1. Introduction: Journalism’s Blurring Boundaries and Its Role in Society
The concept of journalism has always been difficult to pin down. Finding a definition of “journalism” has become more complicated in the digital age because its boundaries are blurring (Carlson and Lewis 2015
; Loosen 2015
). Nevertheless, the central role of journalism in pluralistic, open societies remains oriented toward independently surveying matters of public importance as well as to interpret events within a larger social context. Since societal subsystems, such as politics, economics, culture, and sports, tend to drift apart, journalism is a vital binding force to interrelate, realign, and synchronize these subsystems and to provide them with a common repertoire of social topics and issues (Meier 2018b
; Urban and Schweiger 2014
Drawing on the literature (Malik and Shapiro 2017
; Meier 2018b
; Kaltenbrunner et al. 2019
), in this study journalism is defined as the regular process of producing and distributing information for the purpose of providing an orientation for the public and transparency for the society at large, by an organization that commits itself to sustaining democracy and to journalistic principles such as independence, non-partisanship, topicality, relevance, correctness, and general comprehensibility in order to guarantee this claim
Journalism therefore plays an active role in generating a common public sphere (Habermas 2006
) and thus contributes to ensuring that the basic values of democratic societies, namely freedom, justice, equality, and solidarity are safeguarded (McQuail 1992
), fulfilling at least three core tasks (Christians et al. 2009
; Meier 2018b, 15ff.
): providing information, critical evaluation and monitoring (“watchdog role”), and participation. Accordingly, several fundamental values emerge on which the quality of news is based (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2014
; Scheuer 2008, pp. 44–49
): truth/facticity, relevance/context, and independence. These values are mutually interlinked in the current discourse framing of the term “objectivity”. McNair
(2017, p. 1331
) notes that “the journalistic search for credibility of sources, and scrutiny of what those sources say, without fear or favour, has never been more important to the health of liberal democracy”. In a “post-factual era” it must also be accompanied by norms such as transparency of journalistic products and processes (Meier 2009
), and appropriate tools that strengthen the accountability of newsrooms (Fengler et al. 2013
The notion of blurring boundaries has been used for some years now to frame the evolution of journalism (Carlson and Lewis 2015
; Loosen 2015
; Scott et al. 2019
). Journalism as a profession, as a commercial endeavor, and as a social activity has long been evolving, shaped by many transformations. News organizations are confronting the challenges posed by digitalization, different news consumption habits and the use of social media, greater access to data, and experimentation with new distribution channels. In the state of flux in which journalism finds itself (Spyridou et al. 2013
), under scrutiny, with progressive drops in citizens’ trust in the media (Newman et al. 2021
), observing the evolution of journalism’s boundaries helps to understand the phenomena and to anticipate challenges and opportunities. As Loosen
(2015, p. 79
) argues, “we (as society, journalists, audience members, journalism researchers) seem to be in the middle of a process of figuring out what we regard as ‘journalism‘—and its function for society”.
Indeed, although journalism may be in a moment of crisis (Pickard 2020
), the interest in its evolution and, specifically, the concern about what happens at its boundaries indicates that it is still a relevant activity (Scott et al. 2019
). Such boundaries are not static, and their evolution is affected by the multiple perspectives that shape journalism, so it is relevant to consider how the most recent changes and innovations influence the (re)definition of those boundaries (Spyridou et al. 2013
In a three-year, international research project, we are investigating the impact of innovation on journalism, and the influence of the socio-political framework. The media system, media policy, and journalistic culture are considered preconditions and prerequisites for media and journalism innovation. This descriptive study presented here shows the results of the first phase of the project, in which we aimed to identify the most important innovations in each of the five countries and to determine which approaches are relevant to the different media markets and systems in the process and which are significant in individual countries. In the next phase of the project, which is still ongoing, the innovations are examined in depth on the basis of case studies; the third final phase will analyze the impact of the framework conditions in different media systems, building on the findings of the first two phases.
We included Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, and the UK in order to compare representatives of the three different media systems in West European and North American democracies as identified by Hallin and Mancini
). According to Hallin and Mancini
), Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH)1
media correspond to a “democratic corporatist model” with strong public service media and a traditionally wide reach of newspapers. The DACH journalism culture is also well aligned. Many journalists in these countries have similar self-perceptions, they share similar or have the same values, or follow comparable norms (Hanitzsch et al. 2019
). The three DACH media markets are also characterized by a high degree of system stability, relatively loyal audiences over a long time, with legacy media houses under comparatively less pressure to initiate and unleash innovation processes. However, the innovation experience in the DACH media cultures differ considerably from the North Atlantic “liberal model”, as found in UK, and from the Mediterranean “bipolarised pluralist model”, to which Spain is to be counted, following Hallin and Mancini
). In both countries, media innovated much earlier to meet the challenges of the digital era. Legacy media in the UK, for example, pushed for professional online journalism and established integrated newsrooms years before German-language media (Kaltenbrunner and Luef 2017
). In Spain, on the other hand, economic crises and large-scale staff cuts led to the founding of numerous digital natives, niche initiatives and start-ups (Salaverría-Aliaga et al. 2018
; García-Avilés et al. 2018
Against this backdrop, a thorough reflection is needed to identify the essence of the ‘what’, ‘who’, and ‘how’ of change in journalism and its implications. Scholars have neglected to examine to what extent media innovation processes and results differ in international markets and their implications for news organizations. There is a research gap on comparative studies about journalism innovation in international systems and markets. As Livingstone
(2012, p. 421
) argues, “it is no longer plausible to study one phenomenon in one country without asking, at a minimum, whether it is common across the globe or distinctive to that country or part of the world”. Thus, the systematic exploration of a complex array of innovations in different media markets might contribute to understanding the complex evolution of journalism and strengthen theoretical frameworks based on the analysis of best practices, lessons learned and transferable knowledge in the field of media innovation.
2. Journalism Innovation as a Strategic Value for Media Organizations and Society
“Innovation” has been a buzzword in public communication for decades. On the one hand, it is a general term used to advertise brands and products. On the other, innovation is also differentiated analytically, regarding products, processes, marketing, and distribution (Schützeneder 2022
). There is scientific consensus that innovation has become an “umbrella term” that lacks a functioning systematization or definition that enjoys broad agreement in an interdisciplinary context (Gaubinger 2009, p. 5
; Taebi et al. 2014, p. 118
; Neubauer 2008, p. 7
). In journalism research, methodological, conceptual and systematic analyses of innovation have also received fragmented attention (García-Avilés 2021
As a starting point, we use the definition of Rogers
) who sees innovation as an idea, approach, or object that is perceived as new and as an improvement on a previous state. This view connects with Pavlik
’s (2013, p. 190
), who argues that “innovation is key to the viability of the media in the digital era”, as it improves services and products, and increases revenue or audience. These dimensions play a key role in journalism innovation, understood as “the introduction of something new that adds value to customers and to the media organization, which reacts to changes in products, processes and services through the use of creative skills that allow a problem or need to be identified and solved” (García-Avilés et al. 2018, p. 27
). This approach includes aspects related to strategy, structure, and processes that generate value for the organization, foster creativity, and increase public service (Küng 2015
The growing demand for innovation has also been received with some reticence, with researchers calling for more reflection on the nature of these changes and the indiscriminate adoption of technological innovations (Creech and Nadler 2018
; Peters and Carlson 2019
). It is worth remembering that innovation should be aimed at improving people’s lives through new services and solutions (Bruns 2014
) and should avoid technological determinism or flashes of technical novelty (Küng 2015
When measuring innovation in the industry, two degrees of impact have been observed: radical and incremental innovations (Christensen 1997
). Radical innovations include novelties with far-reaching consequences on the economy and the market through creative destruction (Schumpeter 1943
), although they tend to occur less frequently in the field of journalism (Storsul and Krumsvik 2013
). Incremental innovations refer to gradual improvements in which certain components and processes of the firm are modified (Tidd and Bessant 2005
). These innovations are found in products and services, automation processes, and improvements in some tools (Nieminen 2019
). Storsul and Krumsvik
(2013, p. 18
) have noted that in journalism most innovations are incremental, because they involve slight changes that “do not challenge the economics or logic of the media market.”
Journalistic innovations not only benefit the direct recipients of the journalistic message, but also generate positive externalities, due to the public good nature of journalistic products (Hamilton 2016
(2014, p. 13
) notes that a full understanding of innovation processes in journalism necessarily “requires a holistic perspective of innovations, which seeks to trace the repercussions of innovations across both media and society”; in other words, media innovations are “inextricably interlinked with societal innovations”. News organizations ideally pursue a twofold aim: their own economical sustainability and the fulfillment of a social service that ensures the basic values of democratic societies (McQuail 1992
)—the implementation of journalism innovations can help achieve both. In addition, some media innovations emerge from the edges of the industry and might provide a relevant social impact (Bruns 2014
In the face of economic, technological, and communicative issues in the so-called “post-truth age” new formats, coverage patterns, and distribution processes have emerged. Examples of innovations can be seen in the emergence of fact-checking (Graves and Cherubini 2016
), “constructive journalism” (Meier 2018a
), and “slow journalism” (Le Masurier 2015
). Studies have examined innovations related to format (Lopezosa et al. 2021
), organizational processes (García-Avilés et al. 2017
), and audience engagement (Meier et al. 2018
). Journalists and technical experts are collaborating more closely through open-source engagement (Usher 2016
), which fosters values regarding transparency, tinkering, iteration, and participation (Lewis and Usher 2013
). To adapt to these dynamic transformations, several media organizations have established journalism innovation labs (Hogh-Janovsky and Meier 2021
). In addition, collaboration between humans and computers is rapidly becoming an integral part of journalism production, with all its potentials and pitfalls (Schapals and Porlezza 2020
). The COVID-19 pandemic has forced newsrooms to re-think their priorities and the way in which they produce news and has accelerated innovation (Hermida and Young 2021
On the one hand, disruptive media innovation has diminished the privileged position of traditional journalism (García-Avilés et al. 2018
), which has also put pressure on news media to invest in position innovation given that they often needed to legitimize or renegotiate their role in society (Francis and Bessant 2005
). On the other hand, legacy media have shifted resources to develop multi-platform products and to simultaneously improve news quality (García-Avilés et al. 2017
). This shift entails multiple requirements, such as effective communication from management as well as a general upgrade of production processes (Westlund and Krumsvik 2014
), a change in culture (Küng 2013
), and the implementation of quality management systems (Wyss 2016
The question about identifying the most relevant media innovations at the international level has not been answered in the literature that has usually concentrated on single case studies. What is lacking, therefore, is a systematic overview, counting, and clustering of many innovations and its comparison in several countries. Based this theoretical framework, which addresses the conceptualization of innovation as well as the role of journalism in society against a background of blurring boundaries in the digital environment, the main research objectives are:
To establish a reliable analytical index matrix for an international comparison, based on agreed and validated parameters for measuring the degree of journalism innovations in European democracies;
To identify the most important innovations in five countries with similar (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland) and different media systems (Spain and the United Kingdom).
The research questions (RQ) are:
RQ 1: How can journalism innovations be distinguished, classified, and measured?
RQ 2: Which fields of innovation in journalism should be considered the most important in the decade 2010–2020?
RQ 3: What are the differences and similarities regarding the types of innovations in countries with similar and/or different media systems?
To identify and collect the most relevant journalism innovations of the past decade, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts in each of the five selected countries. Associated with RQ2, each expert was asked to name the ten most important and successful innovations in journalism and media in their respective country for the period 2010–2020 (“Could you please identify 10 successful2 journalism innovations that you consider among the most innovative or important in Germany/Switzerland/Austria/Spain/UK, with at least one year since their launching
”). The experts were then asked to justify their selection. Already beforehand, the interviewees had received a brief description of the project and the definition of innovation in journalism applied to this project, as well as the explicit indication that the innovations could relate to product/process, organizational, commercialization/marketing and/or distribution levels. The 100 interviews, which lasted around one hour each, were conducted in the first half of 2021 using digital conference tools (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet) as in situ implementation was not possible during the pandemic.
To ensure a diversity of perspectives, three different categories of experts were defined:
Media professionals including editors-in-chief, publishers, CEOs, CTOs, CIO, (entrepreneurial) journalists, or other media executives. They had to be responsible for or at least involved in the development, deployment, or implementation of innovative initiatives within their field of work.
Scientific experts and journalism innovation experts who follow and assess innovative journalism and media initiatives within their own or other countries. They had to interact with key players and relevant institutions. They also had to be aware of relevant developments within media and journalism and able to appraise current new initiatives.
Innovators who are familiar with media and journalism in their respective countries and yet deal with innovation issues in related fields, such as technology, arts, sales, social affairs, and audience engagement. They could be developers, tech innovators, business angels, marketing experts, or social innovation researchers.
As a guideline, the expert sample from each country was designed as follows: ten media professionals, five scientific experts, and five innovators. In addition, care was taken to ensure that samples had an adequate gender mix, and that different age groups and representatives from different parts of the country or language regions were represented. For this purpose, pools of 30 to 40 possible interview partners were suggested within the individual country teams on the basis of their field experience and knowledge, from which desired candidates and possible substitute candidates were then selected according to the diversity criteria. Furthermore, in the first interviews with experts, we also asked for other experts and included them in the list of possible interviewees. In most cases, the experts were contacted by email, less frequently by telephone to schedule an interview. The experts were asked for their explicit consent for the use of the interview content in the scope of this project and were guaranteed anonymity so that they could not be identified.
The coding work took place either via transcripts or directly from the recorded audio file. A standardized coding sheet was created as a template for all five countries to collect each innovation presented by the experts. Clusters were formed at a national level to determine country-specific characteristics. These clusters were then compared at an international level. While many clusters, such as data journalism, automation or newsletters, were unproblematic in the comparative work, new categories had to be created for incompatible content. For example, in some countries fact checking is more likely to be attributed to start-ups that are completely dedicated to this journalistic task, while elsewhere it is understood as part of the editorial quality management system. Each innovation was assigned to only one cluster.
To identify the most important fields of innovation, clusters were evaluated according to the following system. (1) Each expert mention was awarded one point (mentions of experts linked with the innovation only 0.5 points). A maximum score of 20 was therefore possible per cluster. (2) Additional points were awarded if the innovation had an impact on the industry—incremental (five points) or radical impact (ten points). (3) An additional ten points were added if it had an impact on society. The additional points for industry and societal impact were awarded on a country-specific basis by the researchers with reference to the experts’ assessments and the literature which is discussed very briefly in Section 2
in this paper.
We derive the importance of social impact for innovation and its effects from the considerations of Bruns
(2014, p. 18
): “Research into media innovations increasingly becomes research into societal change itself.” This seems convincing because media companies are “an integral part of society and an important driver of societal dynamics in a system of complex interdependencies” (Bruns 2014, p. 20
). Based on the existing literature, a number of descriptors of the possible impact of journalistic innovation in society can be identified (see also the concept of social sustainability, proposed by the United Nations), namely: education, equality, gender focus, fight against poverty, sustainability and environmental actions, commitment to diversity, transparency and democracy, social cohesion and improvements in quality of life.
The actual industry or social impact can differ in our evaluation for one and the same innovation from country to country, depending on the specific market situation. For example, in the evaluation of the innovation “News on Social Media”, the social impact for Austria was given zero points, while that for Germany was given 10 points. This can be explained by the observation that News on Social Media was mentioned in the Austrian expert interviews referring to a few pioneers, but particularly in a technological context and in their role model function for the industry. In Germany, on the other hand, the experts placed the innovation much more strongly in the context of audience interaction and in relation to a young target group, which is why the social impact was rated at 10 points here.
The most important innovations from each market are presented in this section, followed by an analysis of the innovations that were highlighted across all countries.
5. Summary, Discussion and Conclusions
In this study, we identified the 20 most relevant innovations in five countries and compared them to look for similarities and differences in different media systems. We have thus achieved the two goals of our study: (a) to establish a reliable analytical index matrix for an international comparison, based on agreed and validated parameters for measuring the degree of journalism innovations; and (b) to identify the most relevant innovations in five countries with similar (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland) and different media systems (Spain and the United Kingdom). This creates the basis for further comparative research steps to establish interactions with the media–political system and the development of democracy.
Guided by our research questions, we first developed methodology (RQ1) to classify and measure journalism innovations. A sample of 100 experts named the most relevant innovations in their country and motivated their selection. A total of around 1000 mentions of successful innovations were registered. After a critical reflection, the elaborate method of clustering was used to identify country-specific similarities and differences. Accordingly, all the mentions were clustered into 50 different fields of innovation. In the next step, a rating system developed by the country teams evaluated these innovations according to three criteria: the number of times the innovation was mentioned in the interviews with experts, the industrial impact as a central category for the innovation capacity/role model effect within the sector, and the social impact of the innovation as a central category for the role of journalism in a democratic society. Last, the five lists of selected innovations assigned to the total of 50 fields were merged.
RQ2 addressed the most important fields of innovation in journalism from 2010 to 2020. Out of the total of 50 different areas of innovation highlighted by the experts in the interviews, 34 were included in the selection of at least one country. Eight of the thirty-four innovations were counted among the most relevant 20 areas in all five media markets included in the survey.
Regarding RQ3, we found significant differences in journalism innovations between countries with different media cultures, but also within the DACH countries that share similar media systems and journalistic cultures. Significant differences in the perception of innovation in different countries can be interpreted as the result of specific political and economic conditions. For example, the global economic crisis of 2008 had a significant impact on Southern Europe, as many journalistic start-ups emerged after massive job losses in the media sector (Valero-Pastor and González-Alba 2018
). In Central Europe (e.g., Switzerland), similar journalistic initiatives developed later. In small countries such as Austria, with Germany as a large neighbor with the same language, journalistic cooperation and networks are easier to arrange, both locally and internationally (Kaltenbrunner et al. 2020
). This type of cooperation has become important to expand regional markets, while cross-border cooperation is increasing the quality of investigative journalism (Hermida and Young 2021
Technological penetration also differed between the countries. In the UK, journalistic podcasts have been standard programming for an audience of millions for more than a dozen years, and the experts no longer considered it an innovation in the last decade. In the DACH region, podcasts failed to establish themselves in a small initial wave 15 years ago but have been significant for a few years and are now viewed as a notable change in the audio sector. In addition to all the differences, there are also striking similarities in the results that should be highlighted: Data journalism is among the five most important innovations in all five countries. It can generally be said that many innovations are based on the collection and analysis of data. In all five countries, collaborative investigative journalism, data-based audience engagement, paid content and automated journalism were also among the 20 most relevant innovations.
The formation or better integration of a community, the tailor-made offer to the audience, and new forms of engagement—in summary, the improved relationship between journalists and users—is the underlying idea of a large part of innovative journalism initiatives. These include storytelling, citizen participation, mobile journalism and audio/podcast (each among the 20 most relevant innovations in four out of five countries). This strong, new orientation towards the audience arises not least from the realization that journalism without close user–medium ties, in view of the great loss of trust (Newman et al. 2021
), is probably not viable in a media world of blurring boundaries—and that rethinking throughout the company is indispensable, starting with management (Küng 2013
). This generally requires new organizational forms and teams, mentioned among the 20 most relevant innovations in all countries, in which work is increasingly multidisciplinary and with flat hierarchies.
Thus, cooperation appears as an overarching principle in journalism on many levels: within the news outlet in the new organizational forms, between outlet and the community from data-based audience engagement to citizen journalism, and between different national and international media in the form of collaborative investigative journalism. Technological progress is a prerequisite in many cases, but not necessarily a motivation. It seems that, at least in the context of this study with the necessary bias asking for relevant initiatives, technological innovation is not applied indiscriminately and for its own sake (Creech and Nadler 2018
; Peters and Carlson 2019
), but in the context of the democratic role of journalism, aimed at improving people’s lives (Bruns 2014
) and being guided by journalistic core values such as facticity and relevance (Meier 2019
Established models for distinguishing and classifying media and journalism cultures, (especially Hallin and Mancini 2004
) have described a number of typical parameters for assessment and historical derivation. Further framework conditions—such as more recent media–political guidelines or national economic specifics and differences in technology rollout—play a major role in innovation processes in journalism. In contrast to the “democratic corporatist model” of the DACH region, the North Atlantic “liberal model” (e.g., United Kingdom) and the Mediterranean “bipolarized pluralist model” (e.g., Spain) (Hallin and Mancini 2004
) have a different innovation experience. Journalism innovation here began earlier, both in existing media houses and within new entrepreneurial projects. In Southern Europe, especially in Spain, the effects of the deep economic crisis ten to fifteen years ago forced new journalist actors to join forces and unify faster, also outside and beyond the less unprofitable and shrinking traditional media market.
Our study is the first attempt to sort out the hitherto complex and opaque field of journalism innovations, to identify fields of innovations and to justify them methodically. Research across five countries in three media systems provides great opportunities for a comprehensive exploration of perceptions of journalism and innovation. At the same time, it is subject to limitations. While the merging of 1000 mentions was essential for an overview and comparability across five countries, country specifics could not be considered in every detail for the same reasons. The scoring system of industrial and social impact based on qualitative criteria, which completed our quantitative method, was necessary to highlight journalistic innovations with high impact and a democratic approach. Like any qualitative assessment, it harbors subjective elements that we have tried to objectify as much as possible by drawing on the existing literature, critical reflection and transparent presentation. Therefore, we consider our descriptive study a starting point and an invitation to researchers to explore the background and triggers for these innovations and thus further substantiate these findings.
Conceptualization, K.M., J.S., J.A.G.A., J.M.V.-P., A.K., R.L., C.P., G.F., V.W. and M.S.; Funding acquisition, K.M., A.K. and V.W.; Methodology, K.M., J.S., J.A.G.A., J.M.V.-P., A.K., R.L., C.P., G.F., V.W. and M.S.; Writing—original draft, K.M., J.S., J.A.G.A., J.M.V.-P., A.K., R.L., C.P., G.F., V.W. and M.S.; Writing—review and editing, K.M., J.S., J.A.G.A., J.M.V.-P., A.K. and R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), project no. 438677067; Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project no. I 4797-G; Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF), project no. 100019E_190126; as part of the project “Journalism innovation in democratic societies: Index, impact and prerequisites in international comparison” (JoIn-DemoS).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy matters.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
The DACH region refers to the three Central European countries of Germany (D), Austria (A), and Switzerland (CH).
In the interviews, “successful” was defined as still implemented.
- Bruns, Axel. 2014. Media innovations, user innovations, societal innovations. Journal of Media Innovations 1: 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, Matt, and Seth C. Lewis, eds. 2015. The Boundaries of Journalism. Professionalism, Practices and Participation. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, Clayton. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
- Christians, Clifford, Theodore Glasser, Denis McQuail, Kaarle Nordenstreng, and Robert White. 2009. Normative Theories of the Media. Journalism in Democratic Societies. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. [Google Scholar]
- Creech, Brian, and Anthony Nadler. 2018. Post-industrial fog: Reconsidering innovation in visions of journalism’s future. Journalism 19: 182–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fengler, Susanne, Tobias Eberwein, Gianpietro Mazzoleni, Colin Porlezza, and Stephan Russ-Mohl, eds. 2013. Journalists and Media Accountability: An International Study of News People in the Digital Age. New York: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
- Francis, Dave, and John Bessant. 2005. Targeting innovation and implications for capability development. Technovation 25: 171–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Avilés, José A. 2021. Review article: Journalism innovation research, a diverse and flourishing field (2000–2020). Profesional de la Información 30: e300110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Avilés, José A., Klaus Meier, and Andy Kaltenbrunner. 2017. Converged media content: Reshaping the ‘legacy’ of legacy media in the online scenario. In The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies. Edited by Bob Franklin and Scott Eldridge II. London: Routledge, pp. 449–58. [Google Scholar]
- García-Avilés, José A., Miguel Carvajal-Prieto, Alicia De Lara-González, and Felix Arias-Robles. 2018. Developing an index of media innovation in a national market. Journalism Studies 19: 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaubinger, Kurt. 2009. Unternehmenserfolg durch marktorientierte Produktinnovationen. In Praxisorientiertes Innovations- und Produktmanagement. Grundlagen und Fallstudien aus B-to-B-Märkten. Edited by Kurt Gaubinger, Thomas Werani and Michael Rabl. Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 5–16. [Google Scholar]
- Graves, Lucas, and Federica Cherubini. 2016. The Rise of Fact-Checking Sites in Europe. Oxford: Reuters Institute. [Google Scholar]
- Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory 16: 411–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton, James. 2016. Democracy’s Detectives: The Economics of Investigative Journalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hanitzsch, Thomas, Josef Seethaler, and Vinzenz Wyss. 2019. Journalismus in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Wiesbaden: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Hermida, Alfred, and Mary Lynn Young. 2021. Journalism innovation in a time of survival. In News Media Innovation Reconsidered: Ethics and Values in a Creative Reconstruction of Journalism. Edited by Maria Luengo and Susana Herrera-Damas. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 40–52. [Google Scholar]
- Hogh-Janovsky, Isabell, and Klaus Meier. 2021. Journalism Innovation Labs 2.0 in media organizations: A motor for transformation and constant learning. Journalism and Media 2: 361–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltenbrunner, Andy, and Sonja Luef. 2017. Newsroom Integration. A nationwide study. Austria as a microcosm of editorial models of daily newspapers. In Journalism Report V: Innovation and Transition. Edited by Andy Kaltenbrunner, Matthias Karmasin and Daniela Kraus. Wien: Facultas, pp. 91–114. [Google Scholar]
- Kaltenbrunner, Andy, Renée Lugschitz, Matthias Karmasin, and Sonja Luef. 2019. How to Identify Journalists? Developing a Theoretical International Foundation for the Operationalisation of a National Comprehensive Survey of Journalists in Austria. Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications 5: 233–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltenbrunner, Andy, Renée Lugschitz, Matthias Karmasin, Sonja Luef, and Daniela Kraus. 2020. Der Österreichische Journalismus-Report Eine Empirische Erhebung und eine Repräsentative Befragung. Vienna: Facultas. [Google Scholar]
- Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel. 2014. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect, 3rd ed. New York: Three Rivers Press. [Google Scholar]
- Küng, Lucy. 2013. Innovation, technology and organizational change. In Media Innovations: A Multidisciplinary Study of Change. Edited by Tanja Storsul and Arne H. Krumsvik. Gothenburg: Nordicom, pp. 9–12. [Google Scholar]
- Küng, Lucy. 2015. Innovators in Digital News. London: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, IB Tauris. [Google Scholar]
- Le Masurier, Megan. 2015. What is Slow Journalism? Journalism Practice 9: 138–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, Seth C., and Nikki Usher. 2013. Open source and journalism: Toward new frameworks for imagining news innovation. Media, Culture & Society 35: 602–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livingstone, Sonia. 2012. Challenges to comparative research in a globalizing media landscape. In Handbook of Comparative Communication Research. Edited by Frank Esser and Thomas Hanitzsch. ICA Handbook Series; New York: Routledge, pp. 415–29. [Google Scholar]
- Loosen, Wiebke. 2015. The notion of the “Blurring Boundaries”: Journalism as a (de)differentiated phenomenon. Digital Journalism 3: 68–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopezosa, Carlos, Lluis Codina, Ariadna Fernández-Planells, and Pere Freixa. 2021. Journalistic innovation: How new formats of digital journalism are perceived in the academic literature. Journalism. First Published Online. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, Asmaa, and Ivor Shapiro. 2017. What’s digital? What’s journalism? In The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies. Edited by Bob Franklin and Scott A. Eldridge II. London: Routledge, pp. 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- McNair, Brian. 2017. After objectivity. Schudson’s sociology of journalism in the era of post-factuality. Journalism Studies 18: 1318–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McQuail, Denis. 1992. Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Meier, Klaus. 2009. Transparency in Journalism. Credibility and trustworthiness in the digital future. The Future of Journalism. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357834352_TRANSPARENCY_IN_JOURNALISM_Credibility_and_trustworthiness_in_the_digital_future (accessed on 16 October 2022).
- Meier, Klaus. 2018a. How does the audience respond to constructive journalism? Two experiments with multifaceted results. Journalism Practice 12: 764–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meier, Klaus. 2018b. Journalistik, 4th ed. Konstanz: UVK. [Google Scholar]
- Meier, Klaus. 2019. Quality in journalism. In The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. The Official Encyclopedia of the International Communication Association (ICA). Edited by Tim B. Vos and Folker Hanusch. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meier, Klaus, Daniela Kraus, and Edith Michaeler. 2018. Audience engagement in a post-truth age: What it means and how to learn the activities connected with it. Digital Journalism 6: 1052–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neubauer, Steven. 2008. Funktionsübergreifende Integration in Hochinnovativen Produktentwicklungsvorhaben. Wiesbaden: Gabler. [Google Scholar]
- Newman, Nic, Richard Fletcher, Anne Schulz, Simge Andi, Craig T. Robertson, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2021. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3873260 (accessed on 16 October 2022).
- Nieminen, Jesse. 2019. Incremental Innovation—The What, Why, and How. Viima.com. Available online: https://www.viima.com/blog/incremental-innovation (accessed on 16 October 2022).
- Pavlik, John. 2013. Innovation and the future of journalism. Digital Journalism 1: 181–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, Chris, and Matt Carlson. 2019. Conceptualizing change in journalism studies: Why change at all? Journalism 20: 637–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickard, Victor. 2020. Restructuring democratic infrastructures: A policy approach to the journalism crisis. Digital Journalism 8: 704–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
- Salaverría-Aliaga, Ramon, María del Pilar Martínez-Costa Pérez, and James Breiner. 2018. Mapa de los cibermedios de España en 2018: Análisis cuantitativo. En: Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 73: 1034–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schapals, Aljosha K., and Colin Porlezza. 2020. Assistance or resistance? Evaluating the intersection of automated journalism and journalistic role conceptions. Media and Communication 8: 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheuer, Jeffrey. 2008. The Big Picture: Why Democracies Need Journalistic Excellence. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin. [Google Scholar]
- Schützeneder, Jonas. 2022. Buzzword–foreign word–keyword: The innovation term in German media. Journal of Innovation Management 10: 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, Martin, Mel Bunce, and Kate Wright. 2019. Foundation funding and the boundaries of journalism. Journalism Studies 20: 2034–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spyridou, Lia-Paschalia, Maria Matsiola, Andreas Veglis, George Kalliris, and Charalambos Dimoulas. 2013. Journalism in a state of flux: Journalists as agents of technology innovation and emerging news practices. International Communication Gazette 75: 76–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Storsul, Tanja, and Arne H. Krumsvik. 2013. What is media innovation? In Media Innovations: A Multidisciplinary Study of Change. Edited by Tanja Storsul and Arne H. Krumsvik. Gothenburg: Nordicom, pp. 13–26. [Google Scholar]
- Taebi, Behnam, Aad Correljé, Edwin Cuppen, Marloes Dignum, and Udo Pesch. 2014. Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: The need for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1: 118–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tidd, Joe, and John Bessant. 2005. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Hoboken: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Urban, Juliane, and Wolfgang Schweiger. 2014. News quality from a recipients’ perspective: Investigating recipients’ ability to judge the normative quality of news. Journalism Studies 15: 821–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usher, Nikki. 2016. Interactive Journalism. Hackers, Data, & Code. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. [Google Scholar]
- Valero-Pastor, José María, and José A. González-Alba. 2018. Las startups periodísticas como ejemplos de innovación en el mercado mediático español. Estudio de casos. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 73: 556–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westlund, Oscar, and Arne H. Krumsvik. 2014. Perceptions of intra-organizational collaboration and media workers’ interests in media innovations. Journal of Media Innovations 1: 52–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wyss, Vinzenz. 2016. Qualitätsmanagement in Redaktionen. In Journalismusforschung: Stand und Perspektiven. Edited by Klaus Meier and Christoph Neuberger. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 159–82. [Google Scholar]
Most relevant innovations in the Austrian media market (2010–2020).
|Innovation||Mentions||Industry Impact||Social Impact||Total|
|Mobile and live journalism||5.5||10||10||25.5|
|Tools discourse quality||4||5||10||19|
|New organizational teams||7.5||10||0||17.5|
|News only TV channel||6||10||0||16|
|Video by print media||5||10||0||15|
Most relevant innovations in the German media market (2010–2020).
|Innovation||Mentions||Industry Impact||Social Impact||Total|
|New organizational teams||9||10||0||19|
|Mobile and live journalism||7||10||0||17|
|Other financing models||4||10||0||14|
Most relevant innovations in the Spanish media market (2010–2020).
|Innovation||Mentions||Industry Impact||Social Impact||Total|
|Mobile and live journalism||6||10||10||26|
|New organizational teams||7||10||0||17|
Most relevant innovations in the Swiss media market (2010–2020).
|Innovation||Mentions||Industry Impact||Social Impact||Total|
|New organizational teams||12||5||10||27|
Most relevant innovations in the UK media market (2010–2020).
|Innovation||Mentions||Industry Impact||Social Impact||Total|
|Mobile and live journalism||8||10||0||18|
|Media labs ||4||10||0||14|
|Other financing models||4||10||0||14|
|New organizational teams||8.5||5||0||13.5|
Total Innovations selected in the five markets.
|Name of Innovation||Austria Position||Germany Position||Spain Position||Switzerland Position||UK Position|
|New organizational teams||10||12||15||3||19|
|Other financing models||–||19||–||–||16|
|Tools discourse quality||–||–||8||–||–|
|News only TV channel||–||–||14||–||–|
|Video by print media||–||–||16||–||–|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).