Analysing journalism diet through sentiments: A pedagogical approach to entangle the role of emotions in news literacy education

Introduction

A human being is an emotional being. When following the world through the media that we choose, we live through, with and in the media: we love, hate, enjoy, feel overwhelmed, create relationships, terminate relationships, learn new things, and grow. Even when it comes to the specific type of communication that we call journalism, we use the material for different purposes, and fear, trust, empathize, feel joy, experience sadness, seek comfort, face challenges, develop resilience, express gratitude, experience disappointment, feel pride, connect to others, and pursue fulfillment. The processes of reception, sharing and creation of media and journalism content are imbued with different kinds of sentiments.

Indeed, the role of affectivity has been richly discussed in the context of entertainment media such as television, film and (audio)visual media (Gorton, 2009; Tan, 1996; Lankoski, 1992), and, especially more recently, in the context of digital technologies, such as gaming, social media and digital communities (Steinert & Dennis, 2022; Döveling et al., 2018; Liberati, 2019; Serrano-Puche, 2016). The emotional dimensions of mass media uses were relatively early discovered above all in uses and gratifications, acculturation and propaganda research (Katz et al., 1974–1974; Ruggiero, 2000; Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Based on the discovery of the role of emotions in media, mediatized and digital spaces, there has also been an emerging body of research across disciplines addressing the role of emotions as part of learning (see e.g. Gee, 2017; Plass & Kaplan, 2016) and, more specifically, media literacy (Tsortanidou et al., 2020; Polanco-Levicán & Salvo-Garrido, 2022; Lau et al., 2024). Also, in studies in media literacy, the role of emotions has been preliminarily addressed (Sivek, 2018; Middaugh, 2018).

Nevertheless, when it comes to journalism, the role of emotions has for a relatively long time rather stayed in the background in the Western understandings of journalism; only recently, there has been a strong emphasis on examining the emotional dimensions of audience behavior and journalistic practice, which I will address later in this article. The down prioritizing has occurred because of and in co-occurrence with numerous reasons, but we can point out at least three. First, the priority of Western journalism, in line with ideas of the Enlightenment, has long been the mediation of facts and information for democratic purposes, and the related theories within journalism studies have been formed with the unilinear informational function of mass media in the focus. Second, accordingly, the epistemic distinction between facts and non-fiction or entertainment that have been found in the definition of journalism has been projected onto theories of media and information literacy. Third, the identification of news literacy as a specific form of learner ability or literacy is still rather young, as are calls for de-Westernizing conceptions of journalism and journalism education (Ullah, 2014; Wasserman & De Beer, 2009). News literacy, emerging from the American news literacy movement around 2007 (see e.g. Klibanoff, 2012), has put the focus more on the layperson’s behavior and control over certain processes related to reception rather than restricting to the intellectual interpretation processes of deconstruction of messages, inherent in the traditions of media and communication education programs since the 1920s (see e.g. Masterman, 1985; Potter, 2019).

However, with strengthened focus on the increased amount of disinformation, propaganda, mis- and malinformation, and other negative effects of digital behavior and interaction such as hate speech, cyberbullying, racism, and sexual harassment have become prevalent and stronger political primacies, also in the research agenda, both scholars and practitioners have slowly become more interested in the profound role of emotions among audiences of journalism. It is becoming more and more obvious that our understandings of the emotional dimensions of news coverage reception need to be complemented with lessons learned from the studies from digital information behavior on one hand and learning on the other hand.

In this article, I approach journalism literacy from the perspective of emotional responsiveness of learners and discuss the profound roles of affectivity in news literacy, as well as propose one possible model for approaching the theme. I suggest that the development of the role of emotions in journalism or news, as well as pertinent literacies, requires reconfiguring some fundamental components of pedagogy. To capture responses among the receivers of journalism, that is, the learners, pedagogies need to focus more on the individual’s personal relationship to journalism. After a short literature review on, first, the studies of emotions in journalism and, second, media literacy, I take a look at how the role of emotions could appear in related pedagogies where the individual’s attitudes, values, and responses are in the focus. My intention is to, at a general level, explore the so far still less systematized nexus of person-centered pedagogy and journalism literacy to pave the ground for further empirical research and pedagogical or didactic development. As for the terminology, I choose to use the term journalism literacy to refer to a wider definition of journalism than just news reporting. 

Emotions research paradigm

Recent developments in affective neuroscience and emotion research have confirmed that emotions are a constant presence in the human mind and that, in other words, cognition and emotion are intrinsically linked. While emotions are no novelty in educational research and psychology of learning, emotion has found a place in social theories, particularly in connection to feminist, gender, queer and decolonization perspectives (Ahmed, 2012; 2015; 2000; Clough & Halley, 2007). The development has been described as an affective or emotional turn in social sciences and the humanities (Clough & Halley, 2007). 

Consequently, journalism research has been observed to have undergone an “emotional turn”, with a focus on affective subjectivities in production and reception (Orgeret, 2020; Wahl-Jorgensen & Nikunen, 2018; Steensen, 2016; Beckett & Deuze, 2016).

In recent years, journalism research has experienced what scholars refer to as an “emotional turn,” emphasizing the role of emotions and affective experiences in both the production and reception of news (Orgeret, 2020; Wahl-Jorgensen & Nikunen, 2018; Steensen, 2016; Beckett & Deuze, 2016). This shift reflects a growing recognition that journalism is not merely a rational or objective practice but is deeply intertwined with emotional dynamics. On the production side, journalists’ emotional subjectivities, such as how they experience and process their work, have become a focus of inquiry. On the reception side, scholars have begun to examine how audiences emotionally engage with news, recognizing that news consumption involves emotional responses that shape how people interpret and react to information. 

Recent studies have highlighted the role of emotional capital as a certain type of capital that influences the structuration of “games” in different social fields conceived of by Bourdieu (1986). Emerging from Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, emotional capital conveys structures that link micro-level resources with macro-level forces. It is a form of cultural capital that includes the emotion-specific, trans-situational resources that individuals activate and embody in distinct fields (Cottingham, 2016). Emotions thus serve to maintain certain “affective economies” (Zembylas, 2019). The concept of emotional capital provides one possible path into studying the human affect in literacy processes.

Emotions in journalism literacy

Journalism literacy can be defined, in accordance with the definition of news literacy by Tully and colleagues (2022; see also Tully, 2021), as “the knowledge of the processes by which journalism is produced, distributed, consumed, and used, as well as the competences that allow individuals some control over these processes”. News literacy, as a lay ability in difference from a professional competency, according to this definition implies that an individual has knowledge about the processes related to the communication chain from producer to receiver and can apply this knowledge to different stages in the communication chain to achieve a certain outcome. If “control over the processes” is understood as the ability to influence, direct, or regulate these processes, it involves exerting authority over actions, emotions, situations, systems, or objects, not only as an external influence but also self-influence, or self-control – the ability to regulate one’s own reactions and the processes of reception.

Here, reception and production processes appear as very different in terms of emotions. Reception processes are driven by the content that an individual is exposed to. Production skills require conscious strategies for verbalizing and inserting emotions into messages, or omitting or bypassing them, as well as dealing with post-publication emotional processes where, above all, audience feedback and self-conceptions of oneself as an author are prevalent questions involved. It is thus advisable to regard the emotional dimensions distinguished from each other. Production can be conducted at many levels of professionalism. Besides, production processes can look very different depending on the production context and the support available in them. This makes the involvement of emotions in production a very broad and complex issue that cannot be discussed in this context. As journalism literacy is an amateur skill, I will solely focus on the reception skills in this article.

Individuals relate to media content with different affective reactions that vary in their permanency, ranging from spontaneous, impulsive and contingent reactions in reception to more stable and structured relations to the content and its context, such as opinions, attitudes, values, and ideologies. These fundamentally direct the reception processes but are not usually taken into account in competence frameworks that are more directed towards functional competencies, such as problem solving, browsing and evaluating data, or managing processes (Vuorikari et al., 2022). According to the conceptualization of European Union’s key competencies of lifelong learning, which are divided into knowledge, skills and attitudes (see also OECD, XXX), it is said about digital competence that “engagement with digital technologies and content requires a reflective and critical, yet curious, open-minded and forward-looking attitude to their evolution” and “an ethical, safe and responsible approach to the use of these tools” (European Commission, 2019, 10). Individuals are expected to have a certain mindset in order to succeed in navigating in the digital landscape.

In learning, emotions play a crucial role, as the movement from one’s comfortable zone typically necessitates that the individual needs to deal with certain kinds of emotions, both negative and positive. For example, in Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning that plays an important role for the professional learning of journalism and journalistic practice, in which the ideal is the reflective practitioner (Schön), the first stage of the learning process is largely based on feeling and encountering things. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to detract emotions from the environments they appear, as emotions are, among other things, dependent on knowledge (you might fear things you don’t know about) and previous experiences (some negative experiences in a certain situation may arouse negative reactions when encountering similar situations). However, the descriptions of professional learning suggest that the experiencing, in which the affective and sensory dimension constitutes a central component, is rudimentary. In sum, needless to say, emotions, as well as other emotionally oriented cultural constructions such as attitudes and values, are felt and experienced by individuals, even if they have sociocultural and collective dependencies and consequences. The focus on emotions challenges us to rethink the ways journalism literacy has been conceptualized in terms of the individual experience. 

Journalism diet methodologies

Journalism or news literacy pedagogy, in similarity with media approaches in media education, have been largely centered around the journalistic product as a receivable and deconstructable entity. In other words, a central task of media literacy pedagogies has traditionally been to deconstruct the media message within a text, understood in a broad sense according to the idea of an extended text. The extended text concept implies that texts can consist of a variety of communicative resources, not just of written word but any multimodal elements (see e.g. Danielsson & Selander, 2021). Still, the conceptual focus of the pedagogical approach has been on the “text”, which the learner is supposed to learn to decode, by realizing that messages and the mediated reality are constructed, as outlined in the core principles of media literacy education (AMLA, 2007).

Talking about journalism that addresses people as a monolithic entity is no longer a valid idea in journalism literacy education. Today’s digital mediatized spaces are self-centered in a way that users create networks, personalized in a way that consumers receive individualized recommendations and content feeds that are not identical with other users, and user-created in a way that the consumed set of media content of an individual consists of the unique choices that the individual makes to form her daily media intake. In a high-choice media landscape, today’s audiencing implies more measures of selecting – that is, embracing and rejecting – possibilities available. Media choices are partly informed by the emotional dispositions and restrictions of a consumer. A choice, for its part, implies that a relationship is constructed to a medium and its content: it can be informed or accidental, long-term or short-term.

In the self-centric and seemingly idiosyncratic media environments that individuals reside in, the social function of audiencing may be more dispersed across different platforms and communities than it was before. Before, a person grasped a newspaper, conscious of the social function of belonging to the newspaper audience. Today, an individual’s relationship to journalism may be defined by social influences on a specific platform such as TikTok or Instagram, and the trip to the journalistic area rather than a touristic detour, strongly framed by the (meta)discourse of the community in question. In such a situation, the recognition of journalism becomes increasingly important.

The relationships entail the presence of emotional responses that partly derive from occasional contingencies but partly from some more permanent structures such as attitudes, preferences, values, and ideologies of an individual. If the conceptual focus is shifted from the affordances of texts to the receiver, the emphasis on the receiver’s agency constitutes another type of a ground for journalism literacy pedagogy. To address the dimension of emotions, we can focus on the relationships that the individual creates to different media and, in the context of journalism in particular, to journalistic media. 

The didactic application of the learning ecology model is the approach that I call the media diet model – applied to the specific genre of journalism, the journalism diet model. The idea is based on a holistic view of a person’s media intake in which journalism constitutes one part. The pedagogical ways of capturing some essentials of one’s media use are typically methods called media journaling (Sawhney et al., 2018) or mediagraphy (Schofield, 2014). Generally, journaling, in the form of learning diaries, reflective essays and working reports, which can be conducted in any forms between personal files and public blogging, has been found to be an effective measure to record feelings and make them visible to recognize reactions and patterns (Ullrich & Lutgendorf, 2002). Mapping the different media channels, content of media and volumes of media behaviour by learners have also been used in studies examining the average media consumption of certain audiences (Rožukalne, 2012) and everyday media practices (Örnebring & Hellekant Lowe, 2021). In these cases, often called as the “media day” approaches, media behaviour has been recorded as timelines (Lefebvre, 2004) or datasets (Rožukalne, 2012) showing the temporariness and volume of media uses. Redmond (2022) subsumes the reflective recording by using Fiske’s (1992) concept of audiencing, as “agentive knowledge building, active negotiation of learning, and student-centered expression”.

In the field of nutrition, where the idea of a diet derives from, the idea of a balanced diet is developed for citizens’ health to achieve a sufficient quality of nutrition. The healthy eating plate provides individuals detailed guidance regarding the people’ seating choices. To make a parallel, the intake of media could be envisioned as a “balanced media diet”. Media diet refers to the mix of media intake that an individual habitually receives. If a balanced nutrition contributes to the well-being of an individual, it can also be assumed that a balanced media diet does not cause harm to the individual. Media users are typically struggling between the amount of time, balance in content and harmful content. Excessive amounts of time dedicated to media may cause harmful effects, which is often reflected in debates on screen time (see e.g. LeBlanc et al., 2017). Media users are also struggling to find a sound balance between entertainment-driven and information- or fact-driven consumption of media content, as too much of either consumption type has been observed as harmful (Livingstone & Smith, 2014). As for the content, the earliest debates on media consumption dealt with mass media violence (Gerbner & Gross, 1976), and the contemporary debates largely concentrate on harmful effects caused by social media (Best et al., 2014).

There is, in other words, a need of placing restrictions and rules for an individual’s media use, and while the self-responsibility of one’s media use increases with age, an adult citizen is expected to take command of his or her media use. The objective of media literacy, or media and information literacy, is generally seen as the increase of a critical and reflective attitude (see e.g. Masterman, 1985). Here, the concept of media diet may increase one’s knowledge and awareness of the media use that occurs on a spontaneous and habitual basis in the everyday. In addition to these reflective layers, the concept of media diet can serve as a tool for simply mapping the most central and individually relevant media in use. The descriptiveness is the starting point for critical reflection – before being able to critically reflect or change one’s media use, one has to gain an overview of the accumulated and permanent structures of the media that constitute the landscape that surrounds the individual. In order to receive support and supervision in media literacy, the learners and educators need to know what kind of an individual media user profile they are talking about.

The idea of a diet should, however, not be regarded as solely prescriptive or normative, as in nutrition sciences where the model has been developed for health promotion. Compared to food, it is much more difficult to prescribe what kind of content is beneficial or favorable for an individual and where the line between beneficial and harmful goes, as media users are very different in their personalities, demographics, skill profiles, aims and contexts of communicative action. Media diet is, however, a popularized term that is tangible and understandable, which makes it also applicable in educational contexts when addressing individual media use. Moreover, as a model that can be constructed out of individual data, it is comparable, which means that learners can make a connection between the own individual media use and, for example, the average media use as seen in population-wide statistics, and get a hint of their typicality and special characteristics in terms of the average media use in their age group.

Having noted about the non-normativity of the concept, it is worth emphasizing how media diet can adopt a more normative or transformative function. In the context of refugees and minority groups, it is important to recognize how the concept of media diet can be used for developing inclusion, self-efficacy, empowerment and agency for those in more vulnerable positions in the media-saturated digitalized Western societies. By understanding the structural constraints in terms of how they manifest in the individual orchestration of the selections related to media and media use, gaps and potentials for change can be identified

Media diet is no static entity, as the change of the media supply, both in terms of technologies and different software and platforms, as well as content, is rapid. Media and technology adoption is also affecting the result of media use and intake (see Information Resources Management Association, 2018). Adoption of technology adds a processual dimension into the idea of media diet: people are constantly learning, and the relationship to a certain technology, software or platform is also changing. Media diet can, nevertheless, be captured at a certain point of time, or to trace the change, at intervals so that changes in one’s media use potentially become visible. 

Journalism diet as a tool to detect affects

Journalism diet model can be applied as an emotion-centered tool of recording, first, the volume, type and role of journalistic content as part of the media intake, and, second, as the starting point of exploring an individual’s attitudes and emotional approaches to the journalistic channels and content chosen in the everyday. As journalism literacy is a distinctive competence (Jaakkola, forthcoming), an important pedagogical step is to be able to distinguish between journalistic and non-journalistic content, and thus understand the essence of journalism in difference from non-journalism.

When the received journalistic content within the individual media diet is recorded, the different relationships can be identified. Through her choices, an individual builds relationships with different journalistic media types (written papers, radio journalism etc.), media outlets (preferring certain brands over others, perhaps entirely avoiding some etc.), journalism genres, textual genres, the producers of texts, and, finally, messages and their components. All these relationships can be examined in terms of emotions. As described in Table 1, they evoke certain questions that can be addressed in the analysis.

Table 1. Emotions at different levels of the journalism relationship.

In systemic-functional linguistics, the layers of textuality that build upon each other are called as “strata”: for example, the levels of expression (morphology, phonology), content (lexicogrammar, semantics) and context (genres, modes, fields). In the same way, the ecology of relationships appear as layers that build upon each other and influence each other. If a person distrusts the journalism institution in general, she probably has the same distrust in journalists, different genres and outlets. Distrust in certain kinds of media types or journalism genres, such as public-media news reporting, can disinfect the relationship to journalism, but still allow an individual to cherish positive relationships to popular genres or “alternative” types of journalism (or outlets or genres mimicking professional journalism).

Emotions are deeply intertwined with our previous experiences, education, and upbringing, shaping how we perceive and respond to the world around us. These factors act as a lens through which we interpret emotional stimuli, influencing not only the intensity of our emotions but also the specific triggers that elicit them. For instance, someone who grew up in a nurturing environment may associate certain situations with feelings of safety and comfort, while another person with different experiences may feel anxiety or distrust in similar circumstances. Reflecting on these underlying influences allows us to better understand the complexities of our emotional responses. By analyzing how past experiences, cultural background, and educational contexts have shaped our emotional landscape, we can begin to untangle the intricate web of feelings we experience in the present. This reflection can also reveal biases or misconceptions that influence our emotions, helping us to develop greater emotional awareness and control. Ultimately, by acknowledging the role of these factors in shaping our emotions, we can gain deeper insights into our emotional audiencing, leading to more informed and balanced responses to the situations we encounter. 

Discussion

Journalism diet intends to make the journalistic content visible as part of one’s media intake and enables critical reflection on it, as part of strengthening an individual’s relationship to journalism, which is the foundation of journalism literacy skills. The awareness of the emotional dimension also opens up possibilities for personal growth, as we learn to navigate our emotions with greater understanding and intentionality.

The idea of media diets has been inherent in many previous pedagogies, but when focusing especially on emotions, it can turn out to function as a fruitful tool to address the affective sides that may remain without attention in the habitual, spontaneous everyday use of media among individuals. It is a flexible tool, as the focus can be chosen according to the needs of an individual or a group, in different contexts, but as such, it provides a solid and recognizable framework for discussing journalism reception, audience responses and, more generally, the routinized practices of audiencing. It may work as a method of exposing the context where the learner’s uses of journalism are embedded, and which may be invisible for the individual herself. If used as a tool for conscious and systematic reflection, it can open up ways of figuring out alternative possibilities of receiving and consuming journalism.

Addressing emotions in journalism literacy education is, of course, not restricted to the macro- and meso-sociological views of the journalism diet model. Self-observing sentiment analyses can be conducted, for example, with regard to individual texts, in accordance with the media educational approaches of text analysis. Learners can be asked to record their own feelings when receiving specific content, or before and after a reception process. The analyses can also be conducted in a dialogue where another individual provides a projection surface for emotions, initially receiving and recording them without any judgement and, thereafter, to take one step further, analyzing and reflecting upon them.

Approaching emotions should not remain merely descriptive. Educators need to think about what to do with the outcome of some content triggering certain kinds of emotions, or how to contextualize certain attitudes. The core of discussing the individual relationships to media and journalism are the ability to verbalize the experiences and share the verbalized experiences with others, which allows to elaborate and question them: deepen or widen them, or discover alternatives for the existing conditions.

Conclusions

This article intended to address the role of emotions in journalism literacy, and I have attempted to envision a possible pedagogical space where emotions can be exposed for learning purposes. The role of emotions in journalism literacy is an increasingly important area to capture in pedagogical means, as it constitutes the groundline for many cognitive, metacognitive and behavioural processes of literacy, the importance of which are amplified with an increased need of understanding harmful effects of information circulation in today’s digital spheres and the attempts for minimizing them. In this article, I discussed the emotions in the context of journalism literacy and argued that the pedagogical approaches could focus on the individual relations to journalism. Consequently, I outlined some possible pedagogical approaches to implement the examination of the individual affectual relationships.

A relationship-based model such as the journalism diet model presented in this essay can help identify the central ingredients of an individual’s relationship to media, along with the related emotional dimensions that are included. Pedagogies focusing on the individual’s relationships to media provide educators with a way of identifying the specific, contextual knowledge of media with which the individual lives in, which can pave way for more effective learning, reflecting central ideas of student-based and contextual learning. Here, it is worth noticing that skills based on self-observation and -governance of emotions have been advanced as part of the education of socioemotional competences or learning at schools only recently. Generations who haven’t received such lessons in primary education may be insecure in recognizing and verbalizing emotions in their own behavior.

This essay has intended to envision some possible ways of seeing emotions as part of journalism literacy pedagogies, but it could only do it in a very restricted way. The role of emotions in journalism literacy education can be seen as a future paradigm to be advanced, both theoretically, practically, and pedagogically. Empirical research is needed of individual media consumers’ relationships to journalism, journalists, and journalistic content, as part of their other media intake, and here, we need to recognize how these relationships are emotionally influenced.

References

Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press.

Ahmed, S. (2015). The cultural politics of emotion. 2^nd ed. Routledge.

Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange encounters: Embodied others in post-coloniality. Routledge.

AMLA, Alliance for a Media Literate America (2007). Core principles of media literacy education. https://mediaeducationlab.com/sites/default/files/AMLA-Core-Princ-MLE_0.pdf

Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41(2), 27–36.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood Press, 241–258.

Clough, P. T., & Halley, J. (Eds.) (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11316pw

Cottingham, M. D. (2016). Theorizing emotional capital. Theory and Society, 45(1), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-016-9278-7

Danielsson, K., & Selander, S. (2021). Introduction. In: Danielsson, K., & Selander, S. (Eds.) Multimodal texts in disciplinary education: A comprehensive framework. Springer, 3–8. 

Döveling, K., Harju, A. A., & Sommer, D. (2018). From mediatized emotion to digital affect cultures: New technologies and global flows of emotion. Social Media + Society, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117743141

European Commission (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning. Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/569540

Fiske, J. (1992). Audiencing: A cultural studies approach to watching television. Poetics, 21(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(92)90013-S

Gee, J. P. (2017). Affinity spaces and 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 57(2) 27–31.

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173–199.

Gorton, K. (2009). Media audiences: Television, meaning and emotion. Edinburg University Press.

Jan L. Plass, J. L., & Kaplan, U. (2016). Emotional design in digital media for learning. In: Tettegah, S. Y., & Gartmeier, M. (Eds.) Emotions, technology, design, and learning. Elsevier, 131–161.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973–1974). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523.

Klibanoff, C. E. (2012). News literacy, informed citizens and consumer-driven media: The future landscape of American journalism. Doctoral thesis. Georgetown University.

Lankoski, P. (2012). Computer games and emotions. In: Sageng, J., Fossheim, H., Mandt Larsen, T. (Eds.) The philosophy of computer games. Springer, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4249-9_4

Lau, C. H.-H., Ahn, B., Maurice-Ventouris, M., & Harley, J. M. (2024). Latent profiling students’ emotions towards media literacy and examining its relationship to media credibility. European Journal of Psychology of Education, published on February 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00796-8

LeBlanc, A., Gunnell, K. E., Prince, S. A., Saunders, T. J.; Barnes, J. D., & Chaput, J-P. (2017). The ubiquity of the screen: An overview of the risks and benefits of screen time in our modern world. Translational Journal of the ACSM, 2(17), 104-113.

Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life. Continuum.

Liberati, N. (2019). Emotions and digital technologies. HUMANA.MENTE – Journal of Philosophical Studies, 12(36), 292–309.

Livingstone, S., & Smith, P. K. (2014). Annual Research Review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: the nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(6), 635-654.

Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the media. Comedia Books.

Middaugh, E. (2018). Civic media literacy in a transmedia world: Balancing personal experience, factual accuracy and emotional appeal as media consumers and circulators. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(2), 33–52.

Orgeret, K. S. (2020). Discussing emotions in digital journalism. Digital Journalism, 8(2), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1727347

Polanco-Levicán, K., & Salvo-Garrido, S. (2022). Understanding social media literacy: A systematic review of the concept and its competences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148807

Potter, J. W. (2019). Media literacy. 9^th ed. Sage.

Redmond, T. (2022). The art of audiencing: Visual journaling as a media education practice. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 14(1), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2022-14-1-10.

Rožukalne, A. (2012). Young people as a media audience: From content to usage processes. Central European Journal of Communication, 5(8), 105–120.

Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02

Sawhney, N., Graver, C., & Breitkopf, E. (2018). Audio journaling for self-reflection and assessment among teens in participatory media programs. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202752

Serrano-Puche, J. (2016). Internet and emotions: New trends in an emerging field of research. Comunicar, 46(24), 19-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C46-2016-02

Schofield, D. (2014). Young people exploring their media experiences: Mediagraphy as a reflection tool in upper secondary school. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(2), 112–127.

Sivek, S. C. (2018). Both facts and feelings: Emotion and news literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(2), 123–138. 

Steinert, S., & Dennis, M. J. (2022). Emotions and digital well-being: On social media’s emotional affordances. Philosophy & Technology, 35, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00530-6

Tan, E. S. (1996). Emotion and the structure of narrative film: Film as an emotion machine. Routledge. 

Tsortanidou, X., Daradoumis, T., & Barberá-Gregori, E. (2020). Convergence among imagination, social-emotional learning and media literacy: An integrative literature review. Early Child Development and Care, 192(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1753720

Tully, M. (2021). Why news literacy matters. In: Bélair-Gagnon, V., & Usher, N. (Eds.) Journalism research that matters. Oxford University Press, 91–102.

Tully, M., Maksl, A., Ashley, S., Vraga, E. K., & Craft, S. (2022). Defining and conceptualizing news literacy. Journalism, 23(8), 1589–1606. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211005888

Ullah, M.S. (2014). De-westernization of media and journalism education in South Asia: In search of a new strategy. China Media Research, 10(2), 15–23.

Ullrich, P. M., & Lutgendorf, S. K. (2002). Journaling about stressful events: Effects of cognitive processing and emotional expression. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2403_10

Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The digital competence framework for citizens – With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/490274, JRC128415

Wasserman, H. & De Beer, A. (2009). Towards de-westernizing journalism studies. In: Wahl-Jorgensen, K. & Hanitzsch, T. (Eds.) The handbook of journalism studies. Routledge, 428–438.

Zembylas, M. (2019). Emotional capital and education: Theoretical insights from Bourdieu. In: Reay, D. (Ed.) Bourdieu and education. Routledge.

Örnebring, H., & Hellekant Rowe, E. (2021). The media day, revisited: Rhythm, place and hyperlocal information environments. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1884988