skip to main content
research-article

Tabloids in the Era of Social Media?: Understanding the Production and Consumption of Clickbaits in Twitter

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 December 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

With the growing shift towards news consumption primarily through social media sites like Twitter, most of the traditional as well as new-age media houses are promoting their news stories by tweeting about them. The competition for user attention in such mediums has led many media houses to use catchy sensational form of tweets to attract more users - a process known as clickbaiting. In this work, using an extensive dataset collected from Twitter, we analyze the social sharing patterns of clickbait and non-clickbait tweets to determine the organic reach of such tweets. We also attempt to study the sections of Twitter users who actively engage themselves in following clickbait and non-clickbait tweets. Comparing the advent of clickbaits with the rise of tabloidization of news, we bring out several important insights regarding the news consumers as well as the media organizations promoting news stories on Twitter.

References

  1. Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jisun An and Ingmar Weber. 2016. # greysanatomy vs.# yankees: Demographics and Hashtag Use on Twitter AAAI ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ankesh Anand, Tanmoy Chakraborty, and Noseong Park. 2017. We used Neural Networks to Detect Clickbaits: You won't believe what happened Next! ECIR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jeremy Barr. 2016. What Website? New Social Media-Only Brand Obsessee Hopes to Appeal to Teens. adageindia.in/media/what-website-new-social-media-only-brand-obsessee-hopes-to-appeal-to-teens/articleshow/ 51318961.cms. (March. 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Matthew A Baum and Angela S Jamison. 2006. The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. Journal of Politics, Vol. 68, 4 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. S. Elizabeth Bird. 2009. Tabliodization: What is it, and Does it Really Matter?. The changing faces of journalism, bibfieldeditorBarbie Zelizer (Ed.). Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Prakhar Biyani, Kostas Tsioutsiouliklis, and John Blackmer. 2016. 8 amazing secrets for getting more clicks: detecting clickbaits in news streams using article informality. In AAAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cameron Blevins and Lincoln Mullen. 2015. Jane, John... Leslie? a historical method for algorithmic gender prediction. Digital Humanities Quarterly Vol. 9, 3 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jonas Nygaard Blom and Kenneth Reinecke Hansen. 2015. Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 76 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Sally Brooke Cameron. 2010. The Journal of Modern Periodical Studies 1 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Abhijnan Chakraborty, Saptarshi Ghosh, Niloy Ganguly, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2015. Can trending news stories create coverage bias? on the impact of high content churn in online news media. In Computation and Journalism Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Abhijnan Chakraborty, Saptarshi Ghosh, Niloy Ganguly, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2016 a. Dissemination Biases of Social Media Channels: On the Topical Coverage of Socially Shared News. AAAI ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Abhijnan Chakraborty, Johnnatan Messias, Fabricio Benevenuto, Saptarshi Ghosh, Niloy Ganguly, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Who Makes Trends? Understanding Demographic Biases in Crowdsourced Recommendations AAAI ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Abhijnan Chakraborty, Bhargavi Paranjape, Sourya Kakarla, and Niloy Ganguly. 2016 b. Stop Clickbait: Detecting and Preventing Clickbaits in Online News Media ACM/IEEE ASONAM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Yimin Chen, Niall J Conroy, and Victoria L Rubin. 2015. Misleading Online Content: Recognizing Clickbait as False News ACM MDD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Justin Cheng, Lada Adamic, P Alex Dow, Jon Michael Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. 2014. Can cascades be predicted?. In ACM WWW. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Michael X Delli Carpini and Bruce A Williams. 2001. Let us infotain you: Politics in the new media age. (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicholas Diakopoulos and Arkaitz Zubiaga. 2014. Newsworthiness and Network Gatekeeping on Twitter: The Role of Social Deviance AAAI ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeffrey Dvorkin. 2015. Column: Why click-bait will be the death of journalism. pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/what-you-dont-know-about-click-bait-journalism-could-kill-you. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin Eide and Graham Knight. 1999. Public/private service: Service journalism and the problems of everyday life. European Journal of Communication Vol. 14, 4 (1999).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological bulletin Vol. 76, 5 (1971).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ben Frampton. 2015. Clickbait: The changing face of online journalism. bbc.com/news/uk-wales-34213693. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Nancy Fraser. 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social text 25/26 (1990).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Herbert J Gans and B Zeilizer. 2009. Can popularization help the news media. The Changing Faces of Journalism. Tabloidization, Technology, and Truthiness. (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Saptarshi Ghosh, Naveen Sharma, Fabricio Benevenuto, Niloy Ganguly, and Krishna Gummadi. 2012. Cognos: crowdsourcing search for topic experts in microblogs ACM SIGIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Alison Gianotto. 2016. Downworthy: A browser plugin to turn hyperbolic viral headlines into what they really mean. downworthy.snipe.net. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jürgen Habermas. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Megvii Inc.. 2013. FaceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Research Toolkit. www.faceplusplus.com. (Dec. 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sofia Johansson. 2007. Reading tabloids: Tabloid newspapers and their readers. Södertörns högskola.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Jure Leskovec, Lada A Adamic, and Bernardo A Huberman. 2007. The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) Vol. 1, 1 (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. David Liben-Nowell and Jon Kleinberg. 2008. Tracing information flow on a global scale using Internet chain-letter data. PNAS, Vol. 105, 12 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. George Loewenstein. 1994. The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological bulletin Vol. 116, 1 (1994).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. J Nathan Matias, Sarah Szalavitz, and Ethan Zuckerman. 2017. FollowBias: Supporting Behavior Change toward Gender Equality by Networked Gatekeepers on Social Media. In ACM CSCW. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, Jocelyn Kiley, and Katerina Eva Matsa. 2014. Social Media, Political News and Ideology | Pew Research Center. journalism.org/2014/10/21/section-2-social-media-political-news-and-ideology/. (Oct. 2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Preslav Nakov, Alan Ritter, Sara Rosenthal, Fabrizio Sebastiani, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2016. SemEval-2016 Task 4: Sentiment Analysis in Twitter SemEval @ NAACL-HLT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Rupert Neate. 2014. BuzzFeed valued at more than three times the Washington Post. theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/11/buzzfeed-valued-at-three-times-washington-post. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Claudia Orellana-Rodriguez, Derek Greene, and Mark T Keane. 2016. Spreading the news: how can journalists gain more engagement for their tweets' ACM WebScience. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Henrik Ornebring and Anna Maria Jonsson. 2004. Tabloid journalism and the public sphere: A historical perspective on tabloid journalism. Journalism Studies, Vol. 5, 3 (2004).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Alex Peysakhovich and Kristin Hendrix. 2016. News Feed FYI: Further Reducing Clickbait in Feed. newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/08/news-feed-fyi-further-reducing-clickbait-in-feed/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Martin Potthast, Sebastian Köpsel, Benno Stein, and Matthias Hagen. 2016. Clickbait Detection ECIR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Divya Jyoti Randev. 2016. The Nature of Tabloidized Content in Newspapers: An Overview. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Marsha L Richins and Teri Root-Shaffer. 1988. The role of evolvement and opinion leadership in consumer word-of-mouth: An implicit model made explicit. NA-Advances in Consumer Research (1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Dick Rooney. 2000. Thirty years of competition in the British tabloid press. Tabloid Tales: Global Debates over Media Standards -- New York and Oxford (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Mickael Rouvier and Benoit Favre. 2016. SENSEI-LIF at SemEval-2016 Task 4: Polarity embedding fusion for robust sentiment analysis NAACL 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. David Rowe. 2011. Obituary for the newspaper? Tracking the tabloid. Journalism (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Graeme D Ruxton. 2006. The unequal variance T-test is an underused alternative to Student's T-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. Behavioral Ecology, Vol. 17, 4 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Adam J Saffer, Erich J Sommerfeldt, and Maureen Taylor. 2013. The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization--public relationships. Public Relations Review Vol. 39, 3 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Naveen Kumar Sharma, Saptarshi Ghosh, Fabricio Benevenuto, Niloy Ganguly, and Krishna Gummadi. 2012. Inferring who-is-who in the Twitter social network. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review Vol. 42, 4 (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Pamela J Shoemaker, Tim P Vos, and Stephen D Reese. 2009. Journalists as gatekeepers. The handbook of journalism studies Vol. 73 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Morten Skovsgaard. 2014. A tabloid mind? Professional values and organizational pressures as explanations of tabloid journalism. Media, Culture & Society Vol. 36, 2 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Luke Sloan, Jeffrey Morgan, Pete Burnap, and Matthew Williams. 2015. Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user meta-data. PloS one, Vol. 10, 3 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Mitchell Stephens. 2007. A history of news.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Yla R Tausczik and James W Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology Vol. 29, 1 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Graeme Turner. 1999. Tabloidization, journalism and the possibility of critique. International Journal of Cultural Studies Vol. 2, 1 (1999).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Chris J Vargo, Lei Guo, and Michelle A Amazeen. 2017. The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. new media & society (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Onur Varol, Emilio Ferrara, Clayton A Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2017. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03107 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Kevin Williams. 2003. Understanding media theory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Qi Yin, Zhimin Cao, Yuning Jiang, and Haoqiang Fan. 2015. Learning Deep Face Representation. (December. 2015). US Patent 20,150,347,820.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Tabloids in the Era of Social Media?: Understanding the Production and Consumption of Clickbaits in Twitter

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader