We will describe the different kinds of work processes that have evolved around UGC using the different steps in the journalistic production process: 1) gathering news (and content), 2) selecting news (and content), 3) editing content and 4) the presentation and distribution of content.
Gathering
It is possible to distinguish two kinds of UGC, both of which are being used by news organizations: the contributions of users that they actively, consciously share with the news organization (push-content) and content that users share on social networks (like Twitter), public forums and blogs, which the news organization has to collect by itself (pull-content).
Push-content: the majority of the content that news organizations receive from their
users is text-based with comments as the most dominant kind of UGC, followed by photos and – to a much lesser extent – video. There is a great variation in the topics of the content, although there is relatively little 'hard news'. As described earlier,
some websites allow their users to upload their content directly to the website and some websites allow users to interact in a more traditional way by sharing the content as a 'tip'.
Pull-content: on the one hand news organizations try to exploit their presence and
networks on social media, like Twitter, to invite and inspire users (followers/friends) to share their content in general or their content about specific newsworthy topics. Furthermore, they use (mostly) Twitter, but also other social networks, blogs and forums to search for interesting content by filtering these streams by using 'keywords' that are in the news or 'keywords' that could indicate that something newsworthy is happening (for instance “fire” or “explosion”). A third way to gather pull-content is to actively maintain a social network of people and organizations that could provide the newsroom with specific information or content. The NOS, for instance, has initiated NOS Net, a network of people who can sign up and indicate their domain of expertise. When something important happens in a specific domain, NOS can consult these experts. Other news providers like Dichtbij and Barneveldse Krant also try to build, maintain and expand a network of knowledge and (potential) content to ensure themselves of quick access to a broad range of relevant content or expertise.
Selecting
The analysis also looked into the selection process of UGC by news organizations. Table 7 provides an overview of the different strategies that newsrooms employ to select the content that users actively share with them. The table distinguishes different kinds of content and three different strategies (which are not necessarily mutual exclusive): the newsroom applies pre-moderation, the newsroom applies post-moderation and users are being involved in the moderation process.
The selection or moderation of content contributed by the users must filter – before publishing – or remove – after publication – all the content that is unsuited for the website. The criteria that apply to UGC are described in the so called 'house rules' or policy. They function as a list of requirements that constitute the qualitative threshold regarding the content. On the other hand, the selection is important to identify the most valuable, relevant and newsworthy content that can be processed as part of the editorial content or that will feature on a more prominent position on the website.
Table 7 shows that 10 out of the 15 news organizations moderate all or part of the UGC before publication – this list includes organizations such as the NOS, SBS Hart van Nederland and Omroep Brabant who do not allow their users to directly upload content to the website. Three organizations (RTL Nieuws, SBS Hart van Nederland and Omroep Brabant) use a combination of both pre- and post-
moderation in which the post-moderation is applied to comments. Six organizations only moderate after publication.
The moderation, in most cases, is executed by the editors themselves, although a majority of the news organizations involve users in this process as well. In some cases the editors have incorporated the moderation in their daily routine, in addition to their existing workload. In some news organizations a small number of editors has been assigned to moderation activities for a specific number of hours per week. A third strategy to integrate moderation in the production process – applied by Nujij.nl, for instance – is to acknowledge that the moderation of content is a different
kind of job than being a journalist. This means that Nujij.nl has created special moderation-jobs performed by people who had a specific moderating-training. Some news organizations have outsourced (part of) their moderation activities to specialized companies such as Novia Facts.
Technical tools – such as CMS – are being used for moderation to organize the content that users e-mail or upload to the website of the news organization. However, they are not being used to filter content that is (ir)relevant or
(un)desirable. The technology fails to detect small nuances, such as sarcasm and irony and differentiate them from genuine insults or discriminatory remarks. As mentioned earlier, filtering-tools are being used to find 'pull-content' in social networks (mostly Twitter), blogs and forums – as will be discussed in more detail in chapter four.
Table 7: Moderation strategies.
Besides moderation, identification is being used – albeit more indirectly – to improve the quality of the content that users contribute. See Table 8 for different strategies that are being deployed.
Table 8: Identification strategies.
On some websites users have to register by linking their accounts to their Facebook or Twitter profiles before they can post anything on the website. This strategy resulted in a decrease in the total number of comments but, according to the respective organizations, the quality of the comments and online discussions increased. The input from users was more relevant, more on topic. Especially in the comments the portion of hateful, discriminatory or offending contributions
decreased. Editing
Moderation is the most time-consuming activity related to UGC, but some news organizations also spend time editing the contributions from their users. It is possible to distinguish roughly three different strategies. In the first strategy the editors scan the content thoroughly using professional criteria. If the content is deemed relevant and/or newsworthy enough it will be used like any other news source: the content will be checked, edited and presented as editorial content. The
content will no longer be recognizable as UGC. This strategy is mainly applied by news organizations who do not let users upload their content directly to the website, but let them send it to the newsroom first, as a tip.
A second strategy to deal with UGC is to present it – recognizable as such – on the website, but to edit the content if needed. In this strategy editors are generally focusing their efforts on the most popular or newsworthy content that will be
available – or is expected to be placed – on a prominent position on the website, for instance on the top lists of “most read” or “best rated”. In such cases – when the content will be more visible – the quality and correctness of the content becomes more important. If needed, the editors will adapt the content themselves, or they will request the original author to make some alterations, or they will ask other users to produce additional information or to correct mistakes.
In the third strategy to cope with UGC, the content from users is not edited at all: either it complies with the house rules and will be approved, or it does not comply with the house rules and will be removed (in case of post-moderation) or will not be allowed on the site in the first place (in case of pre-moderation). This third strategy is mostly used applied to deal with comments, but more in general in situations in which the editors do not have enough time to process all content properly. Presentation
As with the editing process of UGC, it is possible to distinguish three different strategies that news organizations apply regarding the presentation of UGC and its integration on the website. Some news organizations process the UGC in such fashion that it is no longer recognizable as a contribution from one of their users, as described earlier. It is not possible for users to upload the content directly to the website. They have to send the content, as a tip, to the editors. In the second strategy, however, there is a very strict distinction between editorial content and UGC. The news organization has created a specific page on the website where users can upload their content. Although a link to the 'UGC-page' can be found on the general homepage, the actual webpage is presented as a separate part of the website. There is also a very clear distinction between editorial content and user comments. In the third strategy there is no principal distinction between editorial content and UGC, like – for instance – the way Dichtbij works, a news organization that has adopted this strategy and is very much dependent on the contributions from its users. Everything that users upload – if deemed appropriate according to the house rules – is presented on the website (including the name of the author) next to articles from the editors.