enough in their behaviour or are not always in a position to modify their
research behaviour.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research work was financed by the Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia (LfM),
Germany (http://www.lfm-nrw.de/english) and will also be published in the German
language (Machill et al., 2008). The authors wish to thank Christiane Abelein, Adrian
Bauer, Henry Berndt, Johannes R. Gerstner, Jan Grundmann, Sven Herold, Thomas Jacob,
Benjamin Krieger, Sandra Lisson, Markus Mähler, Christian Mühlhause, Katja Schmidtke,
Ulrike Thiele, Thomas Trappe, Geraldine van Gogswaardt, Ines Weißbach, Ulrike Winter
and Martin Zenker for their support in the field research.
NOTES
1. 1959:34 hours indicates 1959 hours and 34 minutes.

2. The shares for duration in the media comparison reveal the same trends as the frequency
shares. For this reason, a presentation is dispensed with.
3. In a comparison of the media, the duration shares exhibit the same trends as the
frequency shares. Consequently, a presentation is dispensed with.
REFERENCES
HALLER, MICHAEL (2004) Recherchieren. Ein Handbuch für Journalisten, 6th edn, Konstanz: UVK.
KEEL, GUIDO and BERNET, MARCEL (2005) Journalisten im Internet 2005. Eine Befragung von
Deutschschweizer Medienschaffenden zum beruflichen Umgang mit dem Internet, http://
www.iam.zhwin.ch/download/Studie_2005.pdf.
MACHILL, MARCEL, BEILER, MARKUS and ZENKER, MARTIN (2008) Journalistische Recherche im Internet.
Bestandsaufnahme journalistischer Arbeitsweisen in Zeitungen, Hörfunk, Fernsehen und
Online, Berlin: Vistas.
MACHILL, MARCEL, NEUBERGER, CHRISTOPH, SCHWEIGER, WOLFGANG and WIRTH, WERNER (2004) ‘‘Navigat-
ing the Internet: a study of German-language search engines’’, European Journal of
Communication 19(3), pp. 32147.
MIDDLEBERG, DON and ROSS, STEVE (2001) The Seventh Annual Print and Broadcast Survey of Media
in the Wired World, http://www.univie.ac.at/stalzer/Online-Mafo/Medien/Seventh_
Annual_Media_in_the_Wir.pdf.
MIDDLEBERG, DON and ROSS, STEVE (2005) The Eleventh Annual Euro RSCG Magnet and Columbia
University Survey of the Media, http://magnet.mediaroom.com/file.php/binaries/31/
RebuildingTrust.pdf.
NEWS AKTUELL (2000) Media Studie 2000, http://www.newsaktuell.de/de/mediaevents/
mediastudie.htx.
NEWS AKTUELL (2002) Media Studie 2002, http://www.newsaktuell.de/de/mediaevents/
mediastudie.htx.
NEWS AKTUELL (2007) Media Studie 2007, http://www.newsaktuell.de/pdf/mediastudie2007.pdf.
WEGNER, JOCHEN (2005) ‘‘Die Welt laut Google. Oder: Was heisst hier Recherche? Eine viel zu
schnelle Suche’’, epd medien 4, pp. 811.
WEISCHENBERG, SIEGFRIED, MALIK, MAJA and SCHOLL, ARMIN (2006) Die Souffleure der Medienge-
sellschaft. Report über die Journalisten in Deutschland, Konstanz: UVK.
WYSS, VINZENZ and KEEL, GUIDO (2007) ‘‘Google als Trojanisches Pferd? Konsequenzen der Internet-
Recherche von Journalisten für die journalistischer Qualität’’, in: Marcel Machill and
Markus Beiler (Eds), Die Macht der Suchmaschinen. The Power of Search Engines, Köln:
Halem, pp. 14363.
Marcel Machill (author to whom correspondence should be addressed), Chair of

Journalism II, University of Leipzig, Burgstr. 21, 04109 Leipzig, Germany. E-mail:
machill@uni-leipzig.de
Markus Beiler, Chair of Journalism II, University of Leipzig, Burgstr. 21, 04109 Leipzig,
Germany. E-mail: beiler@uni-leipzig.de

Journalism Studies: To Cite This Article: Marcel Machill & Markus Beiler (2009) THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET FOR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Journalism Studies: To Cite This Article: Marcel Machill & Markus Beiler (2009) THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET FOR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journalism Studies: To Cite This Article: Marcel Machill & Markus Beiler (2009) THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET FOR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]

On: 12 May 2015, At: 05:10

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616700802337768

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Marcel Machill and Markus Beiler

KEYWORDS Google; Internet; investigation; journalists; observation; research; search engines

Introduction and Aims

Observation of the Journalistic Research Process in Everyday Work at

most extensive observation study on journalistic research.

Percentage share per Number Duration Duration

Identifying additional sources 14.9 8.6 14.0 0:19:31 1:23

Daily Radio (public- Television Online Total

Percentage share per Number of Duration Duration

Online offerings from editorial 7.5 6.7 7.1 0:14:19 2:01

scope-extension element of research prevails there. A mixture of both production

Daily Radio (public- Television (public-ser- Online Total

Computer-aided 44.9 50.6 (47.3/55.0) 46.1 (48.5/42.7) 50.9 47.0

Non-computer-aided 46.1 36.0 (30.2/43.7) 43.6 (40.3/48.5) 19.0 40.6

Daily Radio (public- Television (public- Online Total

Basis (number of 86 44 (26/18) 57 (32/24) 25 212

Daily Radio (public- Television (public- Online Total

Other 3.7 2.3 (3.3/1.0) 2.3 (2.0/2.5) 0.1 2.6

e-mail, e.g. subscription-based newsletters, received press releases or announcements from

Daily Radio (public- Television (public- Online Total

Daily Radio (public- Television (public- Online Total

Non-computer-aided 38.6 33.6 (26.3/42.6) 30.3 (27.0/34.6) 19.1 33.4

Daily Radio (public- Television (public- Online Total

Non-computer-aided 49.5 36.7 (27.8/47.9) 31.8 (29.3/35.5) 10.1 38.0

Daily Radio (public- Television (public- Online Total

Survey of Journalists’ Online and Search-engine Use

What do you use the Internet for in Distribution (%) Mean

To what extent do you think that the Distribution (%) Mean

How important do you Distribution (%) Mean

Finding persons’ contact data 0.8 8.7 38.7 51.8 3.42

To what extent do you think that the Distribution (%) Mean

An Experiment Relating to the Search-engine Competences of Journalists

professional experience as journalists. This appears plausible because experienced

Summary and Conclusion

Computer-aided tools Non-computer-aided tools News agencies

News and topics monitoring

Processing received material

Identifying additional sources

Search engines Phone calls

Acquiring additional information

Various online offerings,

Searching for and sifting-through additional material

1. 1959:34 hours indicates 1959 hours and 34 minutes.

Marcel Machill (author to whom correspondence should be addressed), Chair of

You might also like