Digital media and investigative journalism in China

Abstract

Since 2014, “plot twist news” as a controversial news phenomenon has appeared extensively in Chinese digital communication. In the context of journalism, this refers to news facts provided in follow-up reporting that contradict the facts provided in the initial reporting. Based on interviews with 25 journalists who specialize in in-depth reporting in Beijing in 2017, this study suggests that the phenomenon of plot twist news in the Chinese context urges us to think about how “truth” is being interpreted by different social actors and how the different versions of narrated truth drive journalistic investigation. Built upon field theory, this article argues that the doxa and habitus of the journalism field are challenged by the audience in such a way that journalists try to respond to audience demands through reporting the truth.

Keywords:

• Chinese journalism
• investigative journalism
• digital media
• truth
• field theory
• audience

Introduction

Various studies investigating the experience of journalists from Western societies have discussed how, in the wake of the “post-truth” era, digital media have become a challenge to journalism in terms of the credibility, accuracy, verification, and truthfulness of the information circulated online. Although scholars (e.g. Cabañes, 2020; Guo, 2020; Wasserman, 2020) have started to draw attention to the relationship between journalistic practice and digital media in non-Western societies, such scholarship is comparatively thin and concentrates on notions and practices that are prevalent in the West, such as fake news and online rumors (Waisbord, 2018). This article examines how digital media have become a disruptive force challenging practices in the field of Chinese journalism and how the journalists who specialize in in-depth and investigative reporting make sense of such digital challenges in their reporting. In order to do so, this article introduces the notion of “plot twist news” (fan zhuan xin wen), which has become a popular phenomenon in Chinese digital communication since 2014, to capture the digital impacts on news production with the domestic characteristics of China. Specifically, I take this phenomenon as a point of departure to look at how digital media invite various forces into the field of Chinese journalism to develop different versions of narratives about what the “truth” is in a controversial news event, and at how these contrasting or even contradictory narratives of truth change the doxa and habitus of the journalistic field in China.

Based on 25 semi-structured interviews with journalists from mainstream media in Beijing in 2017, this study argues that the dispute over the truthfulness of news events is not about what facts are verified in published news reporting. More significantly, the controversial moment is constructed by the different interpretations of the perceived truth by the online audience on social media. As journalists and these online users are connected by a news event in the same field, the audience’s perception and interpretation of news events complicates journalistic investigation of truth. The journalists interviewed suggested that they need to prioritize the verification of aspect(s) that the audience is interested in, but which lack newsworthiness according to journalistic judgment. In addition to introducing the concept of plot twist news to illustrate the difficulties journalists face in knowing and reporting the truth of news events, I highlight how the advent of digital media disturbs the internal doxa and habitus of the journalistic field. First, journalists in this study suggested that they treat their online audience neither as a form of economic capital nor as cultural capital. Second, the discussion and consumption by audience members are identified as a counter force opposing journalists in investigating the truth of news, which changes the habitus of the field. Journalists who specialize in investigative reporting believed that it is more important for them to find out the basic facts, while their roles of advocacy and exposing the misconduct of powerful elites is secondary.

This article contributes to improving the understanding of digital journalism in China. While extensive studies question how the power of propaganda interrupts journalistic investigation in China (Brady, 2008; Guo, 2020; Latham, 2000; Nip & Fu, 2016), it is also important to know what roles digital media play in journalism. Furthermore, this study investigates the possible future relationship between identified political forces and journalism in a digital field and, specifically in China, why this is different from the journalism field of the past.

Literature review

As this study tries to explain the complexity of how Chinese investigative journalism experiences the challenge from the news audience empowered by digital media, this review of literature will firstly introduce field theory as the framework of this research and how field theory is interpreted in the context of journalism. Then, this review will highlight that the changing relations among different forms of capital (e.g. economic and cultural) could lead to the change of doxa inside the journalistic field. Third, I will briefly look at how the quality of investigative reporting faces this transition.

Field theory and its application in journalism studies

When Bourdieu (1990) first coined the term field theory in the mid-1960s, it was mainly used in literature and arts studies. According to Wacquant (2008, p. 268), field can be understood as follows: “the various spheres of life, art, science, religion, the economy, the law, politics and so on, tend to form distinct microcosms endowed with their own rules regularity and forms of authority—what Bourdieu calls fields.” Field theory is not a simple theory but incorporates many concepts, such as capital, doxa, and habitus. With these concepts, Bourdieu (1990) maps the field not only as a spatial area where the power dynamics can be observed, but also as a site where is structurally organized with its internal logic. Bourdieu (1990) points out that accessing a field requires a person or a group to comprehend the rationale of the field and accept the rules embedded in the operation and structure of this field. He originally interprets this rationale as doxa, referring to the tacit presuppositions that actors in this field know well (Benson, 1999; Benson & Neveu, 2005). In terms of how doxa came into being, Bourdieu suggests that dispositions which are based on the individual experience and knowledge of actors involved in the field form during the interactions among these actors (Wacquant, 2008). Bourdieu terms this process and the structural result of this process as habitus, which explains how the contestations among the forces (e.g. cultural, social, symbolic, and economic capital) maintain or challenge the structure of this field (Benson & Neveu, 2005). Field theory also reveals the internal struggles and tensions between different forces in the field (Martin, 2003; Wacquant, 2008). In order to make sense of the power structure and relationships in the field, Bourdieu argues that capital is a form of resource that actors can use to change their status in the field (Martin, 2003). Economic capital means property, assets, or money that can be financialized as a lucrative force, whereas cultural capital refers to the knowledge, experience, and skills that can be used to obtain legitimation and recognition in the field (Benson & Neveu, 2005; Wacquant, 2008).

The application of field theory to journalism studies does not have a long tradition, and scholars’ investigations focus on the power struggle inside the journalistic field (Maares & Hanusch, 2020). Benson (2006, p. 195) argues that “the journalistic field is seen as part of the field of power; that is, it tends to engage with first and foremost those agents who possess high volumes of capital. Within this field of power, however, it lies within the ‘dominated’ field of cultural production—a field within this larger field.” As highlighted in this quotation, we can tell that journalism is a field where various powers reside and can exert influence over journalistic works. The contestations between different forms of capital receive the most attention. However, Maares and Hanusch (2020, p. 15) note that “while forms of capital are useful to map variation in journalism both along broader traditions and genres, as well as between organizations and agents, the concept and its analytical power to research journalism has not yet been streamlined in journalism scholarship.” As tensions among forms of capital became the center of debate, many researchers explored how the economic, political, cultural, or symbolic capitals affect journalistic practices. For instance, Zeveleva (2019) observes that the journalistic field in Russian is experiencing sabotage from the centralized power of its political elites, and the implementation of political power can be seen in the highly centralized media ownership. Li (2019), by analyzing the advertising operation of US news publications, finds that pursuing business goals largely harms the professionalism of legacy media by blurring the boundary between editorial practices and business activities. When analyzing digital journalism, scholars have found that alternative news media (e.g. citizen journalism and aggregators) have entered the field of professional journalism and are challenging its authority over content-producing by applying its cultural capital (Tandoc & Foo, 2018). These media self-brand as professionals by mimicking the logic of legacy media and establishing their own styles.

The mutual transition among capitals in the digital age

Although economic capital is now deemed more powerful than cultural capital, it is common to see transition between capitals in the digital age (Li, 2019). The mutual transition between capitals significantly changes the doxa of the journalistic field. News organizations today are attending to the interests of the audience (Hermida, 2020; Li, 2019), regardless of the ownership of organizations. Audiences’ behaviors are highly important to advertisers, and news organizations have to integrate that into their selection, production, and even publication of news. In order to enlarge readership, news organizations need to be always well-informed about the tastes of their audience and find news tips from the diverse topics trending online by using news metrics and web analytics (Nelson & Lei, 2018; Yang & Peng, 2020). When the audience consumes or accesses information on a digital platform that they are familiar with, the owners of media platforms can make recommendations and suggestions to their audience regarding what to consume in the future through documenting and analyzing the digital trace that the audience leaves online. Scholars, such as Ignatow and Robinson (2017), argue that digital media plays its part as a form of information capital in a process of information production, including news production.

Legacy media also responds to the digital trend as a way of opening the online outlets to increase the competitiveness with media peers. The news content distributed on social media is often different from what is published in the printed version. A study from South Korea shows that the newspapers’ use of social media to distribute news is characterized by soft content and a strong political orientation (Heo & Park, 2014) . To increase the readership, newspapers also update their social media account frequently to keep their content fresh and stay close to their audience by analyzing the news comments (Nielsen, 2014; Edgerly & Vraga, 2020). Digital media has become an important tool for news media not only to “keep in touch” with their audience, but also build up a brand. A study of Buzzfeed (Tandoc & Foo, 2018) argues that digital communication enhances the way that economic capital works in the journalistic field. The funny and serious media content Buzzfeed distributes online has expanded its readership in the long run and promoted brand-building. Digital platforms work as an efficient tool for media organizations and individual journalists to obtain sources from online users and feedback from their audience, which facilitates the accumulation of economic and cultural capitals. As argued by Perreault and Stanfield (2019, p. 343), digital technology is a nexus that integrates “personal, environmental and audience factors” together.

While the relationship between cultural and economic capital is tightened by digital media, the doxa of this journalistic field is changed due to the participation of audiences at two levels.

First, individually, journalistic perceptions of what news is worthy of being covered need to take audience interests into consideration. This does not necessarily mean that the audience determines how journalists tell the story, but journalists cannot fully rely on their own understandings of newsworthiness from a professional point of view (Schultz, 2007; Edgerly & Vraga, 2020). Journalists’ judgment on the importance of news has to compromise with what concerns the audience (Loosen et al., 2020).

Second, from an organizational perspective, conflict could arise between journalists and editors. As each news organization has its target audience, editors play an important role in guiding journalists’ work, which makes sure audience and advertiser are pleased with their contents. Audience nowadays is located at the center of this journalistic field and does not merely work as a heteronomous force, which is a result of the rising power of digital communication.

This review documents how field theory is employed in journalism studies. Maares and Hanusch (2020) note that Bourdieu’s thoughts were not fully explored in journalism studies and Bourdieu did not clarify the use of these aforementioned concepts in journalism studies. Most investigations of these concepts are based on the practices in western societies. In order to explore how the digitally empowered audience works as one of the forces in the journalistic field in the Chinese context, the next section will introduce the concept of plot twist news as well as the landscape of digital media in China.

What is plot twist news?

In the context of journalism, plot twist news (fan zhuan xin wen) refers to news facts provided in follow-up reporting that contradict the facts provided in the initial reporting. The contrasting facts presented in two or more different versions of a report give the audience the impression that the initial reporting contains misinformation or disinformation. The phenomenon of plot twist news thus not only refers to the reporting activities of journalists and responses from the audience, but also implies the procedure of news production involving the engagement of different social actors. A wide spectrum of factors can result in the contrasting facts, including journalists’ or editors’ incongruity, propaganda demands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), commercial demands of news organizations, unverifiable testimony, fake evidence provided by interviewees, and so on. Thus far, no unified term or translation has been created to designate plot twist news. I developed this translation based on the literal meaning of the Chinese expression and the metaphorical expression I deciphered according to current Chinese scholarship. Such a combined translation has been proven to be an effective approach to making sense of Chinese indigenous phenomena in English (Zheng & Xiang, 2014). Specifically, “fan”, as an adjective in this context, refers to “reversal, against, or contrary”, and “zhuan”, which normally functions as a verb, refers to a motion or an act of “turn, shift, or change.” “Xin wen” simply means news.

Combined with the interpretations above, this research will adopt “plot twist” to describe this digitally empowered presence. On the one hand, “plot” shows the development of a news story as an ongoing and dynamic discourse in digital journalism. Similar expressions also can be seen from the experience of digital journalism in the West, which underlines the impact of immediacy on news production (Domingo et al., 2015). On the other hand, I term the change in the plot of a news story a “twist,” based on the definition of “twist” from the Oxford Dictionary of English (cited online; Stevenson, 2015). Twist not only means a directional shift from one side to another, but also implies a mixture of different properties of “a thing with a spiral shape.” In this research, “twist” demonstrates a situation where facts and distortions are mingled in news, and a spiral shape indicates that the news event is ongoing, and follow-up reporting could emerge at any time. Overall, plot twist news signifies the contradictory facts released in journalistic reporting of the same event in the past, present, or even future (follow-up reporting). It is not known which versions of reporting are closer to the “truth” as more facts or evidence could be revealed by journalists during the follow-up investigations. Thus, taking a holistic view, the verified facts, unverifiable testimony, misinformation, and even guess work are all twisted together, which distort the truth of the event. The findings of this study will further explain the use of plot twist news.

Plot twist news and Chinese digital journalism

According to Chinese literature, plot twist news is still a loosely defined notion in journalism studies, but there is agreement that plot twist news should be studied in the field of journalism because plot twist news is strongly associated with debates about how journalists engage in investigation and report news events, which highlights the relationship between journalists and their audience (Jiang, 2018). Although much Chinese research has looked into this phenomenon, the majority of debates are by journalistic practitioners and news commentators from mainstream online media (e.g. People.cn, Beijing News, and Xinhua Net). Cases including diverse topics attracted great attention from the public in recent years. For instance, in the “Luo’er event,” a father wrote on his social media account that his 5-year-old daughter was diagnosed with leukemia and he launched a crowdfunding online for her daughter’s medical treatment in December 2016. The appeal was proved by professional media (Beijing Youth Daily, 2017) to be not entirely true that the father had enough money to cover the medical expenses and was not in a financial crisis. In July 2017, a 12-year-old girl in a school in Henan claimed on social media that she was raped by a teacher more than 10 times. This girl admitted that she made up this during the investigation of China Youth Daily. Apart from the situation above that the “truth” was totally twisted, there were also cases that partial facts were found out different by journalists, which led to the change of public perceptions of the “truth,” including an event that some orphans in Liangshan were treated and trained brutally to work as wrestlers. This turned out to be that these orphans lived in an asylum and they were trained as wrestlers by a sports school, as this was revealed by Beijing News a month later.

Among the great discussions about how to define “truth” and “facts” along with the advent of plot twist news, the People’s Public Opinion Office, an affiliation of People’s Online Corporation (Jia, 2019, p. 22), in 2011 became the first organization to focus on this phenomenon. This is an organization simultaneously fulfilling the functions of academic research, surveillance, and propaganda under the lead of People’s Daily (People.cn) – one of the most important CCP propaganda organs in China. Established in 2008, the People’s Public Opinion Office monitors how the trending topics and buzzwords online come into being and what triggers a high volume of debate among netizens (Jia, 2019). Following this, Su (2018) finds that the first academic paper on plot twist news was published in 2014; by June 2018, 310 journal papers about this phenomenon could be identified from China National Knowledge Infrastructure (cnki.com) – the most comprehensive online platform in China for searching and retrieving academic materials, including journals, newspapers, yearbooks, dissertations, and reports (similar to Google Scholar).

Although this phenomenon has not been formally introduced into journalism studies as a distinct topic, a growing body of literature both in China (cnki.com) and internationally is exploring this aspect of digital journalism with various perspectives across the fields of journalism, communication, informatics, psychology, and public relations. Chinese scholars approach the study of plot twist news as a typical phenomenon in contemporary journalism and communication with three focuses. The first concerns the genres and attributes of news events – that is, what news topics are involved in plot twist news? Shi (2019) notes that stories involving social disputes over health, breaking stories, family, or education are likely to be twisted in news reporting. The second focus is on the causes of such twists in the narratives of news reports on digital media. Insufficient investigation by journalists, the pressures of publishing news in a digital environment, lack of media literacy among the news audience, and the weak ethical awareness of journalists are all possible reasons (Jiang, 2018; Yu & Hou, 2018). The third focus is on the relationship between journalism and online public opinion (Shi, 2019; Su, 2018). Su (2018) contends what has changed is the public’s perception of “truth” other than the “truth” of news reported by journalists. Among current Chinese scholarship, an in-depth investigation of plot twist news is absent because of its theoretical disengagement in journalism studies. To bridge the gap between Chinese literature on plot twist news and its conceptual engagement, I review the key debates in international publications regarding how Chinese journalists react to the digital environment in their reporting activities.

Digital media and its impact on Chinese journalism

The introduction of digital media into journalism in China has been controversial. To clarify, I use the term digital media here for the purpose of discussing the great capacity and plurality of online media. Digital media not only incorporates the online media with the function of socializing between users, but also describes the collective group of internet-based media in China.

First, digital media is viewed as another force, following the “marketization” of the 1980s, which promotes the freedom of journalists (Hassid & Repnikova, 2016; Repnikova, 2017). This argument is based on evidence from Chinese investigative journalists who concluded that more sources and clues of news stories were available on social media, which increased the opportunities for journalists to access events occurring in remote areas (Bei, 2013). As such, scholars (Tong, 2015b; Wang, 2016) argue that the prevalence of digital media in China allows different social actors, including activists, NGOs, environmental protectors, and public intellectuals to express their ideas and voice their demands. This provides material for journalists to carry out investigative reporting, especially in politically sensitive cases (Cui & Lin, 2015). Additionally, Chinese journalists suggest that they are benefiting from digital communication technologies with regards to the circulation of their reporting (Fu & Lee, 2016; Jian & Liu, 2018). In sum, the production and dissemination of journalistic reporting in China have changed drastically along with the boom in digital media (Wei, 2017).

However, some studies treat the thriving of digital media less optimistically. Given that digital media enhance the connection and interaction between professional media and audience in news production (Shoemaker et al., 2010; Wang, 2016; Xin, 2010), journalists consider that the authority of their news reporting is in danger. Tang and Sampson (2012) note that the irrational behavior of netizens’ is dangerous to the online public sphere. Tong’s case study (2015c) provides evidence to show that the emotional expressions of netizens online could mislead the public and harm the authority of journalism as the boundary between professional media and alternative media becomes blurred. In Xiang’s (2019) research, she argues although users on social media platforms could professionally use digital techniques to record an event first-hand, such contents online are provocative. Moreover, the CCP-controlled media cannot be free from mis-/dis-information. Guo (2020) notes that “fake news” frequently refers to rumors in the Chinese context, and one of the causes is the pursuit of profit by both commercial and official news organizations. Another recent study shows that Chinese investigative journalists do not always agree with the idea that digital media improve the efficiency of sourcing news, because the quality of sources-provided content is questionable (Xu & Gutsche, 2020).

It is apparent that digital media have brought institutional and structural changes to the Chinese media landscape (Zheng & Lu, 2018). While digital media initially allowed for more civic participation in public affairs, later on, the CCP integrated the control of this terrain into its institutionalized media system and reinforced the oversight of digital media (Han, 2018). With regards to the impact of digital media on journalism, on the one hand, it cannot only be argued that freedom of the press is expanded with the aid of digital media; on the other hand, the functions of digital media in journalistic reporting should not be overemphasized, as the quality of information and sources online is problematic. This article takes plot twist news as a journalistic phenomenon initiated by digital media, which brings disruptions to Chinese journalism in relation to how we understand what news is.

Method

Data collection

This study aims to explain an emerging and increasingly prevalent news phenomenon in the digital sphere in China. Qualitative interviews were utilized to explore the perceptions of journalists in the field. Arksey and Knight (1999, p. 10) argue that “qualitative approaches concentrate on understanding the thinking and behaviours of individuals and groups in specific situations.” Compared with quantitative methods, qualitative research looks at the real world from a dynamic aspect (Bryman & Burgess, 1999). The meaning of social practices comes from the contextualized situations in which different social actors are situated. With qualitative methods, researchers can capture the relations, interactions, and perceptions of individuals.

In order to understand the characteristics of this phenomenon in China specifically, it is vital to engage with its presence in the field of journalism and observe the nuanced transitions taking place in this field (O’Brien, 2006). Accordingly, this study is based upon semi-structured interviews with journalists in Beijing who carry out in-depth or investigative reporting on mainstream media. From September to December 2017, I interviewed 25 investigative journalists from different media organizations. The time span of the interview was coincident with the 19th National Congress of the CCP, and some journalists I interviewed said they were idle because the amount of negative reporting should be controlled during the Congress. These journalists were recruited by snowball sampling who were from newspapers (15), weekly magazines (6), and online news organizations (4). This sample allowed me to explore the views and experiences of investigative journalists in Beijing in a representative manner, since, according to a national survey (Zhang & Cao, 2017), 41% of the 175 journalists working in Beijing in 2017 identified themselves as investigative journalists. Although these journalists were not all associated with a single medium, the journalists from print media also published their reporting on digital media, which means their reporting would circulate online. Moreover, the media groups from which these journalists came include official, semi-official, and commercial organizations (Stockmann, 2013). All the journalists who were interviewed had experience in investigative or in-depth reporting. The journalists shared various interests in terms of what topics they specialized in, such as political affairs, legal affairs, social justice, environmental protection, and healthcare. Since most investigative journalists in China consider their occupation as sensitive (Wang, 2016), the identity of sampled journalists is concealed. The table presents information regarding the investigative journalists quoted in this article (Table 1) .

Table 1. Participants quoted in this study.

No. of journalists	Years in journalism	Current outlet
Participant 2	2	Newspaper
Participant 6	8	Newspaper
Participant 7	3	Online News
Participant 9	4	Newspaper
Participant 10	5	Newspaper
Participant 11	10+	Weekly Magazine
Participant 12	5	Weekly Magazine
Participant 14	4	Newspaper
Participant 15	3	Newspaper
Participant 16	10	Online News
Participant 17	3	Newspaper
Participant 18	10	Newspaper
Participant 19	10+	Newspaper
Participant 20	4	Newspaper
Participant 21	3	Newspaper
Participant 22	3	Weekly Magazine
Participant 24	7	Weekly Magazine
Participant 25	9	Newspaper

Most interviews (22) were conducted face-to-face, whereas the remaining (3) were conducted telephonically. The average length of each interview was 73 min, and the interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim by myself (with the consent of the journalists). Interviews were semi-structured and questions centered on journalists’ perceptions of fanzhuan news, which were worded as follows: 1) Do you think fanzhuan news is popular today? 2) Could you please give me an example of fanzhuan news? 3) What are the causes of fanzhuan news? 4) Do you consider fanzhuan news as fake news?

In order to analyze the transcripts, I used open coding, which does not require the researcher to quantify the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This coding refers to a process of “breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I firstly selected the parts where participants talked about fanzhuan news. As mentioned in the literature, journalists shared different understandings regarding this phenomenon. For instance, some of them agreed fanzhuan news is a form of fake news (Participants 23 and 18), whereas some did not (Participants 9, 15, and 17). Then I sorted out the news events participants identified as fanzhuan news.

A case study of Ma Rongrong’s death

Among the cases mentioned by the journalists I interviewed, the death of a pregnant woman in 2017 is one of the most mentioned, when these journalists and I discussed mis-/dis-information, verification and truth. The journalists I interviewed agreed that this is a typical case of fanzhuan news in recent years. Prior to discussing how plot twist news has changed the field of Chinese journalism, this section introduces the death of Ma Rongrong to show how the journalists regarded plot twist news.

On 31 August 2017, a pregnant woman, Ma Rongrong, committed suicide while in labor at the Shanxi Yulin hospital. After Ma jumped from the window of a ward on the 5th floor, the hospital released a soundless video showing Ma on her knees in front her husband, Qian Zhuangzhuang, on the floor of the hospital hallway. While the hospital released this video on its social media (Weibo) account, it did not offer a specific explanation about the context of the video. Following the video’s release, the hospital’s spokesman suggested that the video shows Ma kneeling down in front of her husband to beg for a C-section because of the immense pain she was experiencing. According to the hospital, Ma’s request was turned down by her husband because his family said a C-section costs more money, and natural birth would be better for Ma. Subsequently, a news story about how a husband ignored the pleas of his pregnant wife, ultimately leading to her death, flooded Chinese media.

However, Ma’s husband, Qian, provided another version of the story when he was interviewed by media. Qian articulated that the hospital said there was no problem with natural birth in Ma’s case, and there was no suggestion from the hospital that Ma needed a C-section. The dispute over Ma’s death triggered a great public outcry online in the following weeks. According to the data given by the People’s Public Opinion Office, there were 941 pieces of online news reported and 313 articles circulated on WeChat by 6th September (People.cn, 2017). As one of the most hotly debated news events in China in 2017 (Zhang & Li, 2018), this event entered the public spotlight for two reasons. First, along with the rise of the #metoo movement globally, a stream of online voices argued that Chinese females should make their own decisions about their rights related to pregnancy and birth – these issues should not be decided by their family or husband. Second, there was a dispute over the “truth” of this tragedy. The contradictory versions of the narrative by different parties involved in this event attracted the attention of the audience, opinion leaders, and commentators on social media.

In such a scenario where the “truth” is hard to determine, and each side presents a different statement, the investigation of professional journalists is quite crucial to debunk the rumors (Tong, 2015a). An investigative journalist working for a mainstream newspaper, who first scooped this news story, told me (Participant 17):

As I went to investigate this case, I interviewed Ma Rongrong’s husband. He showed me his phone and the messages inbox were full of texts with vicious language from many unknown phone numbers […] He received more than 600 text messages within a day and too many messages to make his phone work properly. And phone calls may come in at any time from people he didn’t know.

This journalist found that after Ma committed suicide, the hospital immediately made a statement on Weibo and narrated this event from their own viewpoint – namely, that Ma’s husband rejected the doctor’s suggestion to perform a C-section. This occurred prior to Ma’s husband making his statement. Another journalist remarked about his colleague’s experience while investigating this event (Participant 20):

In the beginning, discussions online about Ma’s death were fully occupied by one-side voice that Ma’s husband was considered as a person who treated his wife as a tool for birth and refused to spend money on her.

Nevertheless, while Ma’s husband and his family realized that they were at a disadvantage, they found ways to make their voices heard. “They asked help from a Big V (an online influencer) on Weibo and made a statement about what they did and how the hospital responded in different timelines,” Participant 17 continued. In the follow-up reporting of this event, this journalist told me that his investigation showed Ma’s husband was not like what was reported online.

I interviewed the relatives and friends of Ma and her husband’s family and what was said [by netizens] most was they were a harmonious family and unlikely to have dispute over the money issues. I cannot verify every least detail of what was said by Ma’s husband, but my reporting introduced the attitudes of Ma’s husband, which cleared some doubts of the public that it [the event/truth] was not like what was told initially. (Participant 17)

More than one journalist mentioned that what confused them most during the investigation were the professional operations from the hospital and the subsequent discussions of Ma’s family issues among the audience online (Participants 14, 17, and 20).

Findings

Ma’s case is only one example of many given by journalists during interviews. Journalists in this study shared different views about plot twist news and why it occurred. Participant 24 considered that social media’s facilitation of the update of information is the key cause of plot twist news, whereas Participant 26 said the limited level of media literacy of audience is the main reason. Some Participants (2, 3, 7, and 13) mentioned both points and argued that finding the truth is the job of journalists, but that it took time for them to collect evidence and reveal the truth. During this process, audience’s participation could contribute to providing more tips and clues, while they also could mislead the investigation. Participant 16 said that they gave priority to investigating the aspects which the audience was interested in, but that the audience’s interests in news cannot take the lead during the investigation. He remarked:

Although we rely on audience for a living, we are a public apparatus. We cannot be kidnapped by the audience’s taste. That’s what I told novice journalists.

Veteran journalists especially said that the news topics with high social significance are worthy of looking into, even if sometimes such topics were of less concern to the audience (Participants 16 and 18). The news events trending on the public agenda probably will not become the focus of these veteran journalists. On the one hand, investigative reporting highlights in-depth and even long-term investigation. “Finding the truth is similar to peeling an onion. Patience is very important,” Participant 7 told me. On the other hand, the journalists I interviewed insisted that they have professional judgment regarding how to evaluate the newsworthiness of events. Following the trend to report hot-button issues to cater to the audience’s demand is not their style. Knowing the truth requires patience from both audience and media professionals. “Audience has to accept the fact that the truth is often different from what they expected,” Participant 2 said. In the initial reporting of any event, journalists could only cover one aspect of the story due to the fact that other sides of the story could not immediately be known. However, pressured by the immediacy and workload of reporting, journalists published what they had obtained up to the deadline. Although publishing credible, in-depth, interpretive reporting is one of the characteristics of Chinese investigative journalism (Zhang & Cao, 2017), this is not always easy to achieve.

Although these journalists cannot provide a unified explanation regarding the causes of plot twist news, what they commonly addressed is the complicated relationship between journalists, audience, social media, and truth. Conventionally, a commitment to journalism in China entails an attempt to uncovering the truth and present findings to the audience (Tong, 2011). Audience mostly performs the role of the consumer in this relationship, even though the audience can question the account offered by journalists. However, according to interviewees, journalists in this study were concerned more about the audience’s behavior in producing and circulating content online. Journalists said they had gotten used to receiving problematic information from the audience and they reckon it is their duty to verify the accuracy of information; they would not expect others could offer them pure “facts”. What journalists found daunting is that audiences were more likely to believe what they want to believe, and make judgments based on such information (Participants 11 and 25). Such truth usually contains controversial elements, such as sensationalism, conspiracy, and tabloidization. Once journalists finished their investigation and published a full story conflicting with the audience’s belief, these journalists were often blamed by their audience for failing to meet the public’s expectation of the story’s ending. In this scenario, the audience does not purely consume the news, but also creates their own narrative of news stories by using the fragmented information they have obtained. Compared with the journalistic version, the audience’s version is more attractive and influential in a short period, as suggested by interviewees.

Discussion

Specifically, two themes emerge from findings that reveal conflict in this journalistic field as contested. First, news audiences on the digital platforms could actively share and publish information online and lead to the change of journalistic investigation of the truth. Journalists’ perception of how truth is constructed and in what ways evidence can be obtained is influenced by the audience’s behavior online. Second, based on the first point, audience is not only a form of economic and cultural capital, but more significantly, it works as a counterforce rivaling journalistic investigation.

Audience’s interests and the changing doxa

Most journalists in this study said that the audience’s interest online disrupts journalists’ understanding of the norms and values they performed in the news production, the doxa of journalists established in the long run by their professional norms, organizational guidelines, and individual knowledge. Here, the change of doxa mainly means that journalistic judgment of newsworthiness can be compromised by audiences’ interests shown on the online agenda.

Several participants mentioned that the importance of the audience in their news production extends beyond consumption. When the audience receives a piece of news, they seek additional approaches to obtain the further information they are interested in (Liang & Fu, 2017), and it is unavoidable that mis-/disinformation mingled with credible information. In the case of Ma Rongrong’s death, journalists observed that audiences sometimes make decisions based on problematic information, “because people cannot distinguish what was covered by professional media and what was by self-media [social media], and they really believe in that [disinformation]” (Participant 21). Participants reported that when information from various sources emerged online, they would evaluate the credibility of this information according to the audio, visual, and textual evidence provided by sources (Participants 14 and 12). However, the audience’s perceptions of the truth of an event lead journalists to investigate what the audience suggested was important, which may not be important from a journalistic perspective. This not only disturbs journalists’ routine of verification but also challenges journalists’ judgment on the importance of news. Participant 6 stated, “it [the development of Chinese journalism] seems to have gone back to the age of tabloidization.” It makes sense that vulgar content has continued to appear in tabloids, but if quality media has begun to adopt this style, journalism is regressing. Participant 15 said that he avoided including such sensational content in his reporting. “If I investigated the downfall of an official and I found out he had many mistresses, I would not exert great effort to verify that,” he said, elaborating on his view that sensational plots are not what investigative journalists should cover in their reporting.

Journalists, in whatever context they functioned, were fully aware of the gap between their own perceptions of newsworthiness and those of the audience (Loosen et al., 2020; Nelson & Lei, 2018), but they had different ways to balance the audience’s demands and their professional judgment, in order to keep their reporting in a good quality. Participant 17 considered that clearing up the doubts of the public when plot twist news appeared was crucial, whereas some Participants (11, 18, and 19) suggested that they should abandon topics they did not consider newsworthy. The difference is due to the doxa of journalists formed during their investigation of news events. According to Schultz (2007), such doxa is based on three types of journalistic perception of news: self-evident, agreed upon, and disagreed upon. In this study, some journalists would give priority to covering the stories that the audience is eager to know, and the agreed and self-evident aspects of news would be of secondary importance to some journalists.

Overall, most journalists reckoned that the prevalence of digital media increased the difficulty of balancing immediacy, verification, and audience’s interests. While a large number of clues and hints provided by users appeared online, journalists have to make a judgment about which clues to follow up; this process is time-consuming and risks losing the immediacy of reporting. It is thus inevitable that some facets of an event cannot be verified, when possibly these unverifiable details are crucial for the audience to understand the “truth.” Participant 17 remarked in the case of Ma Rongrong’s death, “at least what I got were facts with evidence.” This situation partly confirms what was argued in the western context that the audience’s interest is placed at the center of news discourse in the digital production of news (Edgerly & Vraga, 2020). But conversely, evidence from this study shows that this doxa of the journalistic field in China is not as stable as suggested in the western literature, which the change of doxa is not easy to observe. Although journalists in this study confirmed that they are faithful to the truth and “speak with facts,” faced with the doubts of their audience, they have to clear up the doubts first.

Capital as a (counter) force

As digital media invites audiences into the journalistic field, the journalists surveyed demonstrated an ambivalent attitude toward their audience. On the one hand, addressing the needs of the audience is reasonable; on the other hand, what to investigate should not be determined by the audience. Existing literature shows that the news audience was once a positive force for accelerating the speed of media marketization in China (Yu, 2006), and investigative reporting once had a strong advantage over other forms of journalism due to its ability to attract audiences through its in-depth, interpretive, and factual nature (Tong, 2011).

However, nowadays, journalists believe they are losing this advantage, and the audience is not purely a form of capital for them. Digital media (including aggregators and portal media) have become major platforms for the audience to consume news as their customized content attracts more audience members (Cnnic, 2017). The prevalent use of algorithms in news aggregators successfully attracts news audience members to subscribe to their contents, and the audience’s taste in news is formed during their consumption of these news sources. In addition to seeing the audience as news consumers, they are also seen as producers of news contents. During their news consumption, speculations arise and become mixed with facts circulated online. In this scenario, journalists not only clarify the facts as part of their professional role, but they are also in a type of race with their audience to “unveil facts.” From the perspective of the journalists who participated in this study, the meaning digital media holds for them is contradictory. The capital an audience brings to journalists goes beyond the number of subscribers (an aspect that can be converted into economic capital); the audience also provides new directions for journalists to investigate, which spurs new rounds of discussion about the news. In a negative sense, journalists feel their reporting should not be led by the audience, as they have to preserve their professionalism and the quality of their reporting. Avoiding purely sensational and thrilling news is a generally accepted approach among journalists to maintain their professionalism.

Conclusion

This study uses field theory to explain the complexity of the production of digital journalism in China. Two implications arise from the findings and discussion.

First, this study introduced a journalistic phenomenon with characteristics that are indigenous to China. Many studies have unpacked the ecology of Chinese online media by adopting the themes and concepts that are dominant in the West; however, this study suggests that some assumptions in the Western academic discourse do not fit the Chinese domestic context. A journalist with more than 10 years’ working experience said he did not think the buzzwords imported from the West – such as post-truth and fake news – fit the context of China (Participant 19). He said: “fake news has already appeared 30 year ago. It is not a new thing at all.” From the participants’ perspectives, digital media do not change their way of finding truth and facts. What is challenged is how to deal with their relationship with their audience – particularly online users. This will directly change journalistic perceptions of news and the standard for news selection, namely, the doxa of the journalistic field. Rather than categorizing plot twist news into the wide spectrum of “fake news” (Tandoc et al., 2018), I suggest that such an indigenous phenomenon in Chinese journalism should be discussed due to its complexity of the relationship of forces in the journalistic field and journalistic culture. As demonstrated in the case of Ma Rongrong’s death, making a distinction between facts and problematic information is not the only concern of journalists. Meanwhile, these journalists have to put the concerns of the audience at the center of their investigation but that is not to say that the audience’s demands are rational and could contribute to knowing the truth.

The second implication that arises from the findings of this study is that digital media complicate the forces in the field of journalism in China. The extant literature argues that the online audience is an important source of economic and social capital that journalists can use to examine the news agenda and check trending topics (Xia et al., 2020). Online journalists could attract various types of audience members by providing quality news and use such attention as a form of cultural capital. From this perspective, the shifting in-between economic capital and cultural capital promotes the circulation of and subscription to journalistic reporting among the audience (Xia et al., 2020). However, with regard to the investigation of Ma Rongrong’s death, it is not useful for journalists to see audiences as either competitors or collaborators. Previous studies show extensively how audiences enter the field of journalism and create a neighboring field (Li, 2019; Wang, 2018), but the journalists I encountered argued that what comes along with the audience is more than capital. The audience can compete with journalists and nudge journalists to change their established doxa of news selection and investigation.

This study mainly focuses on the experiences of journalists who specialize in in-depth reporting. Consequently, the findings cannot be generalized to other forms of journalism. Furthermore, the sampled journalists were from different types of media platforms, which could influence their perceptions of plot twist news. It is important to note that although plot twist news is a phenomenon that has been examined in the field of Chinese journalism, there is little research that identifies the causes and effects of this phenomenon, because the topic is closely tied to the personal perceptions of journalists. Although western evidence-based research has informed us that race, gender, and religious belief have impacts on the practices of media professionals, these explanations in Chinese context are thin. In China, the disparity among individuals could arise from the personal relationship between journalists, encounters in the field, journalistic consumption of information, and so on. Future studies of journalism and media in non-western contexts should evaluate the domestic nature and characteristics of individual practices of journalists at the micro level of analysis.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).