Abstract
As I write this editor’s note, I do so with a deep sense of gratitude and reflection. After 4 years serving as editor of News Research Journal, this issue will be my last before stepping away from the role. As an editor, it has been one of the great privileges of my professional life to work alongside scholars, reviewers, readers and professional colleagues who care deeply about journalism and the research that strengthens it.
First and foremost, I want to thank the authors who have entrusted NRJ with their work. Every submission represents a commitment to advancing knowledge about news, its impact in our lives and the role it plays in society. Your research helps us better understand a profession that continues to evolve amid technological disruption, changing audience expectations, economic pressures and new ethical challenges. The value of this journal depends on your willingness to ask important questions and pursue meaningful answers.
I am equally grateful to our editorial board whose expertise and generosity make scholarly publishing possible. Peer review is often invisible labor, yet it remains one of the most important contributions to our academic community. The thoughtful feedback reviewers provide strengthens manuscripts, sharpens arguments and improves the quality of scholarship published in these pages. Their service reflects the collaborative spirit that has long defined journalism research.
I also want to thank our readers. Our research only has value when it is engaged, debated, applied and extended. Whether you are a scholar, educator, student, newsroom leader or practicing journalist, your engagement with this work ensures that journalism research continues to inform both academic understanding and help improve our professional practice.
Finally, I want to offer heartfelt thanks to my journal associates, Dr. Kirstie Hettinga (associate editor) and Ms. Courtney Nelson (editorial assistant), who have put in countless hours behind the scenes to ensure the work of this journal moves forward. I couldn’t do it without them. With their help, along with the tremendous support of the AEJMC’s Newspaper and Online News Division leadership, we have made some made some important changes over the last few years, including refreshing our editorial board and implementing a name change to better reflect the research we’re publishing. I am proud of all we have been able to accomplish over these past 4 years—it truly has been a team effort.
It is my pleasure to share with you that Dr. Hettinga has been appointed the new lead editor for News Research Journal. Dr. Hettinga is an established scholar and long-time supporter of the journal with a firm grasp of what it will take to help NRJ grow into the future. In addition, Dr. Gina Masullo will step into the role of associate editor. Equally accomplished as a scholar, Dr. Masullo has been heavily involved with the journal as a contributor and reviewer. I am confident the journal is in very capable hands moving forward.
At a time when journalism faces rapid technological, economic and social change, the need for rigorous research has never been greater. Journalism research helps us understand shifting audience behaviors, emerging technologies, evolving professional norms and the changing relationship between news organizations and the public. It provides evidence where speculation often dominates and insight where uncertainty persists. Research serves as a bridge between theory and practice, helping journalism adapt while remaining grounded in its essential democratic mission.
What gives me the greatest optimism for the future is the quality of scholarship emerging from both established and emerging researchers. The questions being asked today are timely, innovative and consequential. They reflect a field that is willing to examine itself critically while remaining committed to journalism’s enduring public-service mission. I believe News Research Journal is well positioned to continue fostering scholarship that matters.
In This Issue
We are fortunate to have some great research to share in this issue.
Ashley Hopkins and Jeremy Saks investigate the impact of media frames in shaping perceptions of individuals featured in news coverage, focusing specifically on transgender representation. Using a between-subjects experimental design, they had participants read one of three versions of a mock news article that differed only in framing. Participants also completed a questionnaire after reading the story. They found the story that used a natural frame was rated as more credible and elicited more positive affect, compared with the stories with positive and negative frames. “For journalists, these findings highlight a critical tension between visibility and unintended bias activation,” the authors conclude.
Stefanie Davis Kempton analyzes news sources in the coverage of President Donald Trump’s proposal in 2025 to increase birthrates in the United States. Through a content analysis, Davis Kempton reviewed more than 100 online articles published during an 8-week period on national and regional media outlets. She found that the coverage was mostly framed politically, relying primarily on domestic politicians. In addition, male politicians were quoted most often and gender influence how often different news sources were used. She suggests,
As political, cultural and mediated conversations continue to include discussions on women’s reproduction and motherhood, it is critical that the news media give women a platform to express their opinions and lived experiences. Bringing more diverse opinions, voices and perspectives to journalism can only benefit the future of the news industry and society at large.
Steven Gardiner explores anticipated importance as it relates to how journalists allocate limited resources to sources deemed more “significant” to the audience, often disadvantaging other sources. Through a content analysis of 100 articles published by the Jamaican media during two of the country’s election cycles in 2011 and 2020, he identified a variety of variables, including the presence of political parties in the stories, tone and characterization of the articles and so on. He found that mainstream political parties are more often the prime focus of the coverage, were a factor in the story’s placement and so on. However, there was not a difference in the story length, the amount of coverage and so on based on whether the story involved mainstream parties or third parties. “While quantitative disparities in media coverage remain a valid concern globally, this study demonstrates that in small democratic systems with high media independence, third parties may receive comparable coverage volume-wise, but still face symbolic exclusion through framing strategies,” he concludes.
Gina Masullo and Shuting Yao test how U.S. news consumers assess bias and credibility of Facebook news posts, based on who is quoted or not quoted in the post. The authors randomly assigned participants to view a post written in one of five different styles: one quoting a Republican lawmaker, one quoting a Democratic lawmaker, one quoting both, one with contextual information and no quotes, and one quoting a government official. Their findings suggest strong support of the hostile media perception, where the political beliefs (not who was quoted) have the largest impact on whether people perceive the mainstream news media as biased or distrustful. They suggest,
Our findings highlight the need to overtly quote both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in political news and to give equal space and prominence to those quotes because our findings show that quotations are a strong driver of how people assess news bias and credibility perception.
Finally, Kelsey Slater, Christi McGeorge and Russell Toomey examine how news outlet’s framed San Jose State University’s volleyball season in 2024, when the team was a topic of discussion during the presidential campaign for its decision to have a transgender athlete on the team. Through the lens of framing and agenda setting, the authors analyzed more than 200 articles published by news outlets across the country during the volleyball season. They found that the overall framing of the season was disenfranchising toward the team and transgender athletes. The season was framed as “unfair to cisgender women competitors and teammates.” “The findings of this study also highlight the need for more training for sports journalists and media professionals on how to write about gender identity,” they recommend.