Rasmus Kleis Nielsen and Sarah Ganter. 2017. ‘Dealing with digital intermediaries: A case study of the relations between publishers and platforms’. New Media & Society. doi: 10.1177/1461444817701318. Link (open access). PDF here.
Abstract: The rise of digital intermediaries such as search engines and social media is profoundly changing our media environment. Here, we analyze how news media organizations handle their relations to these increasingly important intermediaries. Based on a strategic case study, we argue that relationships between publishers and platforms are characterized by a tension between (1) short-term, operational opportunities and (2) long-term strategic worries about becoming too dependent on intermediaries. We argue that these relationships are shaped by news media’s fear of missing out, the difficulties of evaluating the risk/reward ratios, and a sense of asymmetry. The implication is that news media that developed into an increasingly independent institution in the 20th century—in part enabled by news media organizations’ control over channels of communication—are becoming dependent upon new digital intermediaries that structure the media environment in ways that not only individual citizens but also large, resource-rich, powerful organizations have to adapt to.
– – – –
Fletcher, Richard, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. ‘Paying for Online News’. Digital Journalism 0 (0): 1–19. doi:10.1080/21670811.2016.1246373. Link.
Abstract: Private news media across the world are trying to develop pay models for news. Our understanding of what drives behaviour and attitudes to paying for online news, however, remains limited. We use survey data from six countries (France, Germany, Japan, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States) to investigate three hypotheses: (1) those who use public service media for online news are less likely to pay for/express a willingness to pay because they have a reference price of zero for online news, (2) those who pay for print newspapers are more likely to pay for/express a willingness to pay for online news because they have a reference price above zero for offline news, and (3) that younger people are more likely to pay for/express a willingness to pay for online news because they are more likely to have a reference price above zero for other digital content. Our analysis supports Hypotheses 2 and 3, but not Hypothesis 1. Therefore, paying for offline news increases the likelihood of paying for online news because it helps create a reference price above zero. However, consuming free online news from public service media does not by itself create a reference price of zero for online news.
– – – –
Abstract: To understand journalism, we need to understand how people understand journalism. We need to examine what I define as “folk theories of journalism”, actually existing popular beliefs about what journalism is, what it does, and what it ought to do that people use to make sense of journalism across sources of news, means of accessing news, and ways of engaging with news. In this paper, I use data from interviews and focus groups to identify different and sometimes contradictory views of the role played by a local newspaper in Denmark to develop the notion of folk theories of journalism. I reconstruct three different folk theories in the case community around conceptions of relevance and place, one defining the local newspaper as relevant and local (“our newspaper”), a second defining it as relevant, but geographically or politically biased (“their newspaper”), and a third defining it as neither relevant nor local (“what newspaper?”). I show that the nominally “same” newspaper means different things to people depending on which folk theory they see it through and argue that journalism studies need to pay more attention to the different ways in which people interpret journalism to understand it.
– – – –
Karpf, David, Daniel Kreiss, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, and Matthew Powers. 2015. ‘The Role of Qualitative Methods in Political Communication Research: Past, Present, and Future.’ International Journal of Communication 9: 19. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4153 (introduction to special issue). Link.
Abstract: This article makes the case for a new era of qualitative research to contribute to the study of political communication at a time of rapid media change. We detail the history of a tradition of mixed-methods research in the United States from the 1920s to the 1960s, and chart the rise of the currently dominant quantitative methodological consensus from the 1970s onward. We examine key works within this older tradition of mixed-methods research for examples of how scholars used field research and other qualitative methods to build theory and analyze social life. We conclude with a discussion of the ways qualitative research, including the articles in this special section, can complement quantitative work and advance the field of political communication.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2015. ‘Social Media and Bullshit.’ Social Media + Society 1 (1): 2056305115580335. doi:10.1177/2056305115580335 (invited essay). Link.
Abstract: To understand the role of social media in society, we have to understand how social media are understood. We need to analyze how different actors and organizations see and think about technology, the forms of knowledge that people draw on as they make sense of, develop, and use social media. Central among these is bullshit. This short essay discusses bullshit as defined by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt as statements made with little or no concern for their truth-value or justification and argues that social media are accompanied by unusually large amounts of bullshit for two reasons. First, they confront us with epistemological problems and are hard to understand. Second, there is a large demand for knowledge about what they mean, a powerful political economy that generates a lot of statements about social media, including substantial amounts of bullshit. Given the rapid development of social media and their growing importance, this is unlikely to change in the near future. Bullshit is here to stay, and we need to take it seriously intellectually and analytically to understand social media.
– – – –
Brüggemann, Michael, Edda Humprecht, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Kari Karppinen, Alessio Cornia, and Frank Esser. 2015. ‘Framing the Newspaper Crisis.’ Journalism Studies (online first): 1–19. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2015.1006871. Link.
Abstract: This article argues that discourses of a newspaper “crisis” should not be regarded simply as descriptions of the actual state of the press but also as a means by which strategic actors frame the situation. The emerging frames can have substantial consequences for media policy making. The study identifies four key frames used to portray the newspaper “crisis” and discusses their relevance for public debates in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Similarities and differences are examined through 59 in-depth interviews with policymakers and industry executives as well as a qualitative analysis of policy documents and relevant media coverage. The study demonstrates that debates on the newspaper “crisis” are only partly influenced by (1) economic realities and (2) media policy traditions in the six countries but also reflect (3) the strategic motives of powerful actors and (4) the diffusion of frames across borders, particularly those coming from the United States. A transnationally uniform paradigm emerges according to which the state is expected to play the role of a benevolent but mostly passive bystander, while media companies are expected to tackle the problem mainly by developing innovative content and business strategies. This liberal market paradigm displays one blind spot however: it does not seriously consider a scenario where the market is failing to provide sustainable journalistic quality.
– – – –
Abstract: The rise of new media and the broader set of social changes they are part of present political communication research with new challenges and new opportunities at a time when many think the field is at an intellectual impasse (e.g., Bennett & Iyengar, 2008). In this article, I argue that parts of the field’s problems are rooted in the way in which political communication research has developed since the 1960s. In this period, the field has moved from being interdisciplinary and mixed-methods to being more homogenous and narrowly focused, based primarily on ideas developed in social psychology, certain strands of political science, and the effects-tradition of mass communication research. This dominant paradigm has contributed much to our understanding of some aspects of political communication. But it is struggling to make sense of many others, including questions concerning people’s experience of political communication processes and questions concerning the symbolic, institutional, and technological nature of these processes—especially during a time of often rapid change. To overcome this problem, I argue that the field of political communication research should re-engage with the rest of media and communication studies and embrace a broader and more diverse agenda. I discuss audience research and journalism studies as examples of adjacent fields that use a more diverse range of theoretical and methodological tools that might help political communication research engage with new media and the new challenges and new opportunities for research that they represent.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis and Kim Christian Schrøder 2014, The Relative Importance of Social Media for Accessing, Finding, and Engaging with News: an eight-country cross-media comparison. Digital Journalism. Link. [Pre-publication version available here.]
Abstract: The growing use of social media like Facebook and Twitter is in the process of changing how news is produced, disseminated, and discussed. But so far, we have only a preliminary understanding of (1) how important social media are as sources of news relative to other media, (2) the extent to which people use them to find news, (3) how many use them to engage in more participatory forms of news use, and (4) whether these developments are similar within countries with otherwise comparable levels of technological development. Based on data from a cross-country online survey of news media use, we present a comparative analysis of the relative importance of social media for news in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, covering eight developed democracies with different media systems. We show that television remains both the most widely used and most important source of news in all these countries, and that even print newspapers are still more widely used and seen as more important sources of news than social media. We identify a set of similarities in terms of the growing importance of social media as part of people’s cross-media news habits, but also important country-to-country differences, in particular in terms of how widespread the more active and participatory forms of media use are. Surprisingly, these differences do not correspond to differences in levels of internet use, suggesting that more than mere availability shapes the role of social media as parts of people’s news habits.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis and Cristian Vaccari 2013, Do People “Like” Politicians on Facebook? Not really. Large-Scale Direct Candidate-to-Voter Online Communication as an Outlier Phenomenon. International Journal of Communication. Volume 7, 2013. Link. [Open access, available here.]
Abstract: The online popularity of a few exceptional candidates has led many to suggest that social media have given politicians powerful new ways of communicating directly with voters. Examining whether this is happening on a significant scale, we find that, based on analysis of 224 major party candidates running in competitive districts for the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2010 congressional elections, most politicians online are, in fact, largely ignored by the electorate. Citizens’ attention to candidates online approximates power-law distributions, with a few drawing many followers and most languishing in obscurity. Because large-scale direct online communication between politicians and ordinary people via these platforms is a rare, outlier phenomenon—even in the case of high-stakes, well-resourced campaigns—we suggest that the most relevant political implications of social media take the form of (a) new forums for indirect communication about politics and (b) institutional changes in political communication processes.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2013, ‘Frozen’ media subsidies during a time of media change: A comparative analysis of media policy drift in six Western democracies. Global Media and Communication. Online first. DOI:10.1177/1742766513504203. Link. [Pre-publication version available here.]
Abstract: Media systems around the world have changed in significant ways in the early 21st century. In this article, I analyse how various forms of media subsidies have changed in response to these transformations in a sample of six different affluent democracies. On the basis of interviews, official documents and secondary sources, I show that media subsidies have largely remained frozen in their late-20th century form. The absence of major reform means that media subsidies are increasingly subject to policy drift, a process by which the operations and effectiveness of policies change not because of deliberate reform, but because of changing conditions on the ground. Analysis of interviews with relevant stakeholders suggests that the main obstacles to reform across all six countries are: (1) limited political attention to the problem; (2) strong incumbent industries protecting their interests; and (3) a perceived shortage of desirable, cost-effective, and governable alternatives to existing policies.
– – – –
Nielse, Rasmus Kleis, Frank Esser, and David A.L. Levy 2013, Comparative Perspectives on the Changing Business of Journalism and its Implications for Democracy, International Journal of Press/Politics 18 (4): 382-391. DOI: 10.1177/1940161213497130. Link.
Abstract: The last decade has seen tremendous change in the commercial news media that play a central role in political processes in democracies around the world, as well as considerable progress in cross-national comparative media research. But despite the impact of Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini’s book Comparing Media Systems, empirical research into the institutional and systemic preconditions of journalism and news production has not kept pace with the rapid changes in the media, nor with the advances made in other areas of comparative media research (such as studies of news media use, journalists’ role-conceptions, and of news content). In this piece, we call for further institutionally and system-oriented mixed-methods comparative research to advance our understanding of how current changes are impacting journalism, the news media, and ultimately politics in different settings. We suggest that existing conceptions of media systems as ideal types need to be supplemented with more empirically grounded and systematically comparative understanding of media systems as dynamic, evolving real types to capture how journalism is changing today.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2013, The Absence of Structural Americanization: Media System Developments in Six Affluent Democracies, 2000–2009. International Journal of Press/Politics 18 (4): 392-412. DOI: 10.1177/1940161213502285. Link. [Pre-publication version available here.]
Abstract: Several comparative media researchers have hypothesized that the media systems of affluent Western democracies are becoming more and more structurally homogeneous—that they are becoming “Americanized.” This article uses data on newspaper industry revenues, commercial television revenues, Internet use, and funding for public service media from a strategic sample of six countries to test the structural version of the convergence hypothesis, looking at the period from 2000 to 2009. (The countries included are Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.) The analysis demonstrates an “absence of Americanization” as the six media systems have not become structurally more similar over the last decade. Instead, developments are summarized as a combination of (1) parallel displacements, (2) persistent particularities, and (3) the emergence of some new peculiarities. Theoretically, economic and technological forces were expected to drive convergence. The article suggests that the reason these forces have not driven convergence in recent years may be that the interplay between them have changed as part of a broader shift from the mass media, mass production, and mass markets characteristic of twentieth-century Western societies and toward the fragmented media landscapes, tailored production, and niche marketing increasingly characteristic of early-twenty-first century affluent democracies.
– – – –
Vaccari, Cristian and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen 2013, What Drives Politicians’ Online Popularity? An analysis of the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics.DOI:10.1080/19331681.2012.758072. Link. [Pre-publication version available here.]
Abstract: The number of Web site visits, Facebook friends, or Twitter followers that politicians attract varies greatly, but little is known about what drives politicians’ online popularity. In this article, we use data from a systematic tracking of congressional candidates’ popularity on four Web platforms in the 112 most competitive congressional districts in the 2010 U.S. midterm elections to address that question. Using multivariate regression models, we show that while district-level socioeconomic characteristics have little effect on candidates’ online popularity, challengers and candidates in open-seat races tend to attract larger audiences online, as do candidates who are more visible on political blogs. Surprisingly, how intensely candidates are covered in news media, how popular they are in opinion polls, and how much money they spend during the campaign show no significant effect. These findings help us understand the dynamics of Internet politics, and they have wider implications for candidate competition and party politics.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2013, Mundane Internet Tools, the Risk of Exclusion, and Reflexive Movements: Occupy Wall Street and Political Uses of Digital Networked Technologies. Sociological Quarterly. DOI: 10.1111/tsq.12015. Link. [Pre-publication version available here.]
Abstract: Starting from a view of contemporary forms of activism as “internet-assisted” (Nielsen, 2011) I will make three observations about the Occupy movement and its use of, amongst other things, social media like Twitter as parts of wider organizing practices. First, digital and networked technologies are relatively mundane tools to most of the activists who use them (and thus from their perspective not “new media”). Second, because Occupy defines itself as a broad-based movement for social justice (“We are the 99%”), it is clear that there are many amongst those that the digitally savvy Occupy activists hope to engage, mobilize, and represent who do not have regular internet access, social networking profiles, or high web use skills—facts that raise the risk of social exclusion. Third, key individuals in the Occupy movement are acutely aware of the organizing challenges that their partial reliance on digital and networked technologies represents, and have worked strategically and reflexively to monitor their own forms of communication and organizing in part to handle this problem.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2012, How Newspapers Began to Blog: Recognizing the role of technologists in old media organizations’ development of new media technologies. Information, Communication, and Society. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.694898. Link. [Pre-publication version available here.]
Abstract: In this article, I examine how ‘old’ media organizations develop ‘new’ media technologies by analyzing processes of technological innovation in two Danish newspaper companies that integrated blogs into their websites in very different ways in 2007. Drawing on concepts from science and technology studies and sociology and building on previous research on blogging by news media organizations, I analyze how the three different communities involved in the development process – journalists and managers, but also the often-overlooked community of technologists – articulated different versions of what blogging ought to be in each organization and tried to shape the technology and pull the development work in different directions. On the basis of interviews with key participants, I show how the two newspaper organizations (equally ‘old’ media) came to develop nominally the same ‘new’ medium (blogs) for nominally the same purpose (journalism) in quite different ways through tension-filled and often contentious collaborative processes. I argue that researchers interested in understanding technological innovation in the media industry need to consider the important and active role played by the community of technologists (project managers, computer programers, information architects, etc.) that are increasingly integral to how legacy media organizations operate in a new and ever more convergent media environment under circumstances of great economic uncertainty, and discuss the wider implications for how we understand processes of technological development in the news media and the realization of the democratic potentials of new media technologies.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2011, Mundane Internet Tools, Mobilizing Practices, and the Coproduction of Citizenship in Political Campaigns. New Media & Society. DOI: 10.1177/1461444810380863. Link. [Pre-publication version available here.]
Abstract: The internet’s potential for political mobilization has been highlighted for more than a decade, but we know little about what particular kinds of information and communication technologies are most important when it comes to getting people involved in politics and about what this means for the active exercise of engaged citizenship. On the basis of ethnographic research in two congressional campaigns in the USA, I will argue that specific mundane internet tools (like email) are much more deeply integrated into mobilizing practices today than emerging tools (like social networking sites) and specialized tools (like campaign websites). Campaigns’ reliance on mundane internet tools challenges the prevalent idea that sophisticated ‘hypermedia’ turn people into ‘managed citizens’. Instead, I suggest we theorize internet-assisted activism as a process for the coproduction of citizenship and recognize how dependent even well-funded political organizations are on the wider built communications environment and today’s relatively open internet.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2010, Participation Through Letters to the Editor: Circulation, Considerations, and Genres in the Letters Institutions. Journalism. Volume 11, Issue 1, pp. 21-35. DOI: 101177/1464884909350641. Link. [Pre-publication version available here.]
Abstract: This article analyze who participate in newspaper-mediated debate through letters to the editor, how they come to do it by passing muster under six editorial considerations, and what the three predominant genres (storytelling, criticism, appeal) of letters allow them to participate in. The starting point is a sedimented ideal of media that citizens can use—an ambition for media that are not only watchdogs, sources of information, or entertainers, but also enablers of participation in action and interaction. The contemporary incarnation of this ideal in newspapers is what is here identified as the ‘letters institution’. Its patterns of circulation and contribution, editorial considerations, and narrative genres constitute a fragmented contentious zone between politics, the media, and the private life of the limited number of citizens who get a chance to express themselves through the concrete operations of one of the institutions that gives the abstraction ‘the public debate’ whatever reality it has.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2009, The Labors of Internet-Assisted Activism: Overcommunication, Miscommunication, and Communicative Overload. Journal of Information Technology and Politics. Volume 6, Issue 3 & 4, pp. 267-280. DOI: 10.1080/19331680903048840. Link. [pre-publication version available here]
Abstract: This article analyzes the use of Internet elements in political activism through a close ethnographic case study of a volunteer group involved in the 2008 U.S. Democratic presidential primary. Whereas the literature on political activism has generally argued that the Internet provides low-cost communication that facilitates collective action, this case highlights the labors that accompany Internet-assisted activism. The analysis, based upon participant-observation, identifies three interrelated problems with which the activists struggled: overcommunication, miscommunication, and communicative overload. Drawing on concepts taken from science and technology studies, the article argues that these problems have sociotechnical roots and arise from the specific affordances of an increasing number of Internet elements. Such elements reduce the up-front costs associated with communication for the sender, but they generate new transaction costs when integrated into heterogeneous assemblages with no shared communication protocol, no clear infrastructure or exostructure, and no significant means of tempering the tendency towards ever greater amounts of communication.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2007, Hegemony, Radical Democracy, Populism. Distinktion – Scandinavian Journal of Political Theory, No. 13, 2006, pp. 77-97. [pre-publication version available here]
Abstract: This article demonstrates what it means to construe Ernesto Laclau’s work as precisely political theory. By analyzing his work in terms of the relation between ‘hegemony’ as a theory of the political, ‘radical democracy’ as a normative theory, and the ever-present but often overlooked element of ‘populism’ as a theory of a form of politics, it captures the full-fledged political character of his work (as opposed to simply moral theory). Though the article offers various criticisms of the ways the three elements are elaborated and interlinked, especially through the imprecise notions of ‘the underdogs’ and ‘the underprivileged’, it also highlights the value of attempting to situate the act of political theorizing in the world at hand by explicitly trying to identify an immanent form of politics thought in terms of a theory of the political and a normative theory, an act that will allow one to go beyond value-neutral political analysis, empty moral theory, or blind political strategizing. Only together do these three elements make up properly political theory.
– – – –
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis 2006, Det epistemologiske syndefald: et sekulært skred i betingelserne for det transcendentales politik – reformation, oplysning, revolution (1517-1848). Tidsskriftet Politik, 9 (1), pp. 14-25. [pre-publication version available here (Danish only)]
Abstract: This article argues that the one trait common to otherwise different secular orders is to be at the epistemological level. Despite their differences when it comes to the precise regulation of the relation between religion and politics, and degrees of secularization, widely different secular orders in Western Europe all share a common imaginary for the politics of the transcendental. This imaginary allows – in contrast to the religious hegemony that ruled before the Reformation – for other sources than religious ones to provide transcendental organizational principles for the social order. The development of the new imaginary is traced through the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the Revolutions of 1848.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2016. ‘Democracy’. In Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture, edited by Benjamin Peters, 81–92. Princeton Studies in Culture/Power/History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2016. ‘The Business of News’. In The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism, edited by Tamara Witschge, Chris W. Anderson, David Domingo, and Alfred Hermida, 51–67. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2016. ‘News Media, Search Engines and Social Networking Sites as Varieties of Online Gatekeepers’. In Rethinking Journalism Again: Societal Role and Public Relevance in a Digital Age, edited by Chris Peters and Marcel Broersma. London ; New York, N.Y: Routledge.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2016. ‘The Many Crises of Western Journalism: A Comparative Analysis of Economic Crises, Professional Crises, and Crises of Confidence’. In The Crisis of Journalism Reconsidered: Democratic Culture, Professional Codes, Digital Future, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander, Elizabeth Butler Breese, and María Luengo, 77–97. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hölig, Sascha, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, and Kim Christian Schrøder. 2016. ‘Changing Forms of Cross-Media News Use in Western Europe and Beyond’. In News Across Media: Production, Distribution and Consumption, edited by Jakob Linaa Jensen, Mette Mortensen, and Jacob Ørmen, 102–22. London: Routledge.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2015. ‘The Uncertain Future of Local Journalism.’ In Local Journalism: The Decline of Newspapers and the Rise of Digital Media, edited by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, 1-25. London: I.B. Tauris.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2015. ‘Local Newspapers as Keystone Media: The Increased Importance of Diminished Newspapers for Local Information Environments.’ In Local Journalism: The Decline of Newspapers and the Rise of Digital Media, edited by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, 51-72. London: I.B. Tauris.
Karpf, David, Daniel Kreiss, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2014. ‘A new era of field research in political communication?’ In Challenging Communication Research: Selected Papers from the International Communication Association Annual Conference 2013, edited by Leah A. Lievrouw, 43-57. New York: Peter Lang.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2014. ‘Americanization revisited: Political journalism in the United States and Western Europe compared.’ In Political Journalism in Transition: Western Europe in a Comparative Perspective, edited by Raymond Kuhn and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, 171-193. London: I.B.Tauris.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis, and Raymond Kuhn. 2014. ‘Political journalism in Western Europe: Change and continuity.’ In Political Journalism in Transition: Western Europe in a Comparative Perspective, edited by Raymond Kuhn and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, 1-23. London: I.B.Tauris.
Peters, Benjamin, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2012. ‘New media.’ In Handbook of Communication History, edited by Peter Simonson, Jonathan Peck, Robert T. Craig, and John Jackson, 257–271. New York: Routledge.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis, and David A. L. Levy. 2010. ‘The changing business of journalism and its implications for democracy.’ In The Changing Business of Journalism and Its Implications for Democracy, edited by David A. L. Levy and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, 3–15. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis and David A. L. Levy. 2010. ‘Which way for the business of journalism?’ In The Changing Business of Journalism and Its Implications for Democracy, edited by David A. L. Levy and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, 135–147. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2010. ‘Digital politics as usual.’ In Digital Activism Decoded, edited by Mary Joyce, 181–196. New York: International Debate Education Association.
Other publications (not peer-reviewed)
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis, Alessio Cornia, and Antonis Kalogeropoulos. 2016. ‘Challenges and Opportunities for News Media and Journalism in an Increasingly Digital, Mobile, and Social Media Environment’. Commissioned Report for the Council of Europe. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Aneez, Zeenab, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Vibod Parthasarathi, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. ‘Indian Newspapers’ Digital Transition: Dainik Jagran, Hindustan Times, and Malayala Manorama’. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Nicholls, Tom, Nabeelah Shabbir, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. ‘Digital-Born News Media in Europe’. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis, Richard Fletcher, Annika Sehl, and David AL Levy. 2016. ‘Analysis of the Relation Between and Impact of Public Service Media and Private Media’. Commissioned Report for the Danish Ministry of Culture. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Pothong, Kruakae, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. ‘Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016: Asia-Pacific Supplementary Report’. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Cornia, Alessio, Annika Sehl, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. ‘Private Sector Media and Digital News’. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Newman, Nic with Richard Fletcher, David A. L. Levy and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. Reuters Institute Digital News Report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Sen, Arijit, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. ‘Digital Journalism Start-Ups in India’. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Sambrook, Richard Jeremy, and Rasmus Nielsen. 2016. ‘What Is Happening to Television News?’ Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Sehl, Annika, Alessio Cornia, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. ‘Public Service News and Digital Media’. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Cherubini, Federica, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. ‘Editorial Analytics: How News Media Are Developing and Using Audience Data and Metrics’. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Fletcher, Richard, Damian Radcliffe, David AL Levy, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, and Nic Newman. 2015. ‘Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2015: Supplementary Report’. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Newman, Nic with David A. L. Levy and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2015. Reuters Institute Digital News Report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Link.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis and Kim Christian Schrøder. 2014. ‘Danskernes brug af digitale medier og nyheder i 2014.’ Roskilde: Center for Magt, Medier, og Kommunikation. Link.
2013 Danskernes brug af nyhedsmedier 2013. Center for Magt, Medier og Kommunikation, Roskilde Universitet. Available for download here (in Danish).
2012 Ten Years that Shook the Media World: Big Questions and Big Trends in International Media Developments. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford. Available for download here.
2012 Survival is Success: Journalistic Online Start-Ups in Western Europe. (co-authored with Nicola Bruno.) Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford. Available for download here.
2011 Public Support for the Media: A Six-Country Review of Direct and Indirect Subsidies. (with Geert Linnebank). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford. Available for download here.
2010 Digital Politics as Usual. Book chapter in Mary Joyce (ed.) Digital Activism Decoded: The New Mechanics of Change. International Debate Education Association, New York and Amsterdam, pp. 181-196. Book available for download here and for purchase in print form here.
2008 Review of Philip N. Howard 2006, New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. In Tidsskriftet Politik, 10 (4), 2008.
2007 Review of Jules Boykoff 2006. The Suppression of Dissent. Routledge, New York & London. In Mobilization, December 2007, 12 (4), pp. 433-434.
2007 Review of Jens Hoff & Kresten Storgaard (eds.) 2005, Informationsteknologi og demokratisk innovation – borgerdeltagelse, politisk kommunikation og offentlig styring, Forlaget Samfundslitteratur, Denmark and Lars Torpe, Jeppe Agger Nielsen & Jens Ulrich 2005, Demokrati på nettet – Offentlighed, deltagelse og digital kommunikation, Aalborg Universitetsforlag, Denmark. In Tidsskriftet Politik 9 (3), 2007.
2007 Review of Gitte Meyer 2005, Hvorfor skulle der ikke kunne være en offentlig fornuft?, Syddansk Universitetsforlag, Denmark. Including my ‘Reply to Gitte Meyer’. In Tidsskriftet Politik, 9 (3), 2007.
2006 Review of Peter Sloterdijk 2005, Kritik af den Kyniske Fornuft, Det Lille Forlag, København. In Tidsskriftet Politik, 8 (4), 2006.
2006 Review of Ulrikke Moustgaard 2005, Håndtasken, heksen, og de blåøjede blondiner, Roskilde Universitetsforlag, Denmark. In Tidsskriftet Politik, 8 (3), 2006.
2005 Review of Roland Barthes 2004, Fortællerens død og andre essays, Gyldendal, København. In Slagmark – Tidsskrift for Idehistorie, No. 42, 2005.
2004 Review of Søren Hein Rasmussen & Niels Kayser Nielsen (eds.) 2003, Strid om demokratiet: artikler fra en dansk debat 1945-1946, Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Århus. In Tidskriftet Politik, 7 (1), 2004.
2004 Review of Jenny Edkins 2003, Trauma and the Memory of Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge . In Millenium – Journal of International Studies, 33 (1), 2004.
2004 Review of Anette Warring 2004, Historie, Magt og Identitet – grundlovsfejringer gennem 150 år, Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Århus. In Økonomi og Politik, 77 (3), 2004.
2003 Review of Anette Borchorst & Drude Dahlerup (eds.) 2003, Ligestillingspolitik som diskurs og praksis, Samfundslitteratur, Denmark. In Politologiske Studier, 6 (3), 2003.
Long newspaper and magazine pieces include:
United We Stand, in Vision, nr. 1., 2009, pp.28-29.
Medlemsaktivering er vejen frem i USA, in Politiken, February 10, 2007, p. 4.
November 2005 – et stumt oprør, in Information, November 17, 2005, p. 24.
I have also written for a variety of other smaller political periodicals in Denmark.