The Effects(Negative) of the Objectivity Standard in the News Media

The notes of the current document: Task: In-depth revision. Needs part redesigning of the methodology. Writer specialising in methodology and social science is required. Word count to be written: 3000 words Issues to be resolved: 1. The Total word count would be strictly limited to 10,000 words, including reference lists. 2. The literature review section presented no relevant empirical research on journalistic objectivity. The lack of literature on recent empirical studies would be a great weakness. In particular, neither the research questions nor the hypotheses reflect what has already been explored in relevant empirical studies. The research gaps section should also have reflected relevant empirical research. 3. The research methodology is underdeveloped. And it is too much in generic discussion and lacks details of operationalisation. 4. The sample collection is highly problematic. Among other things, the statements about representative/ probability and purposive/ nonprobability sampling are contradictory (see comments in the documents). At the same time, representative sampling is not feasible because the resources required are too large. Also, given that this is a study on the UK and the US, this should be a comparative study to compare two similar, more highly marketed news environments, but this has not been reflected in the article. Furthermore, the current sampling framework is too broad to be realistic and must be narrowed down to a workable scope. 5. The data collection and data analysis lacked detailed operationalised discussion. How to respond to the research questions through the questionnaire is not explained. Action points: 1. In Research Focus and Questions, spend 300-word on explaining the relationship between these research questions and other relevant empirical studies in the context of the research gaps to clarify why this study posed these research questions. 2. Half or rewrite the research design (500-word is enough). The document must focus on operationalisation details rather than general descriptions. 3. Rewrite the sample frame section. Use purposive sampling to compare the mainstream media in the UK and US. In this, several representative British and American mainstream media should be selected and divided according to their partisan views. Of these, professional journalists serving different media outlets should be selected as the journalist sample based on the mainstream media that have been chosen. The consumer sample should then be sampled by targeting active mainstream media consumers. At the same time, all sample settings must state their reason and how they will be operationalised. (500-word) 4. The data collection section targeting the professional journalist group needs to be rewritten. We need a specific operationalised process for selecting professional journalists as research subjects. ( Otherwise it would be an unworkable, overly broad census). It is crucial to establish that this process is operational. (500-word) 5. The data analysis section should have a clear and detailed operationalisation process. What sections of the questionnaire should there be? What is the rationale for each section? What is the content? How does each section respond to the research questions? (700-word) 6. Rewrite the Trustworthiness section according to the methodology change; the title shouaqwld be Credibility and Validity. (300-word)