The Impact of Fluid Publishing on Media Information Management—A Survey of Latest Journalistic Trends as Data-Driven Journalism, Journalism as Process and Metrics-Driven Journalism

  • Björn StocklebenEmail author
  • Artur Lugmayr
Part of the International Series on Computer Entertainment and Media Technology book series (ISCEMT)


This chapter introduces “fluid publishing” as a paradigm for journalistic publishing. It identifies and explains the four trends of data-driven journalism, journalism as a process, 24/7 publishing and service personalization as core drivers of fluid publishing. It will give rise to new online publishing formats and require organizational change processes, which in turn create the need for new holistic information systems. Such information systems will have to reconcile the strategic-rational function with a rewarding-emotional aspect, as well as define new journalism-centric metrics embracing high-level concepts of quality in journalism.


Social Capital User Profile Service Personalization Social Networking Service Content Management System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Tandoc, E. C. (2014). Journalism is twerking? How web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping. New Media & Society, 16(4), 559–575. doi: 10.1177/1461444814530541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christin, A. (2014). Clicks or Pulitzer?: Web journalists and their work in the United States and France. Paris: EHESS. Retrieved from
  3. 3.
    Manileve, V. (2014, August 20). Le journalisme au risque du clic. Retrieved 24 August 2015, from
  4. 4.
    Usher, N. (2014). Making news at the New York Times. The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gillmor, D. (2006). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jarvis, J. (2009, June 7). Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture. Retrieved 17 August 2015, from
  7. 7.
    Krakovsky, M. (2011). All the news that’s fit for you. Communications of the ACM, 54(6), 20–21. doi: 10.1145/1953122.1953129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robinson, S. (2011). ‘Journalism as process’: The organizational implications of participatory online news. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 13(3), 137–210.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arrington, M. (2009, June 7). The morality and effectiveness of process journalism. Retrieved from
  10. 10.
    Franck, G. (2007). Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit: ein Entwurf. Dt. Taschenbuch-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edwards, C., Spence, P. R., Gentile, C. J., Edwards, A., & Edwards, A. (2013). How much Klout do you have … A test of system generated cues on source credibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A12–A16. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lugmayr, A., & Zotto, C. D. (2015). Convergence is NOT King—The tripe convergence, coexistence, and divergence IS King. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Media convergence handbook (Vol. 1): Journalism, broadcasting, and social media aspects of convergence and media convergence handbook (Vol. 2): Firm and user perspective. Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zotto, C. D., & Lugmayr, A. (2015). Media convergence as evolutionary process. In A. Lugmayr & C. D. Zotto (Eds.), Media convergence handbook (Vol. 1): Journalism, broadcasting, and social media aspects of convergence and media convergence handbook (Vol. 2): Firm and user perspective. Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vehkoo, J. (2013). Crowdsourcing in investigative journalism. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Report. Retrieved from
  15. 15.
    Aitamurto, T. (2013). Balancing between open and closed: Co-creation in magazine journalism. Digital Journalism, 1(2), 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bachmayer, S., Lugmayr, A., & Kotsis, G. (2010). Convergence of collaborative web approaches and interactive TV program formats. International Journal of Web Information Systems, 6(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lugmayr, A., Stockleben, B., Zou, Y., Anzenhofer, S., & Jalonen, M. (2013). Applying design thinking in the context of media management education. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1–39. doi: 10.1007/s11042-013-1361-8
  18. 18.
    Petre, C. (2015, May 7). The traffic factories: Metrics at Chartbeat, Gawker Media, and The New York Times. Retrieved from
  19. 19.
    McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60–68.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Power, D. J. (2008). Understanding data-driven decision support systems. Information Systems Management, 25(2), 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Parasie, S., & Dagiral, E. (2012). Data-driven journalism and the public good: ‘Computer-assisted-reporters’ and ‘programmer-journalists’ in Chicago. New Media & Society, 1461444812463345.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Graves, L., Kelly, J., & Gluck, M. (2010). Confusion online: Faulty metrics and the future of digital journalism. Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Online at: Retrieved from
  24. 24.
    Stern, R., & Wise, R. (2014b). RJI Futures Lab update #80: New story metrics from API; and newsroom tracking tool Desk-Net (Vol. 80). Retrieved from
  25. 25.
    Behrendt, W. (2012). The interactive knowledge stack (IKS): A vision for the future of CMS. In W. Maass & T. Kowatsch (Eds.), Semantic technologies in content management systems (pp. 75–90). Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from
  26. 26.
    Stern, R., & Wise, R. (2014a). Futures lab update #85: The future of audience analytics (Vol. 85). Retrieved from
  27. 27.
    Honan, M. (2014, December 17). Inside the Buzz-Fueled Media Startups Battling for Your Attention. Retrieved 6 January 2015, from
  28. 28.
    Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2013). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Harvard Business Press. Retrieved from
  29. 29.
    Harrington, S., & McNair, B. (2012). The ‘New’ News. Media International Australia, 144(1), 49–51. doi: 10.1177/1329878X1214400108 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lichtermann, J. (2014, July 14). Report around the clock: How some news orgs use time zones to their advantage to operate 24/7. Retrieved from
  31. 31.
    Ellick, A. B., Bryant, A., Sulzberger, A. G., O’Leary, A., Phelps, A., Gianni, E., … Peskoe, B. (2014, March 24). The New York Times Innovation Report 2014. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  32. 32.
    Kamba, T., Bharat, K. A., & Albers, M. C. (1995). The Krakatoa Chronicle-an interactive, personalized newspaper on the Web. Retrieved from
  33. 33.
    Kamba, T., Sakagami, H., & Koseki, Y. (1997). ANATAGONOMY: a personalized newspaper on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(6), 789–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Merialdo, B., Lee, K. T., Luparello, D., & Roudaire, J. (1999). Automatic construction of personalized TV news programs. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM international conference on multimedia (Part 1) (pp. 323–331). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
  35. 35.
    Stockleben, B., & De Abreu Pereira, N. (2011). Radio frames—Personalization of audio programs. In 2011 IEEE international conference on consumer electronics—Berlin (ICCE-Berlin) (pp. 306–310).
  36. 36.
    McCue, M. (2010, July 21). Flipboard launches world’s first social magazine. Retrieved from
  37. 37.
    Lam, X. N., Vu, T., Le, T. D., & Duong, A. D. (2008). Addressing cold-start problem in recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 2Nd international conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (pp. 208–211). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
  38. 38.
    Uhlmann, S., & Lugmayr, A. (2011). Portable personality and its personalization algorithms: An overview and directions. In Media in the Ubiquitous Era: Ambient, Social and Gaming Media: Ambient, Social and Gaming Media, 66.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Uhlmann, S., & Lugmayr, A. (2011). Portable personality and its personalization algorithms: An overview and directions. In A. Lugmayr, H. Franssila, P. Nrnen, P. Näränen, & O. Sotamaa (Eds.), Media in the Ubiquitous Era: Ambient, Social and Gaming Media (pp. 66–93). Hershey, USA: IGI Global.\Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Witschge, T., & Nygren, G. (2009). Journalistic work: A profession under pressure? Journal of Media Business Studies, 6(1), 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Niven, P. R. (2010). Balanced scorecard step-by-step: Maximizing performance and maintaining results. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gertler, M. (2013). Meaning-generating propositions of reality by media: Quality attributes and functions of journalism. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 11(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lacy, S., & Rosenstiel, T. (2015). Defining and Measuring Quality Journalism. Retrieved from
  44. 44.
    Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1990). Newspaper quality and ownership: Rating the groups. Newspaper Research Journal, 11(2), 42–56.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bogart, L. (1989). Press and public: Who reads what, when, where, and why in American newspapers. Psychology Press. Retrieved from
  46. 46.
    Lugmayr, A. (2013b). Issues & Approach in Defining a European Research Agenda on Information Systems and Management in Creative eMedia Industries. The Series, 17.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Usher, N. (2013). AL Jazeera English Online: Understanding web metrics and news production when a quantified audience is not a commodified audience. Digital Journalism, 1(3), 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lugmayr, A. (2013a). Brief introduction into information systems & management research in media industries. In 2013 IEEE international conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. Retrieved from
  49. 49.
    Stockleben, B., & Lugmayr, A. (2013). Issues and topics to consider for information management research in eMedia industries. In International series on information systems and creative eMedia, No 2 (2013): Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on semantic ambient media experience (SAME).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lugmayr, A. (2012). Connecting the real world with the digital overlay with smart ambient media—Applying Peirce’s categories in the context of ambient media. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 58(2):385–398 (Springer US).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rakkolainen, I. K., Lugmayr, A. (2007). Immaterial display for interactive advertisements Proceedings of the international conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology (pp. 95–98). ACM.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Uhlmann, S., & Lugmayr, A. (2008). Personalization algorithms for portable personality. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Entertainment and media in the ubiquitous era. Tampere, Finland: ACM.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lugmayr, A., Reymann, S., Bruns, V., Rachwalski, J., & Kemper, S. (2009). Distributing the personal digital environment throughout your entertainment environment: handling personal metadata across domains. Multimedia Systems Journal, 15(3), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    American Press Institute. (n.d.). API’s program to create data-driven content strategies. Retrieved August 23, 2015, from
  55. 55.
    Edge, A. (n.d.). Changing the metric: What attention time means for journalists. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Filmuniversität Babelsberg KONRAD WOLFPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Curtin University PerthBentleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations