News Media Image: A Typology of Audience Perspectives

Emphasis on normative norms

Journalism researchers have examined ways that news is perceived by audiences largely in terms of two factors: credibility and accuracy. This implies that studies of media perceptions have relied mostly on two frames of reference: (a) the information and (b) the providers of information (i.e., the sources or media used). For example, perceived credibility generally focuses on audience perspectives about “the believability of information” (Flanagin et al., 2020, p. 1039). This approach is concerned with the information itself, for example, informational quality, accuracy, or currency (Kohring & Matthes, 2007; Schweiger, 2000; West, 1994), and is also often associated with the level of information sources’ expertness and trustworthiness, that is, the public’s perception of how well informed and how impartial the sources are. Because scholars tend to consider each piece of information, as well as source credibility, separately (or as similar concepts), little research examines all of these together (Kiousis, 2001; Schweiger, 2000).

In addition, the credibility measures currently used include believability, accuracy, trustworthiness, fairness, bias, and completeness of the information (Abdulla et al., 2002; Flanigan & Metzger, 2000), and these measures are largely situated within the boundary of traditional journalistic standards. For example, a frequently used measure includes the five items suggested by Meyer (1988): fairness, bias, completeness, accuracy, and trustworthiness. These credibility items overlap with the objectivity norm, a journalism standard that emphasizes balance, fairness, accuracy, nonbias, independence, neutrality, factuality, noninterpretation, and detachment (Peters, 2015). Such emphasis on normative norms, however, might limit our understanding of audience needs, especially in the contemporary, interactive news media landscape that calls for closer attention to audiences and relationships with them.

Studies also reported differences between audience expectations and professional views in terms of topic preferences, news value judgment, normative standards (i.e., what journalists should do or what good journalism would be) and the scope of coverage (Brand & Pearson, 2001; Meijer & Bijleveld, 2016; Van der Wurff & Schoenbach, 2014; Vos et al., 2019). For example, a survey conducted by the American Press Institute as part of the Media Insight Project suggested that audiences are unlikely to differentiate between articles, editorials, and advertising; meanwhile, online platforms tended to make it more difficult to sort “news” from opinions. Only 43% of the respondents in that survey reported that they could easily differentiate news from opinions on news websites or social platforms (Locker, 2018). Meijer and Bijleveld (2016) found that while audiences and news professionals agreed on which features “qualified” local news should possess, audiences have different opinions about what news media should do for them. Sundar’s (1999) study about audiences’ perceptions of news content reported that audiences relied on a range of criteria or variables in their perceptions of news content that went beyond normative standards such as credibility and quality of the content. Additional variables included “liking” (if audiences liked the content) and representativeness (whether the content was congruent with the general news stereotype, for example, whether the content was relevant, timely, important, or [often] intrusive). By identifying the liking variable, Sundar revealed an additional layer worthy of recognition by news media professionals and scholars: the emotional dimensions of audience perceptions.

Go beyond credibility and cognitive measures

To enhance understanding of news audiences’ perceptions, researchers tried to broaden their scope. Thus, some scholars focused more on issues directly related to trust than on credibility, arguing that people’s trust in news media can inform how they perceive and evaluate it (Kohring & Matthes, 2007; Tsfati, 2002). Kohring and Matthes (2007), for example, integrated the concept of selectivity with audience trust, proposing four dimensions: trust in the selectivity of topics, trust in the selectivity of facts, trust in the accuracy of depictions, and trust in journalistic assessment.

Scholars’ efforts to conceptualize trust, as well as credibility, were often concerned with explaining and predicting how audience perceptions influenced their news consumption behaviors, such as people’s levels of news use or exposure. It is telling that today’s traditional or mainstream media face stiff competition, the competitors often being alternative and/or partisan news outlets (Fletcher & Park, 2017; Ladd, 2011; Strömbäck et al., 2020). Thus, it seems relevant to further explore the factors that affect people’s news use. However, the relationships between credibility and news use are not very clear (see Rimmer & Weaver, 1987; Strömbäck et al., 2020; Wanta & Hu, 1994). For example, Fletcher and Park (2017) suggested that the perception of a low level of credibility in mainstream news outlets was one of the reasons people turn to alternative media, but this does not necessarily mean that a high level of credibility is a predictor of news use or consumption. Metzger et al. (2020) proposed that cognitive dissonance would be a precedent of perceived credibility; this could in turn lead people to seek partisan news producers. Still, these studies focused on a specific medium or type of news content, rather than on the news media in general. It is worth adding that credibility does not always correlate with a preference for a specific medium or type of content (Kiousis, 2001).

Other scholars seek a more general explanation of people’s news use. In attempting to identify predictors of news consumption, Tsfati and Cappella (2005) proposed that audiences’ need for cognition (i.e., their need to “think, to understand, and to make sense of the world, and to learn about various points of view”) is a motivator for news use regardless of whether people believe news media are credible (p. 252). Lee and Chyi (2014) suggested that audiences’ general view of the value of news (e.g., how important the news is in serving the public interest and mobilizing public opinion) is also a motivator.

Aggregating the criteria used in the aforementioned studies leads to the implication that current concepts and measures of audience perception might not guarantee attracting the public’s attention to the news or to maintaining readership. Moreover, a demonstrable lack of consistency characterizes how these concepts have been applied in terms of measuring them (Fisher, 2016). Thus, it might indeed be worthwhile to seek a more comprehensive understanding of what news audiences actually think about, how they evaluate, and how they behave in relation to news media. Examining aspects of people’s perceptions of news media opens a valuable new realm of audience research that identifies layers of audience perceptions, including emotions, and provides more insight into people’s attitudes. This study recognizes that the complexities of the changing media environment, including audience expectations, explain the need for more complex research dimensions.

Descriptives

I recruited local community members via SONA to obtain thoughts and ideas from various audience groups in addition to students. SONA is online research recruiting and scheduling software used by university departments across the country. Participants received a US$20 cash stipend. The average age of participants was 43.3 years old (the U.S. national median age is 37.9), and the majority (70%) identified themselves as women; 68% were White or Caucasian, 10% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 7% Black or African American, and 2% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Their education level was higher than the average educational attainment of the U.S. population: 56% of participants had at least a bachelor’s degree, while 32.5% of the U.S. population had achieved this (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). These proportions reflect a university-based participant pool. Basic demographic information and responses to questions about news consumption behavior were also collected.

The majority (88%) of respondents answered that they were interested in the news (ranging from extremely interested to somewhat interested). The majority of respondents (73%) answered that they accessed news “several times a day,” mostly via smartphone (31%) or computer (27%), followed by television (18%), radio (10%), and tablet (10%). Only one (78 years old) participant answered that he mostly accessed news from print newspapers. In addition, participants valued a range of news types, from international to neighborhood news, but international news was of shared importance to most participants (34 of 44 indicated it was the most important type of news for them). When ranking news topics important to participants, 32% chose “government and politics” first, followed by “traffic and weather” (12%), and “your local town and city” (9%).

Study respondents seemed to be more interested in news and accessed news more frequently than the average U.S. audience. As the aim of this focus group was to build the baseline for developing a scale that represents audiences’ perceptions of news media, respondents who had greater levels of interest in the news were recruited. The recruiting advertisement was targeted at those who wanted to share their opinions about news media. Representativity and generalizability of the study results will be addressed in Study 2 and Study 3.

Protocol

Nine focus groups were organized. Each of the nine groups met only once and had three to seven participants. Eight focus groups were politically homogeneous: two groups for Republicans (four and seven participants, respectively), three groups for Democrats (three, four, and six respondents, respectively), and three groups for Independents (four, four, and six respondents, respectively). I left several days between group meetings to analyze the transcripts and then decided whether to add more sessions until the data satisfied a theoretical saturation. Homogeneous sessions were expected to create a comfortable environment and increase the likelihood that participants would share their opinions freely and openly (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996). In addition, because political affiliation can influence perceptions of news media image, I sought to create a safe and agreeable atmosphere in which respondents freely presented their thoughts. Once I administered the first eight sessions, I recognized that most participants had an advanced level of education (i.e., higher than a bachelor’s degree, reflecting the fact that the community pool was based in the researcher’s geographic area, near a university). Thus, to more closely reflect the general U.S. population, I additionally recruited participants for a ninth session, which consisted of people who had less advanced education (n = 6) regardless of their political affiliations.

The researcher moderated the group discussions. Each focus group session lasted approximately 1 hr 15 min. Data from each session was audio-recorded and transcribed after consent from participants was obtained. Participants were asked to discuss their impressions, beliefs, and/or feelings regarding news media organizations. During the session, the broad questions of what participants think of news media (e.g., “What comes to your mind when you think of news media?” “What is your definition or opinion of journalists?” “What do you think is the purpose of a news organization?”) were asked first. Then, participants were encouraged to elaborate in open discussion. The moderator ensured that each person had an equal opportunity to present their opinions and thoughts, encouraged reticent respondents to engage with the conversation, and created a safe and respectful discussion environment. While respondents in the heterogeneous session (i.e., the last session) unexpectedly appeared to be the most amenable to sharing their thoughts, they were also less likely to engage in deeper levels of discussion.

To explore the nine dimensions of news image, the moderator relied on a semi-structured format that included 32 questions on the following: news quality (e.g., “What expectations do you have when you read the news?”), news usefulness (e.g., “How useful are news stories in your daily lives?”), autonomy (e.g., “To what extent do you believe the news media is influenced by their sponsors or their owners?”), innovativeness (e.g., “What technologies do journalists use to provide news to you?”), social responsibility (e.g., “What are the responsibilities that the news media should have toward society, if any?”), financial condition (e.g., “Have you heard about some news organizations recently implementing large cuts in their journalistic staff? Did this information have an impact your image of that company?”), aesthetics (e.g., “When you read or watch news, how important is the look and appearance [such as graphics and other visuals] of media content?”), interaction with audiences (e.g., “How important is it for news media to interact with the public?”), and personality (“What adjectives would you use to describe the news media in general?”).

One of the primary goals of this part of the research was to observe what themes, in addition to the previously identified dimensions, might emerge from the open discussions. Therefore, as the conversations naturally migrated toward both previously identified themes and novel themes, the moderator injected specific probes and adjusted questions to further explore those responses.

Coding

A thematic analysis of each focus group discussion transcript was conducted; they were coded for a minimum of four cycles. Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim using a commercial transcription service and were coded by the software of QDA Miner. The emerging concepts from the coding were grouped and examined as to whether they fit the a priori dimensions of this study. Additional patterns undetected by the author were identified using QDA Miner software for similarity retrieval and text retrieval. In addition, related clusters of terms were identified and grouped into broader categories using the coding co-occurrence tool in QDA Miner. A second researcher with expertise in journalism research was enlisted to review the themes to evaluate the reliability of the author’s thematic interpretations. The initially identified themes were reexamined to ensure that they represented the theoretical definition of the news media image construct. I analyzed the focus group transcripts to determine whether respondents actually supported the previously identified themes and concepts. Thus, the dimensions detailed in the next section were coded as “present.” In other words, if a respondent disagreed and presented their own, different perspectives, their opinions were coded to correlate with the different themes. If a respondent disagreed and did not present any opinions, I treated it as indicating that the respondent did not use the given criterion to evaluate news media.

Brief summary

“Image” is defined as a collection of impressions (ideas and opinions), beliefs, and feelings existing in the minds of the public. As Abratt (1989) suggested, individuals often select specific attributes to describe an entity, and those attributes combined represent an overall image. I thus began this study by theorizing that various images of news media held by audiences could be broken down into an identifiable number of dimensions and attributes that, grouped together, would encompass people’s shared perceptions, or image, of the news media as a whole.

The literature mapping gave rise to nine possible dimensions based on theoretical definitions of news media image: news quality, news usefulness, autonomy, innovativeness, social responsibility, financial condition, aesthetics, relationship with news audiences, and personality. The focus group participants, however, only fully supported four of those nine dimensions, as discussed/elaborated in later sections of this monograph. The four dimensions supported by focus groups were news quality (credibility), news usefulness, social responsibility, and personality. Two dimensions were supported with some modification: the dimensions of aesthetics and relationship with audiences were replaced by usability and transparency, respectively.

Focus groups also suggested two additional dimensions: perspective-taking (e.g., journalists’ and/or their news organizations’ ability to show empathy to interviewees) and news selection bias (e.g., reporting practices that select specific stories based on the interests of a given news organization). The innovativeness, autonomy, and financial condition dimensions were not supported by the focus group respondents. Based on the present analysis, innovativeness fell under other proposed dimensions, including news quality and usability. The financial condition and autonomy dimensions were combined with news selection bias because respondents indicated that poor financial condition and a loss of independence would render news media organizations biased in terms of the stories they select. Thus, the eight dimensions supported by the focus group discussions were news quality, news usefulness, social responsibility, personality, usability, transparency, perspective-taking, and news selection bias. Detailed descriptions and analyses of each dimension are discussed in the next section.

News quality (credibility)

Thirty-two of 44 respondents said that legitimate news organizations should provide unbiased, factual, in-depth stories rather than a combination of opinion and fact. Twenty-two respondents identified attributes of high-quality content as being unbiased, accurate, factual, and fair (e.g., “I expect it to be accurate and thoroughly investigated” [Respondent 30], adding that “. . .there’s total fairness or objectivity on the part of the large majority of the reporters” [Respondent 24]). That is, they echoed traditional criteria used to measure news media credibility (Kohring & Matthes, 2007; Meyer, 1988). Perceived credibility, therefore, is a central feature of news quality. Elaborating on this theme, Respondent 2 explained their perceptions of accuracy and lack of bias in reference to news about crime:

There were 12 people. One of them got shot. The other people got arrested. That’s a new thing. They want to give you the information of the story so that you can almost be there, but it should be very unbiased, to me, and very factual.

Nineteen of the 44 respondents added that quality news involves depth or thoroughness, which means providing all the necessary facts, based on information from multiple sources, and representing a variety of perspectives. Thoroughness, a more recently valued quality of news media as might be expected given the widespread use of online technologies such as social media platforms, is another factor used by audiences to evaluate website credibility (Metzger et al., 2003). This is likely due to news media organizations’ reliance on social media posts as sources. Respondents stated, for example, that news often lacks the depth of reporting, that they “parrot those social media posts” (Respondent 35), and “[news media] used to be good. . . [at] showing both [sides of opinions]” (Respondent 33). The following quotes express the respondents’ concept of a factual, in-depth news story:

I think when I turn on the news, what I expect is well researched, informational. I don’t think I necessarily look for the news to provide both sides because I feel like that’s on me to figure out what the other side is, or how the other side is feeling. I think it’s to present facts. . . (Respondent 38)

They’re [quality news stories] the ones doing the investigating and the reporting and the researching. . . And to me, if I don’t have a lot of unanswered questions, then I think it’s good reporting. I read a lot of articles where I have unanswered questions . . . There should be questions answered about the topics, not just a very brief address of whatever the story is. (Respondent 18)

Respondent 22 said that, unlike international news outlets abroad, U.S. news organizations do not sufficiently report details and news coverage about various aspects of human life because they focus heavily on U.S. context and content (e.g., only following the tweets of political figures such as President Donald Trump):

I wonder if that’s unique to the United States because I have some friends that turned me on to the CBC—the Canadian news, the National. And it’s so much different. It’s so much more detailed—it also has a much more global focus. And it’s really very interesting how the Canadian news works as opposed to American or United States international news.

In summary, most respondents emphasized traditional media credibility measures—in particular, accuracy and being unbiased, as well as the internet credibility measure—referring to news that is thoroughly researched from multiple perspectives. They expected to get unbiased, accurate, and thoroughly researched information but also agreed this would be difficult. Their critique of news media—that it is inherently biased or swayed by political or financial interests—is further explained in a section below that discusses the news selection bias dimension. In addition, it is worth noting that during the discussion about news media credibility and quality, several respondents (at least six, including Respondent 38 above) said that the responsibility for differentiating between fact and opinion should lie with the audience. Respondent 19 presented a similar opinion:

We have so many different points of view. So, I realize that the onus is on me to a large extent to investigate things that I really want to know about. And not just rely on this one source . . . I have to find lots of sources.

The perspective respondents provided may require further examination as a unique feature of news consumption in the age of digital, as well as so-called fake news, journalism.

News usefulness

Respondents made judgments about news organizations based on how useful news stories were to them personally, and they also recognized that news media organizations’ stories could serve their needs. A clear majority of respondents (33 of 44) specifically considered news stories to be useful when the information presented was helpful insofar as interpreting/understanding events or social issues, helping them to make personal decisions (such as regarding financial or health issues) and when stories satisfy their interests. The following quotes further illustrate respondents’ ideas about what constitutes a useful news story:

[Y]ou might not be an expert, but you want to know more. We need to make information accessible to people, especially when it comes to technical or scientific information. I think that’s really important so that people can know what’s going on even if they don’t understand the exact reasons or science behind it really. (Respondent 6)

I like to know what’s going on locally and I like to know what’s going on at a state level, national, internationally. At least the basics of it. And part of it, then I can discuss with other people. So, it’s more like it may affect me in one way or the other, financially or personally, but it might just be something to talk about, too. (Respondent 44)

It’s interesting to see how the world works, and then to discuss that that with other people and think about it. Some of the stories are really interesting, especially the ones like if you were talking about investigative journalism type stuff. . . (Respondent 25)

Respondents emphasized that news is useful when it provides information relevant to their lives, as illustrated by the discussion below where individuals referred to various subjects commonly covered by the news media:

“If it’s related to stuff like that affects your own life, for example, in my case, news about like I said, immigration and stuff like that” (Respondent 15). “Yes, any news about gas prices I think is going to affect pretty much everybody. . . I mean that’s like a direct action that can happen because of a news story” (Respondent 13). “. . . if they notice a hurricane coming or a big storm, they run out to the stores. . .” (Respondent 14). “Yeah, traffic, any accidents . . .” (Respondent 13)

Respondent 42 also said,

[News is] . . . typically useful because it could be any number of things, like there’s a problem with the product . . . and politics also changes who you might vote for, or who you might want in [power].

In general, it is expected that news stories focus both on perceived importance and on actual aspects of socially relevant issues (Corrigan, 1990). With the advent of the digital era and over the past two decades, audiences have come to appreciate the value of relevance even more (Harcup & O’Neill, 2017). Studies have shown that audiences use information that has an impact on their daily lives, relates to personal goals and decision-making, initiates a conversation with someone, and makes them feel connected to the larger community (Heikkilä et al., 2014; Reynolds & McCombs, 2002). Based on their overall assessment of usefulness, respondents regarded news media organizations as being helpful for providing information. Being useful means being relevant to them personally, about important social issues, and/or about subjects of interest they may not have pursued independently.

Social responsibility

Social responsibility refers to the idea that news media organizations are members of society and should serve this role by seeking to improve it (Siebert et al., 1956; Wood, 1991). Demonstration of this commitment increases their chances of being considered a respectable member of the community by the public. Image literature shows that consumers favorably evaluate a corporation that at least seems to perform well in this regard (Furman, 2010). Social responsibility theory, according to journalism studies, suggests several tenets and ethical guidance, such as providing information about and facilitating political debates and discussions, acting as watchdog, and being of service to society (Siebert et al., 1956). Norris (2014) explained the news media’s role as being a watchdog representative on behalf of the public, investigating the actions of the power elite, and disseminating information about public affairs that would not otherwise be revealed to the public. Singer (2006) considered journalists as “socially responsible existentialists” that act as “a trustworthy source of information that serves the public interest” (p. 2).

Twenty-one of 44 respondents indicated that news media organizations should contribute to building a more efficient democracy and to educating the public in a way that fosters people to act as citizens. Respondents shared a sense that news media has an obligation to contribute to democracy by acting as a watchdog and also agreed that news media should actively gather and disseminate information as well as investigate important topics that the public would or could not do on their own. Hence, news media organizations ought to keep people (such as elected representatives, policymakers) “accountable”:

I do agree with that because I do think the whole point of journalism is to kind of keep you involved politically because, if there are no journalists, then there’s no way to get this information because we have other things to do. We also have jobs. This is your job to keep informed, so we know what’s being fair and just, and we have an opinion on it and could influence it, if we need to. (Respondent 3)

I think it’s a way of keeping, especially higher ups accountable for what they do. Because if you imagine a world with no media, then the president could do anything he wanted, and we would have no idea . . . You would just have to believe it. (Respondent 39)

Also, respondents (all of whom were Michigan residents) believed that journalists from news organizations should investigate important community issues, such as the Flint, MI, water crisis in 2016, somehow “update people on the issues” (Respondent 17), and “change history and the direction of people’s health” (Respondent 20).

These respondents’ perspectives regarding social responsibility in news media organizations illustrate a traditional approach to news media, one that positions it as providing a public service (Deuze, 2005). Norris summarizes the ideal role: “[to] serve as effective mechanisms of accountability, triggering public outrage and effective actions by policy-makers, thereby fulfilling lofty democratic principles” (Norris, 2014, p. 114).

Some 23 respondents expressed opinions that were not relevant to the social responsibility dimension. While they acknowledged social responsibility in news media, they expressed their view more in the context of news organizations’ role as credible information providers (i.e., which applied more to the credibility or usefulness dimension).

Personality: Unpleasant and egotistic

Associating an entity’s image with people’s personalized descriptions and perceptions allows researchers to gain richer meaning and insightful interpretations (d’Astous & Boujbel, 2007). In this context, personality is a dimension whose main goal is to reveal the affective aspects of news media image (Abratt, 1989; Furman, 2010; Kennedy, 1977). When depicting the features of a news media organization, 14 of 44 respondents described news media organizations in mostly unpleasant anthropomorphic terms such as “grabby,” “noisy,” or “loud.” In other words, they used descriptions characteristic of a meddlesome or intrusive personality. Nevertheless, a few positive adjectives related to the personality dimension were identified, including being “entertaining” and “informative.”

Respondents who did not use the aforementioned terms instead used adjectives more closely related to news quality and credibility, including objective, credible, and accurate. These adjectives were therefore included in the credibility rather than the personality dimension. As the purpose of the personality dimension is to examine respondents’ emotional reactions to news media in general, I decided to exclude here adjectives that could instead be assigned to the credibility or quality measures. Because the cognitive-related adjectives used by respondents were mostly positive, excluding them resulted in largely negative traits being reported in terms of the personality dimension. It is also notable that when respondents used an adjective related to credibility and news quality, it was often in a negative context. For example, Respondent 36 said, “I thought [of] it [objective] in more generalized terms. . .[however] the news media isn’t, at current, objective.”

While some might argue that a degree of intrusiveness in news reporting is inevitable, the extent of intrusiveness perceived by audiences might be more than journalists believe it to be (Brand & Pearson, 2001). Some respondents described news organizations as being “narcissistic” or “egocentric.” They accused news media organizations, for example, of trying to win a “beauty pageant” (Respondent 18). In the following conversation, respondents explained why news organizations are egocentric, and, in so doing, they compared news media to the comedian Rodney Dangerfield:

“He would tend to wear loud colors a lot of times. He could be a little on the obnoxious side and he would always complain about not getting any respect” (Respondent 17). “So, the news is its own source of disrespect” (Respondent 18). “That’s right. And [news media] can be, at times, loud and obnoxious.” (Respondent 20)

It is worth noting that respondents in this study described news media organizations in mostly negative human-like terms; hence, news media organizations’ personalities could be summarized as being unpleasant. By contrast, in other studies, more amiable rather than negative image descriptions were used in association with the personalities of corporations or countries (Aaker, 1997; d’Astous & Boujbel, 2007; Spector, 1961). This negative personality dimension might reflect the fact that news media organizations are losing favor as well as public trust. Alternatively, negative perceptions of news media’s characteristics in the personality dimension may be because the public imposes tougher standards on news media organizations than on countries or corporations. News organizations, as the fourth estate, are expected to serve the public interest and have been tested as to whether they are doing their job well. Long-standing claims that news media organizations have been losing public trust might be related to this tougher standard as well.

Usability

Usability is a dimension that combines aesthetics and innovativeness. ¹ Aesthetic and innovative factors relate to website design and technologies, respectively, and they complement each other. These two factors can directly influence consumers’ experience, of, for example, a website, and can provide a more comfortable and accessible user experience (Yang et al., 2012). Thus, design aesthetics and technological innovativeness can be categorized under the usability dimension in the context of news media.

The term usability was originally used in marketing literature to measure the quality of a website provided by organizations that market themselves online (Wang & Senecal, 2007). Perceived usability is defined as “how well and how easily a user can interact with an information system of a device or a website” (Wang & Senecal, 2007, p. 99). The formulation of favorable impressions on the device or on a website and, further, on the products or services presented on it are important determinants of visitors’ online purchases and intentions to revisit. Previous news media studies also reported that news audiences demand a certain level of usability, for instance, whether interfaces are well and attractively designed and organized, whether there is easy accessibility within websites and on other news platforms, whether websites contain too many advertisements, and how news articles are presented in terms of readability (Abdullah & Wei, 2008; Swaid & Wigand, 2007; Urban & Schweiger, 2014).

Focus group members studied here likewise cared about usability when they are consuming news. They mentioned that font size, line spacing, and well-organized interfaces were important to keep them engaged, as illustrated in the following comments:

“Style matters. [To improve] usability” (Respondent 40). “Yes, because I won’t consume it if I can’t—if it isn’t easy [to access]. It has to be somewhat easy.” (Respondent 42)

Respondent 1 described her view in more detail:

For me, the main thing is, it should be written well enough that I’ll be able to actually understand it. If I get to the second graph or third graph [sic], and I’m having trouble figuring out what is going on here, then I’m disappointed.

Readability in terms of news media involves overall evaluation of the content and the presentation itself, such as having no typos, being well written, succinct, and/or written in an entertaining way. However, certain elements, such as the ways news is disseminated via social media, or providing competing visual elements, may hamper audiences’ experience, and possibly generate negative perceptions of news organizations (Holton & Chyi, 2012; Yuvaraj, 2017). While respondents in this study agreed that accessible website interfaces and visual elements helped identify news and/or understand its content, they also reported that they often felt bothered, overwhelmed, or uncomfortable with some visual elements. For example, they commented,

“. . . that’s just wasting my time. If the format enhances understanding then I think it’s useful, but I feel like that’s not always the case online” (Respondent 7). “[I] . . . need to take a break from it sometimes because . . . it’s just too heavy” (Respondent 9). “Yeah . . . the video playing is always going to be annoying.” (Respondent 3)

Some recognized technology as a crucial element for news organizations’ sustainability. For example, Respondent 19 said,

I definitely think that news organizations make sure [to provide] an app that’s downloadable to the phone . . . Some of our local newspapers waited until the last minute to switch to online print or offering that option. That’s why . . . a lot of your newspapers [are] having to cut back because people were canceling their regular print subscriptions.

Transparency

In developing scale measurements related to news media image, the concept of transparency was picked up from the study’s focus group results to replace the originally suggested dimension of relationship with news audiences. The transparency dimension is further supported by recent trends in the news media industry, wherein transparency “toward the audiences” has become more valued in the digital era (Meier, 2009). Previous studies identified transparency as a newly emerging norm in the digital era (Metzger et al., 2003; Singer, 2018). Arguably, news media organizations that do their own fact-checking and research to find the “truth” thereby benefit audiences, and may thus generate favorable audience impressions.

Fifteen of 44 respondents judged news media organizations based on transparency, suggesting that they could maintain transparency by providing information on “funding streams,” admitting and “correcting mistakes and errors,” providing “links to original documents” to verify the truth of news stories, and by explaining and sharing the process of reporting on ongoing or dramatically changing issues. Respondents said that transparency was important because it can not only increase the perceived credibility of a news organization, but it also helps people notice the intention or background behind the news story:

I’ve seen a difference unfortunately with the school shootings on the different stations that have repeated on it in the different areas. Some of them very clearly will state at the top this is an ongoing story. And then, at the bottom, they’ll list any corrections that they have had to make as they’ve updated. . . . It’s been helpful to follow the story and follow the narrative of it. So, I always appreciate that when they say right up front, we are updating as we receive more for the people that want to have what they know right now. (Respondent 21)

The good thing is what the public radio does here, is they tell you up front that they’re being paid by Enbridge [a multinational pipeline company]. So . . . you’ll listen more carefully [and] say, “Hmm, are they skewing things here for Enbridge or not?” . . . . I don’t have any expectation of independence [of news organizations] . . . [because even as nonprofit news organizations, they] still rely on financial resources to deliver news as the same as for profit. (Respondent 1)

Respondents’ ideas about transparency in news media include the ability of news organizations to address public complaints, provide an open assessment of sources, and correct errors. News organizations have great potential to communicate about areas of self-interest, such as sponsorships and political endorsements, and about their news gathering and reporting processes (Meier, 2009, p. 3; Rupar, 2006). Such transparency offers an opportunity to be perceived more favorably and as being reliable, which would in turn promote more successful consumer relationships (Ghzaiel & Akrout, 2012; Kang & Hustvedt, 2014). In sum, the transparency dimension represents how respondents perceive news media’s openness and interactivity regarding their political and financial interests, their sources, their news-making processes as well as honesty about errors and mistakes.

The responses of respondents who did not support the transparency dimension instead focused on somewhat different but related topics, such as how news media organizations are subject to external pressures (e.g., owners, advertisers, politicians), and the belief that audiences are responsible to differentiate fact from opinion and investigate “fact” themselves—because journalists and news organizations often provide one-sided or biased information. Such opinions were considered to support other dimensions (i.e., credibility [explained above], and news selection bias, which will be presented later).

Perspective-taking

Perspective-taking is a newly identified theme that arose from discussion with respondents who referenced the value of journalists who “are dedicated” to investigating and communicating the facts, and who “are compassionate” to their interview subjects, such as Hurricane Katrina victims. The term perspective-taking refers to the ability of journalists and news providers to “put oneself in another person’s place” and empathize with others (Long & Andrews, 1990, p. 126). Someone who engages in perspective-taking is able to treat others as human beings deserving of respect (Long & Andrews, 1990). In the news media context, it refers to journalists’ ability to treat sources, interviewees, the subjects/people reported about, and the audience in a respectful manner. This extends to the ability to be sensitive to the feelings of those who might be affected by news reports and coverage. Twenty of 44 respondents confirmed the value of perspective-taking as illustrated in the following comment in which one respondent criticized news coverage of the suicide of Swedish DJ Avicii at age 28:

They reported it inappropriately and studies show that if people see other people are killing themselves and they’re already on the border of wanting to, then they might—that might push them over the edge. So, they reported it very inappropriately and they got chewed out for it somehow. (Respondent 16)

Studies in communication research show that people weigh or evaluate the manner in which the message was delivered, especially when the outcome is deemed to be unpleasant (Patient & Skarlicki, 2010). Similarly, respondents in this study cared about how news organizations treat their interviewees, and whether they avoid unnecessary, sensationalist, or overly negative coverage when the information is unpleasant or unfavorable:

About 10 years [ago], the front-page story in the middle of the winter, a very cold winter, there was a homeless guy that they found dead . . . You could see from his waist, his legs were sticking out of the water and his waist—and he was . . . just frozen, hanging out of this water that he apparently fell into. And I thought to myself, seriously, you put that on the front page. I questioned whose decision that was. (Respondent 14)

Respondents mentioned that news organizations should respect audiences’ decision-making abilities and not “brainwash anyone” (Respondent 10) or “impose [their] opinion on the people” (Respondent 37). Some respondents especially admired the compassion and empathy that journalists exercise and insisted that journalists should “feel the event, rather than just reporting it” (Respondent 28). One respondent was impressed with journalists’ dedication and empathy when doing live reports at the risk of their own lives:

So many dangerous events. And they [journalists] can’t even leave. They told everyone to evacuate, and the poor news journalist has to stay right to the end, telling the other people, “Leave. Leave while you can. We have to stay here.” And I just think they’re very brave. . . [it’s] being a part, feeling a part of it. I think it’s empathy. (Respondent 26)

Interestingly, while respondents portrayed journalists as being empathetic, during group discussions they also described impartiality or objectivity as important qualities of news reporting. To summarize, the perspective-taking dimension embraces ideas such as compassion, empathy, and self-sacrifice, including the ability of news organizations to recognize negative or harmful effects that could or did result from reporting, and thus refrain from producing sensationalist or hideous news coverage.

News selection bias

News selection bias is the second new dimension identified by respondents in their assessment of the fairness of news organizations’ coverage. News selection bias refers to the ways that news organizations’ biases result in selecting certain stories as newsworthy. This includes gatekeeping bias (story selection preferences), coverage bias (the relative amount of coverage), and/or statement bias (favorability toward a specific party and/or their beliefs in a news organization’s reporting and coverage; D’Alessio & Allen, 2000). Journalists select what they report using their own filtering and judgment processes based on “resource constraints, editorial guidelines, ideological affinities, or even the fragmented nature of the information at a journalist’s disposal” (Bourgeois et al., 2018, p. 535). Thirty-seven of 44 respondents stated that news organizations are biased in selecting and providing certain viewpoints or types of information:

Some stories will get rejected, and some stories will get accepted, or altered, so they’re kind of more appealing to the public. . . (Respondent 3)

In my opinion the public news media has lots more resources for news, but the problem is that they may only report some of them and with a biased opinion. (Respondent 8)

In particular, respondents asserted that reporters’ lack of autonomy often results in news selection bias. Being autonomous—referring to the freedom of journalists to work as they please without being influenced by interested parties—is an essential attribute of a free press (Deuze, 2005; Mellado & Humanes, 2012). Respondents said that news media organizations could easily be compromised by their relationships with politicians, sponsors/advertisers, or owners, rendering them less autonomous. For example, Respondent 5 said that when news media outlets are acquired by a corporation, “they lose their independence a lot of times.” Other respondents mentioned that political leanings render news media less autonomous:

I feel like something is behind the news. Like politicians. Something is behind them. Asking them to make news this way. Maybe some other news is some other way. (Respondent 11)

If you’re employed by a certain company that has a specific political point of view in mind, you might as a journalist not write your own thoughts but try . . . [to] conform to the company [so] that you’re perpetuating their view. (Respondent 13)

The most pessimistic respondents opined that news organizations have already lost their autonomy. Respondent 7 said, “American news media is not a free news media anymore.” As such, most respondents expressed the idea that an “independent” press is clearly favorable, but not realistic.

A market-oriented news media environment, which prioritizes indulging audiences’ needs and desires, was also blamed for facilitating news selection bias. Scholars suggest that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, news organizations succumbed to the pressure of making profits or increasing ratings/readership, sometimes sacrificing quality reporting (Underwood, 1993, p. 83). Echoing this idea, Respondent 12 said that news organizations are “willing to sacrifice integrity to get more viewers . . . and that’s how problems begin with news.” Another respondent stated that news organizations prioritize specific news items because they are beholden to financial interests:

If they had a territory where they weren’t selling newspapers . . . they’d make sure they went out and did local stories to try to draw the [attention from the target audiences] . . . there’s an audience out there that they weren’t getting they needed to get . . . so they slanted things towards — and it wasn’t good reporting or bad reporting — but they would report more in that area to try to draw a greater circulation. (Respondent 30)

They’re always trying to sell something, whether it’s a political candidate; or whether it’s the newspapers themselves because if people stop reading the news, they stop getting revenue and they shut down. . .They obviously can’t include all the information. . . (Respondent 16)

Respondents lamented that news organizations are forced to follow public sentiments and therefore “leave out” (Respondent 13) stories. One respondent said that this makes everything “black or white” (Respondent 4). Another respondent said that news organizations reinforce their (i.e., audiences’) own beliefs, and then the audiences “just keep in a feedback loop of information” (Respondent 8) that creates a polarized environment. Taken together, these factors threaten the ability of news organizations to carry out their role as public service providers. Respondents regarded autonomous news organizations, because they are free from the influence of power and finances, more favorably and more deserving of “the honor” of providing real journalism (Respondent 2).

The seven respondents who did not mention the bias of news media focused instead on polarization in U.S. politics. Respondent 12 summarized their views: “From both the left and the right. They both think the other side is fake news. . . so that just reinforces your beliefs.”

Item creation

I generated the first draft of a survey questionnaire (i.e., items under each dimension to measure news media image) based on literature review, focus group discussions, and interviews (with two undergraduates and one graduate student) to measure each of the eight dimensions proposed in Study 1. The item pool contained 90 items across the identified eight dimensions. The initial focus group results showed that participants did not clearly define news media; this could compromise a valid and reliable scale development. I therefore recruited three participants (convenience sample) to additionally examine whether proposed news media image dimensions and items were relevant to news audiences’ perspectives and were appropriately understood. These interviews also helped identify additional items to be added to the initial item pools (those that had been created from the literature review and focus group findings). During the interviews, which each lasted about 1 hr, I used 16 questions (constructed from the literature review) about news audiences’ definitions of news, news media (organizations), and journalists. I intentionally recruited student participants who did not major in journalism or have a journalism background. Students were identified through the student participant recruiting system (SONA system), and participants received course credits (SONA credits) for their participation. The same coding procedures as used in Study 1 were used in these interviews.

Item and dimension refinement

Once all the items were created, I conducted a pretest (cognitive interview) and solicited expert feedback to refine items, which ultimately enabled me to determine whether the dimensions and items matched the theoretical conceptualization (Carpenter, 2018; Morrison, 2009). This process also allowed me to appropriately label each dimension.

Cognitive interviews

The pretest was conducted in the form of an informal cognitive interview with three nonacademics (a nonstudent sample), all older than the age of 18, who lived in the Midwest region of the United States in August 2019. Local residents were recruited via the community participant recruiting system (SONA system) and received a US$10 cash reward. This pretest aimed to ensure that participants clearly understood the survey items and that the items were aligned with their perceptions of news media (Presser et al., 2004). Cognitive interviews involve the clarification of survey wording, the presentation of specific questions, messages, and concepts, and the invitation to participants to explain/describe their thoughts, feelings, and ideas (Drennan, 2003; for further information about cognitive interviews, see Carbone et al., 2002). Cognitive interviews also help researchers test survey questionnaires, ensuring that both researchers and respondents have a common understanding (Dillman et al., 2014; Presser et al., 2004). As a result of the interviews, the number of items in the study was reduced from 90 to 86.

Pilot test

A pilot test was also conducted, with 78 university students at a midwestern university: Methodologists recommend a sample size of between 50 and 100 participants for a pilot test (Carpenter, 2018; Fowler, 1995; Ruel et al., 2016). Respondents were recruited between April and June of 2019 through the student recruiting system mentioned earlier. This test aimed to ensure that the survey questionnaire could be understood correctly and that it included the most relevant aspects for measuring audience perceptions of news media image. Its purpose was to determine how well data aligned with each factor and to detect whether respondents mistakenly skipped or misunderstood survey questions. Afterward, items were reworded for clarity and additional items were also supplied.

Expert feedback

Next, the items and dimensions were further refined, via expert feedback from three reviewers, to ensure the validity of each dimension and item (i.e., how well each item reflected the overarching construct). Between October and November 2019, three experts were tasked with assessing each item’s validity on a Likert-type type scale as well as via open-ended feedback. Drawing on scale development methodological recommendations, I carefully selected and requested feedback from one methodologist, one researcher with expertise in participants (i.e., an expert specializing in study sample populations and related matters), and one subject matter researcher (i.e., an expert specializing in journalism and news media). The goal of this step was to get qualified items—in other words, to ensure that each item and dimension reflected the overarching construct and that items fell under the appropriate dimensions (Carpenter, 2018). I asked the experts to provide open-ended feedback on each dimension and item and to assess item validity on a Likert-type scale (DeVellis, 2016; Ruel et al., 2016).

Based on this feedback, items belonging to the social responsibility dimension were largely reworded so as to be understood by the general public. Minor revisions were also made to most items. According to the experts, some items were not clearly reflected in the theoretical definitions of each dimension. Therefore, I deleted or modified such items (one from usability and one from credibility). Furthermore, the label of the perspective-taking dimension was changed to empathy. One item from the empathy dimension was accordingly moved to the news selection bias dimension, and 1 item was deleted. The final version of the online survey questionnaire consisted of 82 items across eight dimensions.

Procedure

EFA was selected for the purpose of Study 2 because it is a fruitful and realistic method for multidimensional item-level data when researchers do not know the underlying factors of the given construct (DeVellis, 2016; Morrison, 2009). I decided on the EFA sample size of more than 400 based on recommendations from prior studies about the sample size for factor analysis. In factor analysis, the number of subjects should be large enough to yield reliable estimates of correlations among the variables (Pett et al., 2003). Gorsuch (1983) recommends a sample of five subjects per variable/item, with a minimum of 100 subjects (see also Osborne, 2014). Simulation studies (e.g., Boomsma, 1982) also recommend no less than a sample size per item ratio of 5:1, with a minimum of 200 subjects. The number of items in Study 2 was 82, and thus the sample size of 400 satisfied the 5:1 ratio for sample size per item.

Before beginning the analysis, I confirmed that the correlation matrix was not random using Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1950) and by confirming that the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic was above a minimum standard of .6. After confirming that the correlation matrix appeared to be appropriate for factor analysis, the matrix was submitted for EFA. Following scholars’ suggestions (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Morrison, 2009; Widaman, 1993), common factor analysis, rather than principal components analysis (PCA), was selected. A principal axis extraction method was used, as principal axis factoring analyzes shared variance among items, generating better correlation estimates. This method does not require meeting normality assumptions, and it is better able to detect weak factors (Briggs & MacCallum, 2003). Squared multiple correlation, which can indicate the initial strength of the relationships, was employed to estimate the initial communalities (Gorsuch, 1983; Pett et al., 2003).

Drawing on the recommended factor number determination methods, I used Cattell’s (1966) visual scree plot (a visual representation that shows how factors are allocated), parallel analysis (Horn, 1965), and minimum average partials (Velicer, 1976) to determine how many factors I should retain. Theoretical convergence and parsimony of the scale were also considered, to determine optimal factor numbers and the items that would be retained. Considering the factors can be correlated, a Promax rotation (k value = 4) was used (Fabrigar et al., 1999). For determining factors, this study considered pattern coefficients ≥ .40 as appropriate (Pett, 2007). Singletons and cross-loading (i.e., factors are salient on several factors and the differences between coefficients are less than .20) were rejected for maintaining parsimony and in the interest of simple structures (Carpenter, 2018; Pett et al., 2003).

Descriptives

The sample was intended to reflect the general U.S. population, particularly in terms of race, age, gender, political affiliation, and education. It consisted of White (63%), Black (43%), Hispanic or Latino (15%), and Asian (4%) respondents (all percentages are based on self-reports). The median age was 44 years old and 48% were male. The percentages of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were 30%, 29%, and 41%, respectively. About half (49%) of the respondents answered that they accessed news more than “several times a day,” and 26% answered they did so “once a day.” The respondents reported that they most often access news via online websites (e.g., Google news) (26%) or social media (e.g., Twitter) (15%). The American Press Institute reported that 59% of adults in the United States said that they got news several times a day, and 6% said that they did so several times an hour (The Media Insight Project, 2018). No direct comparison is possible because the scales used in each study differ. Nevertheless, respondents in this study appeared to be slightly less interested in news than the average U.S. adult.

Summary

The resulting multidimensional construct operationalizes news media image as a second-order factor with seven dimensions. The seven factor accounts for 70.2% of the total variance explained: (a) usefulness (41.2% of variance explained), (b) empathy (9.5%), (c) credibility (5.2%), (d) personality (4.3%), (e) usability (4.0%), (f) news selection bias (3.2%), and (g) social responsibility (2.8%). The transparency dimension was not supported among the dimensions suggested by qualitative research. The results of Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated that the correlation matrix was not random, χ² = 8,605, p < .001, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic was .95 (i.e., above the minimum standard [.6] for factor analysis). In analyzing the quantitative data, parallel analysis recommended four factors. The scree plot, however, suggested nine factors (qualitative data suggested eight and nine factors). Based on these factor solutions, this study retained a seven-factor solution. The eight- and nine-factor solution did not clearly load. In four-factor models, (a) empathy and transparency and (b) credibility, usefulness, and social responsibility were, respectively, intermingled. Most factors were moderately correlated with one another, with the exception of the correlation between Factor III (news selection bias) and Factor VI (usability r = .118). This makes sense because news organizations’ practices of selecting specific events and stories would not have much association with the accessibility and readability of news content. Factor I (usefulness) and Factor V (credibility)—the dimensions that are mostly concerned with news content—showed the highest correlation (r = .686). The loadings between factors are provided in the appendix. Reliability statistics (Cronbach’s α) were between .75 and .93.

Implications of the seven dimensions

The identified factors show that respondents in this study value news media’s understanding of local communities and their interests, their display of empathy toward their interview subjects (e.g., recognizing possible negative effects on people as a result of reporting), and their ability to provide accessible news content. The results also indicate two aspects of news media that are perceived negatively—selecting news stories according to bias, and intrusive reporting practices—suggesting two possible reasons for the public’s negative sentiments toward news media. The traditional journalistic value of credibility and the role of news media as a community watchdog were also identified as part of the news media image construct.

Factor I (usefulness) deserves attention, given that it is not very related to the normative values which are mainly related to news professionals’ perspectives, but it is about the utility of news, as evaluated by the respondents in this study. This factor is mostly associated with community connection as well as providing relevant information to respondents: Respondents appreciated news media that provides the information they can use in their daily lives, for example, information that they can use to improve their understanding of community issues. The fact that this factor accounts for 41.2% of the total variance implies that news audiences put primary emphasis on satisfying their own needs in reading news and that they appreciate when news media keenly responds to community and audience needs.

Factor II was associated with empathy, which refers to news media’s ability to recognize possible negative effects on audiences and interviewees, and to empathize. It is noteworthy that respondents gave priority to this quality—which extant literature has paid little attention to—accounting for 9.5% of total variance explained. As such, respondents in this study acknowledged the ability of news media and journalists to be compassionate toward and respect interviewees. This aspect of news media could be valuable in the digital era, in which news media and journalists have become more interactive with their audiences (Metzger et al., 2003).

Two factors related to negative attributes of news media: the dimensions of news selection bias (Factor III)—respondents’ perceptions regarding how news media selects events and stories that are reported, and how they are covered—and personality (Factor IV)—the intrusive and unpleasant aspects of news media. These factors account for 5.2% and 4.3% of the variance, respectively. In other surveys, respondents criticized news media and journalists’: lack of sensitivity while reporting about people’s misery during disasters or accidents, being overly focused on negative and sensationalist reporting, and being influenced by financial, political, and external interests and pressures (Brand & Pearson, 2001). Such a problematic quality may be inherent in news media, which all too often depends on fear-based and sensationalist reporting, as demonstrated by the old newsroom maxim, “it bleeds, it reads.” Based on the results of this study, I might argue that news media reporting style may play a crucial part in generating an unfavorable image.

Factor V included traditional credibility measures such as trustworthiness, fairness, and accuracy (Meyer, 1988). In addition to the traditional credibility measures, respondents’ perception of news reporting practices related to “conducting thorough research” was also added to Factor V. These items suggest that news media may generate more positive perceptions by providing in-depth research or investigative journalism, in addition to pursuing the value of credibility.

Along with Factor II (empathy), the respondents’ perception of the usability of news media content (Factor VI) deserves more attention in the digital age. This factor includes items such as “news stories are presented in clear and accessible language” and suggests that news audiences may consider how easily accessible and readable news content is in addition to other news media qualities. Considering that various types of platforms are increasingly used in news reporting/dissemination, improving its usability may generate a favorable image of news media.

Finally, social responsibility, as suggested by Factor VII, referred to the journalistic practice of “acting as a community watch-dog.” The respondents in this study acknowledged news media’s practices that hold politicians accountable and push public officials to appropriate actions. Along with Factor V (credibility), this audience perception relates to the more traditional views of perceiving news media, indicating that respondents also recognized traditional values, although not as much as the usefulness, empathy, and usability dimensions.

Measures

Satisfaction and loyalty were operationalized as follows:

Procedure

An online survey via Qualtrics was conducted with a sample of 418 adults, which closely reflects the U.S. population, between October 5 and 11, 2020. The final questionnaire version of the news media image scale included 32 items. An additional 11 items were included for the variables added into the model (six for satisfaction and five for loyalty). The sample size of 418 was determined by following the same logic that was employed in EFA (Study 2): The number of items was 43 for CFA, and thus it sufficiently exceeded the 5:1 ratio expectation. Descriptive statistics were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics to identify missing data, outliers, and also to check the assumption of normality prior to running CFA. The overall model of fit for each CFA performed was judged using root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA, <.08), comparative fit index (CFI ≥ .9), and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI ≥ .9). The categories used for fit indices include the following: RMSEA refers to an index for fit adjusting for model parsimony, and CFI refers to an index for comparative or incremental fit.

Descriptives

The sample group consisted of White (62%), Black (43%), Hispanic or Latino (18%), and Asian (5%) respondents. The median age was 46 years old, and 49% were men. The percentages of Republican, Democrat, and Independent were 29%, 29%, and 38%, respectively. Thirty-six percent of them had a high school diploma or general educational development (GED); 22% had a 4-year college degree; 20% went to some college but did not receive any degree; 9% had a postgraduate or professional degree, and 4% had a degree less than a high school diploma. About half (52%) of the respondents answered that they accessed news more than “several times a day,” and 23% answered they did so “once a day.” The respondents reported that they access news mostly via online websites (e.g., Google news; 25%) or social media (e.g., Twitter; 15%). Approximately 29% of them reported that they subscribed to a regular issue. Previous reports showed that U.S. adults were quite interested in the news (almost 60% accessed news more than several times a day) as well as actually paid for news (see Mitchell et al., 2020; American Press Institute, 2017). According to the American Press Institute (2017), 53% of U.S. adults pay for news by subscribing “in some form,” including newspapers and magazines, and news apps, or by donating to public media organizations. The sample in this study, by and large, has a somewhat lesser level of interest in the news.

Results by dimension

It is worth noting that usefulness, which is not considered a normative value in news media, had the greatest influence on improving audiences’ satisfaction. It seems, then, that audiences’ experience with news is closely built on their assessments of news organizations’ performance in terms of usefulness of the news content. The usefulness dimension had the strongest relationship for the news media image with the outcome variables—satisfaction (β = .395, p < .001). Credibility (β = .271, p < .001) had the next greatest impact on satisfaction, followed by social responsibility (β = .179, p = .001), usability (β = .158, p = .003), and empathy (β = .109, p = .037). The news selection bias dimension and personality did not have relationships with satisfaction (β = −.008, p = .865 and β = .013, p = .805).

A means to connect audience perceptions to news use

Adopting a news media image perspective could offer journalism scholars and news professionals a meaningful framework to further probe specific factors that contribute to audience engagement and news use. Image scholars consider an image to be “an attitude or a bundle of attitudes based on attributes evaluated” (Palacio et al., 2002, p. 489). Precisely because the news media image construct recognizes attitudes, it has potential as a tool to articulate and shed light on audience behaviors. Establishing that the image construct encompasses both rational and emotional interpretations derived from people’s interactions with news media organizations would be relevant in terms of the attitude-to-behavior relationships (Kennedy, 1977; Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009; Tran et al., 2015). The results of this study (CFA) suggest that image can be positively related to satisfaction and loyalty. Such findings, I hope, will provide a springboard for future researchers trying to gauge audience behaviors in relation to news.