News 2.0. Ahmed Al-Rawi

be deceiving because of the use of bots, troll armies, and paid users. In addition, relying on one indicator may not always be a good option when studying News 2.0. For example, the public Facebook pages of news organizations show their number of likes or followers. This can be an important indicator of the popularity of some pages or outlets, but it does not necessarily reflect real engagement with news. To provide a clearer picture, I used Netvizz, a social media mining tool, in mid‐2017 to extract data from 26 Facebook pages belonging to different Arabic and English news media outlets. In total, I retrieved the metadata of 157 844 Facebook posts made between January 20, 2010 and April 13, 2017, which generated 326 257 464 reactions. The digital tool has a 10 000‐news‐stories limitation, and it is not clear whether all or most of the stories were retrieved, so there is a clear research limitation here. Regarding the more than 300 million Facebook reactions, they refer to the total number of likes and emotional reactions (wow, anger, haha, awe, and sad) but do not include the number of comments and shares. A whopping 91 out of 100 of the top posts belonged to Fox News (Table 1.1), despite the fact that its Facebook page has far fewer likes than CNN and the BBC. These top 100 posts got 31 893 875 reactions, which is a useful reminder that researchers have to analyze several indictors before judging the popularity of, and audience engagement with, news organizations and their content.

In this book, I examine News 2.0 on different platforms, approaching the phenomenon from different angles using a variety of digital methods and computational journalism approaches. From the side of content and its producers, I mostly use news values theory to examine differences and similarities in news coverage, providing important insight into the nature of global and regional news flow. There are several studies that examine the comments sections of news sites using, for example, content analysis (Abdul‐Mageed 2008; McCluskey and Hmielowski 2012), but there are few empirical studies that have investigated the content of news stories posted on news organizations' SNS channels, especially from a cross‐national comparative perspective. Sonia Livingstone outlines the challenges of this type of research, but also highlights its many benefits, including “improving understanding of one's own country; improving understanding of other countries; testing a theory across diverse settings; examining transnational processes across different contexts … etc.” (2003, p. 479). This book purposefully uses many non‐English and non‐Western case studies. For decades, many scholars have been calling for a de‐Westernization of journalism, media, and communication research (Park and Curran 2000). Waisbord and Mellado define de‐Westernization as follows: “It is grounded in the belief that the study of communication has been long dominated by ideas imported from the West …. Underlying this position is the argument that ‘Western’ theories and arguments are inadequate to understand local and regional communication processes and phenomena” (2014, p. 362). The main premise behind the de‐Westernization trend is not a wholesale rejection of Western theories or media studies, but rather the “enrichment” of the available theories and methods (Wang 2010, p. 3). According to Shelton Gunaratne, de‐Westernization should refer to “the addition of multiple approaches to investigate problems in their proper context, so that factors such as culture, environment, ideology and power are not omitted from the theoretical framework or held to be constant (ceteris paribus)” (2010, p. 474). This is an issue on which Wasserman and de Beer principally agree, calling for in‐depth theoretical research rather than the mere provision of “descriptive comparative studies of journalism” (2009, pp. 428–429). One of the main problems of mainstream, Western media studies is its limited, Eurocentric and Anglo‐American coverage. For example, in their review of previous research done on news sharing, Kümpel, Karnowski, and Keyling surveyed a total of 461 research papers published between 2004 and 2014, and found that there was an obvious focus on studies that dealt with the United States (about 79%), with “only a few that addressed other countries and almost none that discussed possible cultural differences or actually made cross‐country comparisons” (2015, p. 10). Kümpel et al. recommend expanding news sharing studies “to multiple countries and cultural settings” (2015, p. 10). This suggestion was echoed by Wilkinson and Thelwall, who recommended examining “international differences in news interests through large‐scale investigations of Twitter” (2012, p. 1634). Hanitzsch, among others, has noticed obvious Western bias in the selection of academic research topics, which “giv[es] scholars from the Global North a considerable advantage” (2019, p. 214). Instead of relying on social media data in the English language alone, this book attempts to fill a major gap in the literature by examining data in the Arabic language as posted by a variety of news organizations, allowing a closer examination of international news.

Table 1.1 Facebook news pages and frequency of total reactions.

No.	Page	No. of posts	Total reactions
1)	CNN Arabic	9993	739 369
2)	The Guardian	3241	1 963 470
3)	The Independent	6663	5 737 015
4)	Youm 7 ( )	9995	3 547 479
5)	Al Arabi	7081	1 328 947
6)	Hufftington Post‐Arabi	8366	2 022 548
7)	RT Arabic	9888	9 198 863
8)	DW Arabic	9965	8 263 656
9)	Fox News	7070	164 201 316
10)	Al Jazeera Arabic	9740	36 529 076
11)	The Daily Mail	4195	5 128 176
12)	SkyNews	2166	1 299 939
13)	SkyNews Arabia	9936	10 936 313
14)	France24	1657	107 467
15)	BBC News	3846	7 914 869
16)	DW	7956	827 397
17)	France24 Arabic