Verb objectivity and source qualification: Comparison of quotation attributions in offline and online newspapers

Abstract

This study explored the use of quotations in offline (the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal) and online (Huffington Post and Newsmax) newspapers in terms of verb objectivity and source qualification (transparency and credibility). Individual analyses showed offline papers relatively focused more on verb objectivity, whereas online papers concentrated on source qualification. On analyzing verbs and sources together, the study found better journalistic performance in online papers. While offline papers employed verb objectivity as a sole standard for desirable quotation usage, online papers utilized source qualification and verb objectivity as leverages. More transparent-credible sources outnumbered less transparent-credible sources and objective verbs outnumbered unobjective verbs in online papers, but offline papers only had more objective than unobjective verbs and ignored desirable source use.

Keywords

Offline news online news source credibility source transparency verb objectivity

It is one of the ultimate goals of journalism to write things in news articles as they actually are (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2001). One of the recommendations for obtaining this goal is to remove the subjectivity of news writers from their articles as a core practice (Mencher, 1991). Excluding writer bias is more important than ever in this era of media convergence in which the information deluge is beyond imagination (Deuze, 1999). The public is vulnerable to the credulity of mass information and is significantly exposed to pseudo-news like rumors and gossips without clear attributions (Pavlik, 2013). Regrettably, the quality of information from both new and traditional media has gotten worse because of the rough and tumble competition for audience attention (Bucy, 2003). Among the realistic attempts to overcome this muddle and reach the ultimate goal of fair and accurate reporting, apposite usage of quotation has frequently been proposed (Brooks et al., 2002), and the uses of so-called objective verbs and qualified sources are generally featured as essential elements for precise news writing (Cotter, 2010).

The term ‘objectivity’, intricately intertwined with ‘removing subjectivity’ in some sense (Donsbach and Klett, 1993), is too sophisticated to reach a solid agreement on its existence (Durham, 1998; Ryan, 2001). Media scholars and practitioners, however, continuously develop accurate methods of news writing, which can be conceptualized as ‘objective’ (Schudson, 2001). As a result, the choice of impartial verbs, specifically wrapped with quotations, was introduced to provide a fairly accurate account of events to remove reporters’ involvement with them (Anderson and Itule, 1988). Although this approach may not be the only device for truthful news writing and may cause additional debate over the perfect representation of events, the use of these verbs is believed to be a feasible tool to observe objectivity (Donsbach, 2004). The quality of the sources providing information is another critical component of good journalism (Mencher, 1991) because it helps people determine whether to believe the information or not (Sundar, 1998). Specifically, the levels of transparency and credibility are two major elements of sources that influence the public’s belief because they can determine whether the information provided appears qualified enough to disregard the writers’ potential prejudice in the story (Allen, 2008; Lee and Koh, 2010).

Based on the discussion above, this article will scrutinize how offline and online newspapers use the so-called objective verbs in their quotations. In addition, the article will analyze the use of source transparency and credibility relevant to the verbs. Therefore, the overall usage of verbs and sources will be determined and whether online or offline media perform better in this aspect will be examined. Two offline newspapers (the New York Times (NYT) and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)) and two online newspapers (Huffington Post and Newsmax) established in the United States, where such aspects of journalism have long been discussed, were selected, and their contents were quantitatively analyzed.

Literature review

Objectivity and journalistic ritualization

Along with accuracy, impartiality, and credibility, objectivity is an essential component of good journalism, which helps find the truth using honest means (Randall, 2000). Simply, ‘being honest’ may equate to ‘being fair’ methodologically in news production (Giles, 2010), and ‘being fair’ usually refers to ‘being objective’ (Meyer, 1988; Ryan, 2001). Thus, objectivity is not just a component of fairness but comprises fairness itself. In turn, the two terms seem to have been used interchangeably since ‘the objectivity norm became fully formulated occupational ideal’ (Schudson, 2001: 163). Despite being one element of or another representation of fairness, objectivity seems to be the core of fairness, which is believed to be a baseline principle of contemporary news reporting (Brooks et al., 2002).

Largely, objectivity is the state of being free from bias and prejudice (Lambeth, 1992). In philosophy, objectivity originally means ‘the thing-itself’ not allowing subjective interpretations from outside (Oizerman, 1981). Thus, it is known as a pure form of truth per se (English, 2006). However, because the understanding of objectivity is closely related to various forms of epistemology and ontology (Earle, 1955), the concept has been debated continuously among various factions of thoughts and has changed accordingly even in philosophy where the novel discussion over objectivity began (Hess, 1938).

In journalism, which has long pursued fair news writing, disagreements on the concept of objectivity also exist (Muñoz-Torres, 2012). Although it could be simply summarized as ‘value free’ in contrast to subjectivity, which is ‘value-intended’ (Anderson and Baym, 2004), it is hard not only to conceptualize objectivity but also to achieve it in news writing (Durham, 1998). The fundamental reason for such difficulties seems to reside in the very philosophical nature of objectivity (Ryan, 2001). Moreover, the practical exercise of everyday news writing, which faces endlessly changing social phenomena, makes the conceptualization of objectivity in journalism even harder because brief summaries of phenomena with limitless aspects in the limited space and time of media products can hardly be objective (Hamill, 1998). Nevertheless, journalism scholars and practitioners suggested some solutions to overcome such difficulties in the name of journalistic norms, with which news people can get closer to objectivity (Kaplan, 2006). These attempts generally include nonpartisanship of reporting, proper leads with inverted pyramid writing styles, and balanced use of sources, which are now credited as basic norms of news reporting and writing (Anderson and Itule, 1988; Powers, 1999).

Even such efforts, however, were criticized by other scholars arguing that the so-called journalistic routines did not support the commonly shared public interest which could produce an agreed or coherent truth (Dewey, 1954; Rorty, 1991) but rather the goals of powerful media or preexisting social structures where such media reside (Hall, 1980), simply because such routines unavoidably induce framing effects for the sake of media stakeholders and inevitably harm objectivity (Gitlin, 1980). But admitting such potential flaws in the ritualized methods of news production, advocates of normalized journalism practices still justify their efficiency for information delivery, at least with limited but practical objectivity (Rich, 2002). Unlike the blind followers of pre-established journalistic rituals, they accept the suggestions to dig further for information, avoid purposive framing to satisfy the public’s needs for fair stories, and try to find ways to add and apply such recommendations to the physically limited conditions of time and space (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2001). That is, scholars and practitioners no longer attempt to make journalism purely objective, which is impossible, but to develop methods to epitomize the event as objectively as possible (Jones, 2009).

Among such challenges, cautious selection of words seems to be more important in this age of information deluge where news outlets compete for audiences at the expense of fairness and objectivity (Kaplan, 2006). Careful use of words for quotations specifically can be a practical means to reach the goal of objectivity because quotations are believed to be a tool that forces journalists to detach themselves from the events covered so as to make the news less subjective (Anderson and Itule, 1988; Sigal, 1973).

Quotation and its attribution in news articles

Recapping the discussions above, we can say that news cannot be purely objective but should be practically objective. We can determine two elements, namely, hard facts and the links among them in news production, which create this summary. Philosophically, hard facts can be objective only without outside intervention. In a news story, however, they barely are because news writing requires the intervention of journalists in connecting them to construct social meaning (Tuchman, 1972). This linkage among facts is usually achieved with quotations because news, in general, cannot be produced only with hard facts, but requires quotations to link them (Sigal, 1973). Quotation(s) here means a certain statement(s) from a certain source(s) selected and used by journalists. In reviving the paradox of whether news is objective or not in this sense, hard facts are losing their objectivity because they are connected by quotations used by biased human journalists in news articles. To make the assertions mentioned earlier in this article simple, we can argue that if the use of quotations is enhanced to decrease journalists’ intervention, news can be more objective.

Quotations generally comprise quotes and attributions (Anderson and Itule, 1988). Although discussion on the truthfulness of a quote can be fundamental, this article does not seek a solution to such discussion that is related to the unresolved question about ontological and epistemological objectivity (Earle, 1955). The study instead explores attribution, which communicates how and where the quote comes from. That is, it examines whether the vehicle (attribution) properly conveys the content (quote) from the world to the public. Although the role of the vehicle has been debated for its potential to show the world objectively (Brooks et al., 2002; Gans, 1979), the author believes that this assumption is a feasible baseline norm of precise reporting for practical objectivity (Jones, 2009; Mencher, 1991; Rich, 2002). The study of attribution would certainly cover the study of verbs and sources, which are the two main elements of attribution (Anderson and Itule, 1988; Hamill, 1998).

Verbs in quotation

In terms of accurate and objective reporting, the uses of adverbs, adjectives, and even nouns in news stories have often been discussed (Rich, 2002). The use of verbs, however, remains understudied because the journalistic norm of objective verb use appears relatively well preserved (Cotter, 2010). For example, two verbs, ‘said’ and ‘added’, which are traditionally accepted as objective in quotations, are the most frequently used words (Sonoda, 1997). Many other verbs that indicate conduct or actions entangled with a noun status have been avoided accordingly because of their potential to relay the emotions of reporters to their audience (Mencher, 1991). Another reason for the lack of study may be the journalistic meaning of objectivity. ‘Objectivity’ in reference to ‘objective verb use’ is rather a generic term than a philosophical meaning related to truth; thus, it may seem unnecessary to study verbs while pursuing theoretical truth (Davidson, 1994; Quine, 1964). However, the verb itself has intrinsic values (Levin, 1993) that affect not only accuracy but also the potential truth. More attention should be given to this issue, particularly with the proliferation of too much information with improper expressions in media outlets using various reporting strategies (Hamill, 1998).

Verbs are indeed critical in human communication because they contain not only syntactic but also semantic assets that induce a variety of meanings for things (Levin, 1993). Although the properties of meaning contain complicated subcategories of cognitive–emotional or intellectual–intuitive levels (Teasdale, 1993), the meaning as a whole could be understood as a major force in shaping the path of human epistemology (Novak, 1993). Specifically, a verb’s meaning becomes considerably expanded when it is extended to predicate and contain descriptive vocabulary such as adjectives (Cresswell, 1985).

As the environment in media industries changes along with the pressure for more readability of news stories, new challenges in traditional journalism are encountered (Weinblatt, 2008). Among them, defiance against ritualized news writing is a concern and can automatically challenge the traditional thought of objective reporting in terms of verb use (Monville-Burston and Waugh, 1998). Moreover, the emergence of the Internet, which enormously altered the communication field, spurs this challenge more dramatically (Morris and Ogan, 1996). Thus, it is not only necessary but also imperative to study the verb use in quotations of news stories to further understand our position and future direction. Sources, which are the masters of verbs in quotations, should be studied simultaneously because of the qualification of the attributions.

Sources in quotation

Journalists are supposed to collect scattered facts to obtain social meaning (Brooks et al., 2002), but they must seek help from others to complete their jobs because they are not omnipresent and omniscient (Sigal, 1973). Those assistants known as sources must be able to provide evidence to link the facts that reporters use to establish the logic and credibility of stories. Evidence generally materialized as quotations cannot be accepted as trustworthy, ‘if it is not properly attributed to a legitimate source’ (Sundar, 1998: 56).

The legitimacy of sources can largely be summarized into two aspects, namely, transparency and credibility (Lee and Koh, 2010). Among the two, transparency pertains to how much the identity of sources is revealed (Rupar, 2006). The level of transparency can be measured by the clear mention of identifying elements such as the name and vocation of sources (Kovačič and Laban, 2006). This is vital because audiences do not have clear baselines to trust the information if the source identity is not transparent (Hayes et al., 2007). To empirically explore transparency, the measurement level has been separated into two (transparent and opaque) or three (transparent, translucent, and opaque) subcategories and studied accordingly (Lee and Koh, 2010).

Source affiliation is another element that audiences essentially use to decide whether the news is credible (Yoon, 2005). The level of source affiliation is frequently introduced with the occupation and expertise of the sources (Bucy, 2003; Detjen et al., 2000; Hayes et al., 2007). In addition, some source traits, such as trustworthiness (Meyer, 1988), are linked to particular vocations or affiliations, producing layered source credibility categorized as experts to government, non-government organizations, businesses, and ordinary citizens (Yoon, 2005). Although such credentials vary in conjunction with specific fields of interest, the order of source credibility generally flows from experts to private citizens (Detjen et al., 2000). The order of such credibility, along with source transparency, is a tool used to gauge the level of source qualification (Lee and Koh, 2010).

Research questions

Based on the discussions above, this study examines how quotations in the media follow the general norms of news writing in terms of creating qualified information. Specifically, the use of verbs and sources in quotations by online and offline newspapers is explored and compared. The following research questions are formulated:

Research question 1. In terms of objectivity, is there any difference in verb use between offline and online newspapers?

Research question 2. In terms of transparency, is there any difference in source use between offline and online newspapers?

Research question 3. In terms of credibility, is there any difference in source use between offline and online newspapers?

Research question 4. Is there any difference in the use of objective verbs combined with source transparency between offline and online newspapers?

Research question 5. Is there any difference in the use of objective verbs combined with source credibility between offline and online newspapers?

Methods

This study conducts a quantitative content analysis to examine quotations in two offline news outlets, the NYT and the WSJ, and two online outlets, the Huffington Post and the Newsmax. These outlets, which contain text as the major content, were selected in terms of their popularity and political orientations. Studying highly circulated and viewed media would best represent the journalistic practice, and analyzing politically polarized media together would cancel out the suspicions about either of the two sides’ alleged journalism bias (McNair, 1998). Even if NYT is not the most circulated newspaper, it still competes with USA Today and WSJ for the highest circulation and is recognized as an exemplary medium for newspapers (Pew Research Center, 2014). The Huffington Post has the most page views online and is believed to be one of the archetypes of its form (Olmstead et al., 2011). While these media are considered progressive, WSJ and Newsmax are leading examples of conservative media in terms of circulation and page views (Hawkins, 2014; Weinberg, 2010).

To avoid factors like particular events that will potentially affect research results (Neuendorf, 2002), this study selected September to November 2014 as the time frame. Year 2014 was when this study was planned and a relatively small number of huge events was covered in the fall according to articles written by national media such as ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.¹ Meanwhile, a 3-month period is the most parsimonious duration to make up 2 weeks, which is suggested as most effective to collect data for the constructed week sampling (Riffe et al., 1998). Specifically, 12 days including 8, 16, 24 September, 2, 10, 18, 20, 28 October, and 5, 13, 21, and 29 November were chosen, comprising 2 weeks. Sundays were excluded to focus on general daily news and avoid various feature stories (Rich, 2002). The day 8 September was selected instead of 1 September, Labor Day, because some papers did not publish news articles during the holiday. This study analyzed front-page articles, which are regarded as the face of a newspaper (Brooks et al., 2002). For online papers, stories presented at the homepage, which is the online version of the front page (Carpenter, 2008), were collected. For online papers, only five or six stories from the top stories of the day at the homepage were selected to match the number of stories in their offline counterparts. The author established this rule for the study to distinguish front-page stories from other news items in online papers, which lacks clear delimiters like the ‘pages’ of offline papers. A total of 263 stories (NYT = 68, WSJ = 60, Huffington = 68, and Newsmax = 67) were collected.

For the actual content analysis, information containing quotations was extracted from the stories. The unit of analysis is the quotation, which is generally a sentence ending with a period and consisting of a quote and a verb. The information stated in a quotation is provided by a source and is connected by a verb to the quote in the unit. If the sources were not directly connected with specific quotes through the verbs but were within two sentences from a quote, they were identified as the source of the quote (Anderson and Itule, 1988). Finally, a total of 3940 quotations (NYT = 1403, WSJ = 1107, Huffington = 649, and Newsmax = 781) were collected.

The verb, one of the major variables, was sorted and operationalized for three groups based on the level of ‘objectivity’ (Sonoda, 1997). When the verbs that linked the quotes and sources were ‘said’ or ‘added’, they were coded as ‘objective’ (Rich, 2002). If the verbs did not refer to speech but to an action or conduct, they were coded as ‘non-objective’. Verbs such as ‘smiled’ and ‘grimaced’ were some examples of ‘non-objective’. These are traditionally recommended to be avoided (Anderson and Itule, 1998). Verbs, such as ‘opined’ and ‘stressed’, containing judgmental and subjective connotations were coded as ‘non-objective’ as well. Meanwhile, the author found some verbs like ‘told’ that do not seem to refer to action or conduct but to speech. Thus, following some suggestions to include such verbs as acceptable in quotations (Monville-Burston and Waugh, 1998; Weinblatt, 2008), the author created a ‘semi-objective’ category to further scrutinize the verb use. Furthermore, if ‘objective’ or ‘semi-objective’ verbs were combined with emotional or judgmental descriptions, they were all coded as ‘non-objective’. Detailed operational definitions and examples are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Operational definitions.

Verb objectivity
1. Objective	Only two verbs of ‘said’ and ‘added’ referring speech
2. Semi-objective	Verbs imitating the two ‘objective verbs’ but not referring action or conducts (e.g. told and answered)
3. Non-objective	Verbs referring action or conducts and subjective judgments (e.g. boasted, chanted, rasped, taunted, hailed, criticized and fumed); the objective or semi-objective verbs with additional descriptions mingled with emotions or judgments (e.g. said with regrets and answered bluntly)
Source transparency
1. Transparent	Sources with full identities with names, titles, and affiliations (e.g. Samantha Power, the American ambassador to the United Nations, Joseph Quinlan, and chief market strategist at US Trust)
2. Translucent	Sources with partial identities, for instance, clear affiliations without name or title (e.g. a State Department’s spokesman and a Ukrainian border guard official)
3. Opaque	Sources with little or no identities (e.g. several officials, investigators, and a source close to the family)
Source credibility
1. Expert	Specialists like professors, scientists, and researchers with professional knowledge about and without profitable interests from the issue covered
2. Public	(Members of) Three estates (government, justice system, and congress); (Members of) non-governmental organizations
3. Private	Ordinary citizens, commercial business and industry groups, and so on speaking for their own interests or profits related to the issue covered

For the variables of source qualifications, the author simply followed or slightly modified the definitions of Lee and Koh (2010), who summarized traits of sources based on the previous literature and introduced them in terms of transparency and credibility. As a result, the transparency of sources is categorized into three levels, namely, transparent, translucent, and opaque. ‘Transparent’ is the most qualified source because identifying elements, including name, occupation, and so on, is clear, followed by ‘translucent’ and ‘opaque’ that show relatively poor and less clear proof of identity. Source credibility, which is summarized as source affiliations at various levels in the study by Lee and Koh (2010), is condensed into three areas, namely, ‘experts’, ‘public’, and ‘private’ in this study. ‘Experts’ are categorized as the most credible, followed by ‘public’ and ‘private’. The expert source speaks about events with professionalism and without specific public or private interest. The public source including governmental and non-governmental bodies is assumed to speak on behalf of the public, but the evidence for the cause is not as clear as that of the expert source. A private source, who is neither an expert nor a person with a publicly shared cause, has a private interest and is ranked at the lowest level of credibility (see Table 1).

Three communication graduate students at a university participated in the study as coders. During the pilot coding phase, they were educated to understand the operational definitions of the items being coded. When specific disagreements arose in coding the items, the coders discussed them with the author. The original coding scheme was adjusted until a substantial degree of inter-coder reliability was met for certain analysis units, which were randomly selected from and consisted of about 10 percent of 3940 quotations. Afterward, each of the three coders independently assessed one-third of the units of analysis, respectively. The finalized inter-coder reliability was .76 (Scott’s Pi).

Results

Individual results of verb and source use of offline and online newspapers

RQ1 explored the overall use of quotation verbs in terms of objectivity in offline and online newspapers and the potential difference between them. The results were statistically significant at p < .001, and the papers most frequently used ‘objective’ verbs, followed by ‘non-objective’ and ‘semi-objective’ ones (see Table 2). Offline papers used ‘objective’ and ‘non-objective’ verbs more heavily than online papers did, whereas online papers used twice as many ‘semi-objective’ verbs as their offline counterparts, although online papers only had approximately half the number of total quotes used in offline media for the category.

Table 2.

Offline and online newspapers’ verb objectivity and source qualification (transparency and credibility).

	Offline	Online	Total
Verb objectivity
Objective	1973 (50.1%)	831 (21.1%)	2804 (71.2%)
Semi-objective	121 (3.1%)	261 (6.6%)	382 (9.7%)
Non-objective	416 (10.6%)	338 (8.6%)	754 (19.1%)
Total	2510 (63.7%)	1430 (36.3%)	3940 (100%)
χ² = 247.005, df = 2, p < .001
Source transparency
Transparent	1773 (45.0%)	1041 (26.4%)	2814 (71.4%)
Translucent	351 (8.9%)	274 (7.0%)	625 (15.9%)
Opaque	386 (9.8%)	115 (2.9%)	501 (12.7%)
Total	2510 (63.7%)	1430 (36.3%)	3940 (100%)
χ² = 54.547, df = 2, p < .001
Source credibility
Expert	556 (14.1%)	592 (15.0%)	1148 (29.1%)
Public	930 (23.6%)	630 (16.0%)	1560 (39.6%)
Private	1024 (26.0%)	208 (5.3%)	1232 (31.3%)
Total	2510 (63.7%)	1430 (36.3%)	3940 (100%)
χ² = 327.884, df = 2, p < .001

df: degrees of freedom.

The results indicated that although both types of papers showed similar trends, offline papers performed better in the use of objective verbs because the percentage difference of ‘objective’ verb use (29%) between the two formats was larger than that of ‘non-objective’ verb use (2%). Furthermore, offline papers used ‘objective’ verbs approximately five times more often than ‘non-objective’ verbs, whereas online papers used ‘objective’ verbs about three times more often than ‘non-objective’ verbs. In addition, combining ‘semi-objective’ and ‘non-objective’ categories to create an extra category labeled as ‘unobjective’ in order to further scrutinize verb use reinforces the difference. Using the strict traditional dichotomy of ‘objective’ and ‘unobjective’ verbs (Anderson and Itule, 1988), the results revealed that offline papers (537/13.7%) used fewer ‘unobjective’ verbs than online papers (599/15.2%). Offline papers also used more ‘objective’ than ‘unobjective’ verbs as shown in Table 2, and the differences were statistically significant at p < .001. The χ² value of this case was 186.462 and the degree of freedom was 1. This seems to suggest that offline papers visibly performed better because they used more ‘objective’ and fewer ‘unobjective’ verbs than their online counterparts.

The results, however, can be interpreted from a different perspective if we scrutinize the role of ‘semi-objective’ verbs. With some evidence, such as percentage difference, the explanation above supports the finding that offline papers perform better than online papers. Moreover, the traditional dichotomy of verb objectivity seems to strengthen the conclusion. If the dichotomy, however, is modified in a different manner, as suggested by some scholars (Monville-Burston and Waugh, 1998), we cannot uphold the above conclusion. If ‘semi-objective’ was not combined with ‘non-objective’ to form a larger ‘unobjective’ category but separated as shown in Table 2, we will not see the clear distinction between the two media because offline papers used not only ‘objective’ but also ‘non-objective’ verbs more often than online papers. This result implies that the new category of ‘semi-objective’ could play a crucial role in deciding which papers would perform better in terms of desirable verb use. The role of verbs imitating the original two verbs of ‘said’ and ‘added’ referring to speech should be further studied in terms of how and why they were more frequently used in online media.

RQ2 and RQ3 explored qualified source use and revealed statistically significant results at p < .001 (see Table 2). The results of RQ2 showed that both offline and online papers used transparent sources, which were most desirable, more often than translucent and opaque sources. Meanwhile, the online papers used more translucent sources than opaque ones, whereas offline papers used more opaque sources than translucent ones. Applying the level of qualification in terms of source transparency, we observed that online papers performed better because they used relatively well-identified sources more frequently than less-identified sources. Similar results were obtained for RQ3, but were slightly more complicated. Although all papers used more public sources than experts, offline papers used private sources the most, and online newspapers used them the least. To determine whether the papers used the most desirable sources is difficult because they all used public sources more often than expert sources, which are more credible. In contrast, offline newspapers used sources less desirably than online newspapers because the former used private sources most frequently, which are the least credible sources, whereas the latter used them less frequently. Conclusively, online papers perform better than their offline counterparts in qualified source use because the former used more transparent sources more often and used the least credible sources less often.

Combined results of verb use with source of offline and online newspapers

To further scrutinize the quotation use in offline and online papers, this study examined verb objectivity and source qualification together in obtaining answers to RQ4 and RQ5. RQ4 results showed that all the papers overwhelmingly used transparent sources with objective verbs, which was the most desirable combination, more than any other combinations of verb objectivity and source transparency. The cross-tab analysis results of both offline and online papers were statistically significant at p < .001 and indicated that out of nine potential groupings, the offline papers used the best combination 58.2 percent of the time while online papers used the best combination 43.9 percent of the time (see Table 3). However, the relevance pursued by the two newspaper formats differed from each other. Specifically, online papers emphasized source transparency more than verb objectivity in their quotation use compared with offline papers.

Table 3.

Offline and online newspapers’ verb objectivity with source qualification (transparency and credibility).

	Verb objectivity
	Offline				Online
	Obj	Semi	Non	Total	Obj	Semi	Non	Total
T
Trnprt	1460 (58.2%)	81 (3.2%)	232 (9.2%)	1773 (70.6%)	628 (43.9%)	200 (14.0%)	213 (14.9%)	1041 (72.8%)
Trnlct	226 (9.0%)	24 (1.0%)	101 (4.0%)	351 (14.0%)	145 (10.1%)	45 (3.1%)	84 (5.9%)	274 (19.2%)
Opaq	287 (11.4%)	16 (.6%)	83 (3.3%)	386 (15.4%)	58 (4.1%)	16 (1.1%)	41 (2.9%)	115 (8.0%)
Total	1973 (78.6%)	121 (4.8%)	416 (16.6%)	2510 (100%)	831 (58.1%)	261 (18.3%)	338 (23.6%)	1430 (100%)
	χ² = 66.838, df = 4, p < .001				χ² = 22.709, df = 4, p < .001
C
Expert	419 (16.7%)	14 (.6%)	123 (4.9%)	556 (22.2%)	250 (17.5%)	157 (11.0%)	185 (12.9%)	592 (41.4%)
Public	717 (28.6%)	72 (2.9%)	141 (5.6%)	930 (37.1%)	446 (31.2%)	79 (5.5%)	105 (7.3%)	630 (44.1%)
Private	837 (33.3%)	35 (1.4%)	152 (6.1%)	1024 (40.8%)	135 (9.4%)	25 (1.7%)	48 (3.4%)	208 (14.5%)
Total	1973 (78.6%)	121 (4.8%)	416 (16.6%)	2510 (100%)	831 (58.1%)	261 (18.3%)	338 (23.6%)	1430 (100%)
	χ² = 42.348, df = 4, p < .001				χ² = 110.141, df = 4, p < .001

df: degrees of freedom.

In the far left column of the table, ‘T’ is source transparency and ‘C’ is source credibility. Next to the far left column of box ‘T’, ‘Trnprt’ is transparent, ‘Trnlct’ is translucent, and ‘Opaq’ is opaque. Under of row of ‘Offline’ and ‘Online’, ‘Obj’ is objective verb, ‘Semi’ is semi-objective verb, and ‘Non’ is non-objective verb.

Among nine possible objectivity–transparency pairings, Table 3 shows that the top three online combinations were all related to ‘transparent’, which was the most desirable trait for source transparency. The fourth and fifth most common combinations were related to ‘translucent’, which was the second most desirable trait. Although ‘objective’ verbs were generally used more often than ‘non-objective’ and ‘semi-objective’ ones, verb objectivity did not show such a strong tendency as source transparency in online papers because the ranks of the nine combinations were decided according to source transparency first, followed by verb objectivity. Similarly, offline papers largely used ‘objective’ verbs more often than ‘non-objective’ and ‘semi-objective’ ones. Unlike their online counterparts, however, offline newspapers did not show clear trends in source transparency, and different indications of its desirability were dispersed throughout the nine combinations without a specific order. Although determining which papers performed better in terms of verb objectivity is difficult because they all used ‘objective’ verbs more than other kinds of verbs, we can say that online papers performed better than offline ones in quotation use in terms of source transparency because online papers clearly used superior sources more than inferior sources, whereas offline papers did not.

Conclusively, online papers adopted source transparency as the primary factor in deciding the quotations to be used and verb objectivity as the secondary factor, whereas offline papers used verb objectivity as the sole factor. Furthermore, online papers considered the level of source transparency for the quotation use and preferred to use more transparent sources, whereas no such trend was apparent in offline papers. The results indicated that online papers use quotations more desirably than offline papers, which blindly complies with the recommendation of objective verb use regardless of source transparency.

The analysis of verb objectivity and source credibility also shows notable results. For offline papers, verb objectivity combined with source credibility played a key role in their use of quotations. The result of RQ5 for the offline papers, which assessed quotation use in terms of the objectivity–credibility combination, was statistically significant at p < .001, showing that the order of usage is according to the level of verb objectivity because the top three verbs of nine potential combinations were ‘objective’, the middle three were ‘non-objective’, and the last three were ‘semi-objective’ (see Table 3). The order was the same as that of RQ1, which examined verb objectivity only. In each top, middle, and last verb objectivity sets, the order of source appearance frequency resembles the result of RQ3 for offline papers, which examined source credibility only. That is, in those three sets, private sources most frequently appeared and expert or public sources followed. This seems to imply that verb objectivity is the primary decisive factor and source credibility is the second factor for quotation use in offline papers, although both factors do not follow the most desirable guidelines.

For online papers, however, verb objectivity did not play a key role in the decision to use ranks, unlike source credibility. The result of RQ5 for the online papers was also statistically significant at p < .001, showing that the media used expert sources with all three types of verb objectivity more often than most cases of six other potential combinations of verb objectivity and source credibility (see Table 3). The only exception was the public source–objective verb pairing, which was most frequently used. The public is the second best qualified source in terms of credibility, and the objective verb is the best kind of verb for objectivity. Following the pairing, the quotations using expert sources with ‘objective’, ‘non-objective’, and ‘semi-objective’ verbs were ranked as second, third, and fourth, respectively. In addition, the quotation using public sources with ‘non-objective’ and ‘semi-objective’ verbs was ranked at sixth and seventh, respectively. Private sources were ranked at fifth, eighth, and ninth. This indicates that source credibility was the key determinant, followed by verb objectivity, for online papers when analyzed with verb objectivity because source credibility first determines the order of quotation use as a whole followed by verb objectivity.

Conclusion and discussion

This article explored the quotation use of offline and online media in terms of verb objectivity and source qualification (transparency and credibility). Overall, offline papers treated verb objectivity more seriously than source qualification, and online papers valued source qualification more than verb objectivity. Combining the individual and collective analyses of quotation results, the study found that online papers generally performed better in following journalistic norms than offline papers because offline papers employed verb objectivity as the sole standard for anticipated quotation usage, while online papers utilized both source qualification and verb objectivity for desirable quotations.

These results indicate that we should reconsider the widely held belief that traditional papers perform better journalistically than online media (Deuze, 1999). Although one study may not be enough to determine the desirable norms of journalism, this study about quotation use can add evidence to support the positive work of online media (Carpenter, 2008). Moreover, the preference for verb objectivity regardless of source qualification by offline papers raises another concern because such a practice can easily be disregarded by the audience as weak credibility. Even if the papers attempt to use objective verbs for information transfer, the audience may not consider the quotes credible because they do not recognize the origin (Lee and Koh, 2010). This advice should also be considered by online media, which employ verb objectivity only as the auxiliary standard for their quotation use. Although source qualification is an imperative element of news media, the words of sources using objective verbs are better transferred (Brooks et al., 2002).

On the other hand, to intensify and expand the understanding of verb objectivity, the author included the ‘semi-objective’ category in this study. In the study, separating the category from or combining it with other categories clearly altered the direction of offline and online papers in complying with journalistic norms. Specifically, scrutinizing the results showed that the percentage and number of ‘semi-objective’ verbs in online papers outnumbered those in offline papers. The results suggest that the category could play a pivotal role in deciding good journalism performance and could influence the performance evaluation of online papers. The growing number of online media outlets would possibly spur such trends further, and people may even consider the practice of ‘semi-objective’ verb use as desirable, although the actual consequences are uncertain.

Regarding this view, the author urges scholars to expand our scope beyond journalism to obtain potentially better directions for journalistic performance because the findings in this study may be limited to a small research design using narrow concepts. For example, we do not clearly know whether the ‘semi-objective’ category should be included in the ‘objective’ or ‘non-objective’ category because journalism research has not thoroughly examined the area. To obtain more in-depth discussion, our future research should go further than some rationales in this study. By investigating the journalism field itself as well, we can use the results of this study to expand our understanding. For example, we can divide the news themes into politics, economics, social affairs, culture, and other categories to determine which themes use specific verbs and sources and then discuss their implications. To determine whether such differences can be explained using the news strategy of media would also be meaningful.

Future studies should cover for the limitations of this study. First of all, the intrinsic connotations of variables can be explored further because this study may have exceedingly extracted their meanings for operationalization. For instance, the difference in credibility levels among sources can be reconsidered for specific situations. Even an expert source, which was operationalized as the most credible one, can be biased. Or, more precisely speaking, their assertions as used in the news articles by reporters can be biased (Gans, 1979; Tuchman, 1972). That is, among various statements by expert sources, only partial words, phrases, or sentences would be selected and used to reinforce the prejudice of news people who cover the topic (Burnham, 1987; Tankard and Ryan, 1974). Furthermore, private sources who directly witnessed the actual event could be the best informants if asked to describe what they saw and heard. In other words, the assertions made by first-hand observers to a specific event could be more accurate and credible than those of experts or public sources who largely comment on general trends of such events (Sigal, 1973). This study does not take such variations of credibility into account because it mainly focuses on overall usage of sources regardless of specific situations.

More importantly, however, we need to further and more deeply consider objectivity in journalism itself. It is hard to say that this article extends to the core idea behind objectivity because it did not examine what the quotations were about, but rather, how individual quotations were mentioned and by whom. That is, it investigated the quotation’s format, not the substance, which could be as a pivotal element, the major material for constructing objective truth. It would not be, however, enough even just to know what the individual quotation is about in order to grasp the objective truth of events or things covered in the news. Actually, such truth cannot be constructed or represented by a single quotation, a collection of quotations in a news article, or even a full series of news about an issue in a given time and space. To put it harshly, it may be even useless to investigate what the quotation is about to know the ‘truth’. This is the reason why contemporary scholars suggested not pursuing perfect truth but the ‘practical’ and ‘best’ truth possible from news reporting and writing (Jones, 2009). Therefore, for the goal of getting perfect truth, it could be an ironic but feasible approach to keep trying to reach the truth itself while keeping how it is hard to get the truth itself in mind. In doing so, we can broaden our comprehension of media presentations about the world (Muñoz-Torres, 2012). Even with some flaws, the author believes the goal of this study is one of such efforts and hopes that documenting the performance of the present media through academic analysis will provide a picture of the future when offline media such as print newspapers become obsolete, and encourage people to continuously think about the essence of journalism.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A2A1A01026748).

Notes

Author biography

Gunho Lee (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is Associate Professor of the Division of Communication and Media at the College of Social Sciences in the Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. His research interests include news writing standards, journalism ethics and philosophy, political communications, and media effects. He has written many books and articles including ‘Who controls newspapers’ political perspectives? Source transparency and affiliations in Korean news articles about US beef imports (2010)’. He currently teaches news reporting and writing, media and politics, mass communication theories, content analysis, and philosophy of journalism.

References

Allen

(2008) The trouble with transparency: The challenge of doing journalism ethics in a surveillance society. Journalism Studies 9(3): 323–340.

Anderson

Itule

(1988) Writing the News. New York: Random House.

Anderson

Baym

(2004) Philosophies and philosophic issues in communication, 1995-2004. Journal of Communication 54: 589–615.

Brooks

Kennedy

Moen

. (2002) News Reporting and Writing, 7th edn. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.

Bucy

(2003) Media credibility reconsidered: Synergy effects between on-air and online news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 80: 247–264.

Burnham

(1987) How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularising Science and Health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Carpenter

(2008) How online citizen journalism publications and online newspapers utilize the objectivity standard and rely on external sources. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 85(3): 531–548.

Cotter

(2010) News Talk: Investigating the Language of Journalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cresswell

(1985) Structured Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Davidson

(1994) Truth, Language and History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Detjen

Fico

. (2000) Changing work environment of environmental reporters. Newspaper Research Journal 21(1): 2–12.

12.

Deuze

(1999) Journalism and the web: An analysis of skills and standards in an online environment. Gazette 61(5): 373–390.

13.

Dewey

(1954) The Public and Its Problems. Chicago, IL: Swallow Press.

14.

Donsbach

(2004) Psychology of news decisions: Factors behind journalists’ professional behavior. Journalism 5(2): 131–157.

15.

Donsbach

Klett

(1993) Subjective objectivity. How journalists in four countries define a key term of their profession. Gazette 51: 53–83.

16.

Durham

(1998) On the relevance of standpoint epistemology to the practice of journalism: The case for ‘strong objectivity’. Communication Theory 8: 117–140.

17.

Earle

(1955) Objectivity. New York: Noonday Press.

18.

English

(2006) Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

19.

Gans

(1979) Deciding What’s News. New York: Random House.

20.

Giles

(2010) Fairness as an essential ingredient in news reporting. Nieman Reports, 14 June. Available at: http://niemanreports.org/articles/fairness-as-an-essential-ingredient-in-news-reporting/ (accessed 5 October 2015).

21.

Gitlin

(1980) The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.

22.

Hall

(1980) Encoding/decoding. In: Hall

Hobson

Lowe

(eds) Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies 1972–79. London: Hutchinson, pp. 128–138.

23.

Hamill

(1998) News Is a Verb: Journalism at the End of the Twentieth Century. New York: Ballantine Publishing.

24.

Hawkins

(2014) The top 100 conservative websites of 2014. rightwingnews.com, 30 April. Available at: http://rightwingnews.com/special/the-top-100-conservative-websites-of-2014/ (accessed 22 February 2015).

25.

Hayes

Singer

Ceppos

(2007) Shifting roles, enduring values: The credible journalist in a digital age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22(4): 262–279.

26.

Hess

(1938) Objectivity in moral philosophy. The Journal of Philosophy 35(14): 381–386.

27.

Jones

(2009) An argument why journalists should not abandon objectivity. Nieman Reports, 15 September. Available at: http://niemanreports.org/articles/an-argument-why-journalists-should-not-abandon-objectivity/ (accessed 29 September 2015).

28.

Kaplan

(2006) The news about new institutionalism: Journalism’s ethic of objectivity and its political origins. Political Communication 23: 173–185.

29.

Kovach

Rosenstiel

(2001) The Elements of Journalism: What People Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Crown Publishers.

30.

Kovačič

Laban

(2006) Linguistic means of news source reference: The case of the Slovenian press agency. Media Research 12(1): 45–66.

31.

Lambeth

(1992) Committed Journalism: An Ethic for the Profession, 2nd edn. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

32.

Lee

Koh

(2010) Who controls newspapers’ political perspectives? Source transparency and affiliations in Korean news articles about US beef imports. Asian Journal of Communication 20(4): 404–422.

33.

Levin

(1993) English Verb Classes and Alterations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

34.

McNair

(1998) The Sociology of Journalism. London: Arnold.

35.

Mencher

(1991) News Reporting and Writing, 5th edn. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

36.

Meyer

(1988) Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly 65: 567–574.

37.

Monville-Burston

Waugh

(1998) Lexicon, genre and local discourse organisation: French speech act verbs and journalistic texts. Journal of French Language Studies 8(1): 45–62.

38.

Morris

Ogan

(1996) The internet as mass medium. Journal of Communication 46(1): 39–50.

39.

Muñoz-Torres

(2012) Truth and objectivity in journalism. Journalism Studies 13(4): 566–582.

40.

Neuendorf

(2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

41.

Novak

(1993) Human constructivism: A unification of psychological and epistemological phenomena in meaning making. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology 6(2): 167–193.

42.

Oizerman

(1981) I. Kant’s doctrine of the ‘Things in Themselves’ and Noumena. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 41(3): 333–350.

43.

Olmstead

Mitchell

Rosenstiel

(2011) Navigating news online: Where people go, how they get there and what lures them away. Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2011/05/09/navigating-news-online/ (accessed 29 February 2016).

44.

Pavlik

(2013) Innovation and the future of journalism. Digital Journalism 1(2): 181–193.

45.

Pew Research Center (2014) Newspapers: Circulation at the top 5 U.S. newspapers reporting Monday-Friday Averages: Circulation averages for six months ended September 30, 2014. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/average-circulation-at-the-top-5-u-s-newspapers-reporting-monday-friday-averages/ (accessed 12 August 2014).

46.

Powers

(1999) Objectivity. In: Sterling

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Journalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1027–1032.

47.

Quine

WVO

(1964) Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

48.

Randall

(2000) The Universal Journalist. London: Pluto.

49.

Rich

(2002) Writing and Reporting News, 4th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

50.

Riffe

Lacy

Fico

(1998) Analyzing Media Message using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

51.

Rorty

(1991) Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Rupar

(2006) How did you find that out? Transparency of the newsgathering process and the meaning of news: A case study of New Zealand journalism. Journalism Studies 7(1): 127–143.

53.

Ryan

(2001) Journalistic ethics, objectivity, existential journalism, standpoint epistemology, and public journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16(1): 3–22.

54.

Schudson

(2001) The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism 2(2): 149–170.

55.

Sigal

(1973) Reporters and Officials. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.

56.

Sonoda

(1997) Subject-verb inversion before a quotation in the media discourse. Current English Studies 36: 13–25.

57.

Sundar

(1998) Effect of source attribution on perception of online news stories. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 75: 55–68.

58.

Tankard

Ryan

(1974) News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly 51: 219–225.

59.

Teasdale

(1993) Emotion and two kinds of meaning: Cognitive therapy and applied cognitive science. Behavior Research and Therapy 31(4): 339–354.

60.

Tuchman

(1972) Objectivity as a strategic ritual. American Journal of Sociology 77: 660–680.

61.

Weinberg

(2010) NYT vs. WJS: Liberal bias vs. conservative bias? Forbes, 23 October. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilweinberg/2010/10/23/nyt-vs-wsj-liberal-bias-vs-conservative-bias/2/ (accessed 13 August 2014).

62.

Weinblatt

(2008) Fighting for the story’s life: Non-closure in journalistic narrative. Journalism 9(1): 31–51.

63.

Yoon

(2005) Examining journalists’ perceptions and new coverage of stem cell and cloning organizations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 82(2): 281–300.