This report provides an in-depth analysis of how much eyewitness media was used by eight major newspaper websites over a three week period. 1 It draws upon a sample of 27,802 articles and provides empirical evidence of when, where and how eyewitness media is used in these titles’ online output.
Executive Summary
We found 4,971 pieces of eyewitness media in total, each of which were coded and analysed in accordance with parameters defined by our research questions.
Quantitative Analysis: Online News Content
Our analysis provided a great deal of information about how eyewitness media is being used. We found that:
- Eyewitness media was used in all eight newspaper websites and covered an extraordinarily broad range of topics and stories.
- Some newspaper sites made substantial use of eyewitness media in their output, particularly among the titles based in Australia, Argentina, the UK and USA.
The Daily Mail, contained 27% more eyewitness media than was found in the 1,164 hours of TV coverage analysed in our earlier study of eight 24-hour news channels.
- On average, the Times of India used only 1 item of eyewitness media per 42 articles.
- Eyewitness media is vital to reporting of ISIS, accounting for 24% of all content found during the sampling period.
- Unlike 24-hour TV news, where use of eyewitness media tends to be very similar due to the strong emphasis on breaking news, we found discernible differences across high-usage newspapers.
- The New York Times mostly used eyewitness media in well produced videos that added depth and colour to nuanced world news stories, further demonstrating the capacity of eyewitness media to inform audiences in ways that simply would not be possible without it.
- The Guardian made more use of eyewitness media in live blogs than many other sites and made extensive use of its own exclusive, in-house eyewitness media platform: GuardianWitness, giving it a potential advantage over rivals.
- While the Daily Mail and Clarín did utilise eyewitness media in hard news stories, use by other sites was more in keeping with pejorative stereotypes about eyewitness media, e.g. viral videos, celebrity sightings and footage of talented pets.
- 78% of content was labelled as eyewitness media in some form or another, an encouraging finding that suggests online newspapers are more likely to inform their audience of the origin of a piece of content than TV news channels (equivalent figure: 22%).
Video producers on all platforms may be struggling to identify suitable ways to inform their audience when content has emanated from an external source.
- 49% of content in this study was either embedded or credited to the eyewitness.
- Video content is sometimes stripped of vital contextual information (e.g. that it is unverified or that it is user-generated) when it makes the transition from an article to a standalone video page.
- The option to embed eyewitness media was surprisingly under-utilised by most sites, with seven embedding 6% or less (the exception, the Guardian, embedded 84% of content).
Qualitative Analysis: Eyewitness Stories
Having identified suitable case studies, we contacted a number of eyewitnesses whose content had been published during our three week sampling period. The qualitative findings from these discussions are presented as detailed case studies later in this report so as to provide a snapshot of some of the emerging issues, including attitudes towards sharing content with the news media, knowledge of rights as content creators, attitudes towards the importance of being credited and the impact of having their content used without permission.
- There is emerging evidence that some news outlets are using eyewitness media without gaining permission from the content creator. The ramifications for this are not just legal or financial: news outlets are risking their reputations and the future trust and cooperation of eyewitnesses who upload content.
- There is a demonstrable lack of understanding among some eyewitnesses about their rights and ability to retain control of their content.
Some eyewitnesses believe anything they post online to be ‘fair game’ or that content posted to a public profile can be used without permission.
- News organisations are risking the future cooperation of eyewitnesses whose content they do not credit appropriately, with some affected eyewitnesses describing the practice as ‘theft’ and ‘stealing’.
- Some eyewitnesses describe specific reasons why they do not want their content to be used by news outlets, challenging the assumption that permission will always be granted or that eyewitnesses will automatically be satisfied with a credit.
- Some eyewitnesses are interested in the context in which their content will be used. The context can impact upon how they as individuals are viewed, which may have implications in terms of the contact they receive from others on social media.
- Online news outlets cannot afford to lose sight of their duty of care to the eyewitnesses whose content they use.
Irresponsible or unethical use of content can expose eyewitnesses to abuse or any number of other unpleasant outcomes.
- At present, social media content can legally be embedded without the uploader’s permission, which can cause personal distress to eyewitnesses who do not wish or intend for their content to be exposed to the sizeable audiences enjoyed by major news outlets, occasionally resulting in unwelcome attention or abuse.
Eyewitness Media Hub is a non-profit organisation established to support the creation, discovery, verification and publication of Eyewitness Media.