869399

research-article2019
JOU0010.1177/1464884919869399JournalismNielsen and Sheets

Original Article

Journalism

Virtual hype meets reality:

1­–17
© The Author(s) 2019

Users’ perception of Article reuse guidelines:

immersive journalism sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919869399
DOI: 10.1177/1464884919869399
journals.sagepub.com/home/jou

Søren Lund Nielsen

Penelope Sheets
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract
This study responds to recent calls to investigate how media users perceive virtual
reality technology in journalism. Within a uses and gratifications framework,
focus group participants were asked to experience recent immersive journalistic
productions and discuss their reactions. Six distinct gratifications were identified,
which cluster into gratifications related to experience, affect, and action. Despite
clear reservations about the technology, users see great potential for journalistic
use. If employed responsibly, users think virtual reality can add considerable value
to mainstream journalistic productions, potentially boosting engagement and trust.
Researchers and practitioners can benefit from this initial study of users’ impressions
of and reactions to immersive journalism.

Keywords
Audience studies, immersive journalism, technology, uses and gratifications, virtual
reality

The hype over the use of virtual reality technology in journalism has been growing steadily
over the last few years (Doyle et al., 2016). This has led to heavy investments in its devel-
opment (Döpfner, 2016; Phelan, 2017) and major media houses have been experimenting
with its storytelling possibilities. Current productions have been given the umbrella term
‘immersive journalism’, and some researchers predict such developments have the

Corresponding author:
Søren Lund Nielsen, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe
Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Email: [email protected]
2 Journalism 00(0)

potential to profoundly shape the future of journalism (Aronson-Rath et al., 2015; Doyle
et al., 2016; Mufson, 2014). Despite this optimistic discourse, however, questions and
issues about its utility, benefits, and pitfalls – especially from the perspective of users
(Watson, 2017) – remain insufficiently addressed in the academic literature.
This study, therefore, takes an initial exploratory step toward understanding what media
users think of immersive journalism as a means of news consumption. Using focus group
methodology, we explored the ways in which media users understand and respond to
immersive journalism, also compared to traditional journalism. Our research identifies six
gratifications that users derive from immersive journalism, related to how users experience
the technology, affectively respond to it, and the degree to which it enhances feelings of
agency. Our results have implications for both researchers and media companies who are
interested in the audience perspective on this much-hyped trend.

The crisis in journalism and the emergence of VR

Media practitioners and scholars alike recognize the dynamically changing – and in
many cases, struggling – news business. Alongside declining subscription (Pew Research
Center, 2016) and ad revenues (Anderson et al., 2014), and challenges in maintaining
and increasing profits (Grueskin et al., 2011), media trust in so-called ‘fake news’ era is
alarmingly low (Marchi, 2012; Newman et al., 2016), as is general interest in the news,
particularly among younger audiences (Cauwenberge et al., 2013; Marchi, 2012). But
‘the only way to get the journalism we need in the current environment is to take advan-
tage of new possibilities’ as Anderson et al. (2014) argue (p. 42). In particular, virtual
reality (VR) has become a hot topic in journalism research (Doyle et al., 2016; Watson,
2017) and practice, as a wide range of media outlets has started experimenting with VR
(Doyle et al., 2016). In 2015, The New York Times sent out over a million Google
Cardboards – foldable, low-cost VR viewers that mount onto a smartphone – to subscrib-
ers for the launch of a new VR initiative (Owen, 2015), and other outlets have also
launched VR apps (CNN Press Room, 2017). A growing list of VR-productions has
developed since late 2015 (Doyle et al., 2016), on topics as different as the aftermath of
an earthquake in Nepal (RYOT, 2015), a visit to North Korea (Woodruff, 2015), and the
discovery of Mars’ Gale Crater (Emamdjomeh, 2015). Noticeably, all the best examples
are productions by established players in the media field, with big budgets and special-
ized technical and journalistic teams, but still, VR journalism, it seems, is on the rise.
Despite this industry interest, there remains much ambiguity in terms, in scholarly under-
standing, and, in particular, in our understanding of how audiences perceive VR as a
potential anodyne to some of journalism’s problems.

VR, immersive journalism, and the research so far

First of all, despite being labeled as such, calling most of these productions ‘VR’ is an
exaggeration (Smith, 2015). While the technology and inspiration derive from over
40 years of VR use in research labs, gaming, and science fiction, existing journalistic
productions differ, technically, from a true VR experience. True VR has four key ele-
ments: a virtual world, immersion, sensory feedback, and interactivity (Sherman and
Nielsen and Sheets 3

Craig, 2003). A virtual world is a constructed place where content is conveyed; immer-
sion – mental or physical – is understood as the individual’s sense of presence; and sen-
sory feedback and interactivity relate to the technology’s ability to respond to users’
actions (Sherman and Craig, 2003).
Most current journalistic productions labeled as VR are 360° videos (Cornia et al.,
2016), and despite providing users with some control over the story – by allowing the
user to choose what to focus on – such productions lack true ‘interactivity’ – the viewer
cannot interact with characters or scenes in the story and receive tailored responses. A
small but growing number of productions using computer-generated virtual worlds
designed to represent reality do exist (De la Peña et al., 2010; Guardian, 2016), enabling
more or less interaction by letting the audience impact the unfolding events, but these are
currently either generally inaccessible or limited to eye control – not general control – of
movement. Hence, the term immersive journalism (IJ) is more appropriate for these
products, though other scholars continue to use VR. This article will henceforth use the
term IJ, using VR only to describe the technology.
When it comes to audience research concerning IJ, early explorations – including
experiments examining the effects of IJ on audience perception (De la Peña et al., 2010)
– generally provide an optimistic take on IJ’s potential as playing an important role in
‘the future of news’ (Aronson-Rath et al., 2015; Doyle et al., 2016; Watson, 2017). Of
particular interest is the possibility to mentally bring audiences to distant, inaccessible
places, and for audiences to experience these with ‘their own eyes’ (Doyle et al., 2016).
Emerging entertainment technologies have for years centered on this goal of giving users
a truly ‘natural’, immediate’, ‘direct’, and ‘real’ experience (Lombard and Ditton, 1997;
Schubert et al., 2001), and the related notions of presence and transportation are well-
known to media researchers. For example, research on narrative transportation shows
that being highly transported has a positive effect for readers in terms of believing infor-
mation (Green and Brock, 2000). For journalism, this suggests that perhaps IJ, through
its capacity for transportation, can rebuild trust among audiences in ways traditional
journalism cannot; this is especially interesting now, as the spread of (un)intended mis-
information or ‘fake news’ appears to be on a rise (Marchi, 2012; Newman et al., 2016).
But questions remain unanswered about whether news consumers are actually ready to
be (and interested in being) mentally transported for the sake of consuming the news.
Like presence, audience interactivity and the role of the narrator are other keywords
in IJ research, and a fundamental shift in production and viewing of IJ in the story fram-
ing has been acknowledged (Jones, 2017). That is, although narrators (including journal-
ists) give context to a story, fully interactive experiences – combined with effective
storytelling and appropriate choice of subject matter – appear to help content have a
stronger impact on a receptive audience (Karlin et al., 2018). An experiment carried out
using VR content explored responsiveness and embodiment as contributors to feeling
present and interested in IJ and found that responsiveness was the major factor positively
contributing to presence (Steed et al., 2018).
A final relevant element in extant IJ research is empathy. In a 2015 TED talk, film-
maker Chris Milk described VR as ‘the ultimate empathy machine’, and it caught a lot of
interest in VR technology’s potential for news (Steed et al., 2018). The Tow Report
Virtual Reality Journalism pointed out that ‘a core question is whether VR can provide
4 Journalism 00(0)

similar feelings of empathy and compassion to real-life experiences’ (Aronson-Rath

et al., 2015). Experimental IJ research has found VR technology to have a positive impact
compared to traditional journalism on not just feelings of empathy (Laws, 2017) but also
source credibility and story-sharing intention (Sundar et al., 2017); likewise, research
shows empathy to be linked to immersion and embodiment (Shin and Biocca, 2018).
Empathy, then, seems to play a similarly essential, though possibly controversial, role in
understanding how VR technology might be used for the news.
Thus, we know IJ has a positive effect on presence, that presence leads to higher
source credibility, and that interactivity and empathy are central to these positive experi-
ences. We know, also, that the technology is being used by newsrooms as a new way to
connect with (new) audiences (Watson, 2017). But for IJ to actually live up to its hyped
role in ‘the future of news’, more investigation into how media users perceive the tech-
nology’s potential for news consumption – and understand the relevance of presence,
interactivity, and empathy to IJ news consumption in particular – is needed. Can they
actually see themselves using it – and if so, why?

Studying audiences
Understanding media audiences is essential to understanding media effects (Rubin,
2009). Audiences are commonly studied from a Uses and Gratifications theory (U&G)
perspective. U&G originated from studying how media and its content satisfies the social
and psychological needs of audiences (Cantril, 1942), and gained popularity in the sec-
ond half of the last century with a change of research perspective from ‘what do media
do to people?’ to ‘what do people do with media?’ (Katz, 1959). The cornerstone of U&G
theory in relation to mass communication was laid in the 1970s (Ruggiero, 2000) with
the understanding of audiences as selective and motivated by rational self-awareness of
their own needs, as well as the expectation that those needs would be satisfied by particu-
lar types of media and content (Katz et al., 1974; Palmgreen, 1984).1 In their seminal
work, McQuail et al. (1972) identified four broad gratifications for using traditional
media: diversion (media serve as a distraction and way to pass time), personal relation-
ships (media provide ‘ammunition’ for social conversations), personal identity (media
help people understand themselves and how they fit into society), and surveillance
(media provide information to understand and control the environment). Across all these
studies, surveillance is the only gratification that has remained constant. The original
outline of U&G, however, still dominates research on media gratifications to this day,
where the notion of an active, rather than passive, audience has reached new heights with
the Internet and moved from an assumption to a reality (Sundar and Limperos, 2013).
Scholars have criticized U&G for lacking comprehensive theoretical grounding and
clarity of central concepts, and for not acknowledging how technology itself can impact
the selection of media for obtaining gratifications (Ruggiero, 2000). Still, U&G is con-
sidered a highly effective approach to the study of uses and effects of 21st-century elec-
tronic media (Basilisco and Cha, 2015; LaRose and Eastin, 2004; Rubin, 2009), including
mobile phones (Leung and Wei, 2000), online newspapers (Yoo, 2011), social media
(Basilisco and Cha, 2015; Quinn, 2016), and augmented reality smart glasses
(Rauschnabel, 2018). However, gratifications associated with IJ remain unexplored. The
Nielsen and Sheets 5

original gratifications identified from traditional media may not be applicable to IJ since
the activities are fundamentally different. Thus, the theory used here is as an exploratory
first step in understanding what key reasons audiences identify for using IJ, and what
gratifications they obtain from it. Furthermore, focus group methodology puts users’
experiences front-and-center, thus adding unique perspectives to the growing body of
research on IJ.
With all of this in mind, we posed three audience-centered research questions to struc-
ture the data collection and analysis:

RQ1: Which gratifications do users obtain from IJ?

RQ2: How do media users see IJ as different from and complementary to traditional
journalism?
RQ3: To what extent do audiences see VR technology as a potential medium for regu-
lar news consumption?

Methods
Given the novelty of the technology and relative scarcity of IJ audience research to date,
an inductive, qualitative focus group approach was felt to be most appropriate (Boeije,
2010). Research with an exploratory nature, setting out to take a first step toward under-
standing a new area of inquiry, is considered to benefit more from qualitative than from
qualitative data (David and Sutton, 2011). This approach allows researchers to interpret
new phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them (Denzin and Lincoln,
1994). Our focus groups allowed us to introduce participants to the technology yet keep
the tone rather informal and include ‘everyday talk’ which is useful in the process of
producing and reproducing meaning in daily life (Kitzinger, 1994; Lunt and Livingstone,
1996). Focus group participants can be each other’s audience in constructing meanings
and understandings (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996); the combination of researcher control
and participant-driven discussion affords a broad range of information on the topic
(David and Sutton, 2011).

Recruitment of participants
Recruitment was done through convenience sampling, which is the most common
method for selecting focus group participants as it saves time and money but still consid-
ers the characteristics of the participants in relation to the research (Stewart and
Shemdasani, 2015). A web page and flyer with relevant information about the focus
group were shared through the lead researcher’s online, offline, and mobile networks. It
was stressed that anyone with a personal knowledge of the lead researcher could not
participate, that participants were expected to bring a smartphone and headphones, and
that the discussion would be in English (to ensure participants were fluent enough to
have a natural, interactive discussion). We advertised that participants would receive a
pair of Google Cardboard VR viewers in exchange for participating. These were donated
for the research by Google News Lab.
6 Journalism 00(0)

Twenty-two people showed interest. They were asked to fill out a short questionnaire
about themselves. Based on the results, participants were divided into two groups: one
for those in communication-related occupations (students or practitioners of journalism,
communication, or marketing) and one for those in non-communication-related occupa-
tions (students or practitioners of anything else). A few interested participants were
excluded in order to evenly distribute the two groups, and so a total of 13 people eventu-
ally participated; 8 were male, most were master’s students (9 of 13 – all in other fields
than the researchers’), they had nine different nationalities (five were Dutch) and they
were between 22 and 60 years of age (the second oldest was 32).
The focus groups were conducted on 18 and 19 April 2017. Participants were wel-
comed by the lead researcher, who also served as the focus group moderator. Everything
was recorded on video for analysis purposes. A colleague of the lead researcher provided
technical assistance with recording devices and assisted in answering questions from
participants about how to use the Google Cardboards.

Conducting the focus groups

After signing consent forms and checking their Internet connections, participants
were given a Google Cardboard and instructed in its use. Participants were then asked
to introduce themselves through a small ice-breaking activity; then the discussion
started out with simple questions about why and how they used journalism in their
daily lives.
Next, VR as a topic was introduced, using association cards, where participants wrote
down what came to mind when thinking about VR, which led to a short discussion. This
was followed by two rounds of structured discussion about two examples of IJ: first, a
360° video production by The New York Times about the war in Iraq called ‘Fight for
Falluja’ (The New York Times, 2016), and second, an IJ smartphone application by the
Guardian about solitary confinement in the United States called ‘6x9’ (Guardian, 2016).
After each example, participants shared their reactions, and the discussion was gently
structured around the three research questions. For RQ2, which asked about the compari-
son with traditional journalism, participants were shown a clip from the TV documentary
Frontline on solitary confinement in the United States by PBS (Jones and Edge, 2014),
which was based on the same research as the Guardian’s app. To broaden the discussion,
the moderator continuously reminded the participants to focus on the general experience
– not the topic or messages of this specific content.
A final discussion challenged participants to consider whether and how they might
use IJ in the future. Closing statements and farewells followed. Both sessions lasted for
1½ hours. The full focus group guide can be found in an online appendix.

Data analysis
To analyze the data, thematic analysis was used. This is a method for finding themes that
emerge as important to the description of the phenomenon (Daly et al., 1997), through
‘careful reading and re-reading of the data’ (Rice and Ezzy, 1999: 258). The analysis is
data-driven, and the coding is a recursive process (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
Nielsen and Sheets 7

Table 1.  Obtained gratifications from immersive journalism.

Experience Affect Agency

Immersion Transportation Emotion Empathy Information Control

The feeling of The ability to Positive or A better The process Being able to
leaving one’s go anywhere negative or deeper of gathering control the
physical world and be emotions understanding information experience
and entering anyone (else) triggered by of others of a
another reality immediately the content journalistic
or point of view production

After a structured familiarization process by the lead researcher, a code list of major
topics related to the RQs was generated. Data relevant to each code were collected while
the coding set was inductively expanded through coding and recoding of data. This pro-
cess matched the ‘scissor-and-sort’ technique (Stewart and Shemdasani, 2015). When an
existing code wasn’t sufficient to accommodate an existing theme or topic, a new one
was created. The final list consisted of 24 relevant codes (see online appendix 2). These
codes were analyzed and structured around the RQs (see online appendix 3). NVivo, a
qualitative textual analysis software, was used for coding.

Results
In the following, the data for each RQ are presented using examples, descriptions, and
quotes from the focus groups. Participants are referred to by a letter (A for members of
the ‘non-com group’, B for the ‘com group’) and a number to differentiate participants
from each other.

RQ1: Gratifications from IJ

Participants were asked to discuss why and how they would potentially use IJ to satisfy
specific needs (RQ1). Their identified gratifications grouped into six broad categories
(see Table 1), some of which speak to traditional U&G research, others of which fit better
with research on immersive media, as described below. These six gratifications cluster,
conceptually, into three pairs: experience, affect, and agency.

Experience gratifications: Immersion and transportation.  The first category of gratifications

relates to how users experience IJ. It includes immersion, the experience of leaving one’s
physical world and instead entering another reality or point of view, which was a domi-
nant gratification identified by the com group. Many participants expressed feeling
highly immersed in the IJ examples, through phrases like ‘when I was in the cell’ (B2).
The non-com group expressed less immersion, but some did feel the impact of a
change in point of view: ‘I have never seen prison as a threat to me, but suddenly it
became one’ (A3). Overall, they distanced themselves more from potential immersive-
ness: ‘In the end, we are comfortably still sitting here and having chocolate’ (A1).
8 Journalism 00(0)

The feeling of ‘being there’ (or not) is closely related to immersion but separated by
giving users a notion of being taken to another place – perhaps one they cannot physi-
cally experience. This gratification of transportation is thus a second gratification related
to experience. While members of the non-com group called it ‘an extension of percep-
tion’ (A4), this was mostly addressed by the com group who pondered seeing a war bat-
tlefield, watching a surgery, or witnessing breaking news stories somewhere as they
unfold: ‘instead of going to Twitter, I would go “there” instead to check it out’ (B6).
Transportation is a well-established factor in the role of persuasive impact of public nar-
ratives (Green and Brock, 2000).
Research on IJ has found these two gratifications to be of particular relevance for
journalism (Aronson-Rath et al., 2015). The findings indicate that IJ provides an immer-
sive experience that could lead to more transportation than traditional journalism and
that IJ could provide a more compelling way for audiences to achieve this gratification
and gain insight and empathy for the conditions of others (empathy will be discussed
further below).
However, the group division revealed interesting differences between the participants.
Most noteworthy, many non-coms distanced themselves from what was real by discuss-
ing bias and fear of manipulation, whereas almost the entire com group got highly
immersed verbally and physically. Research has found knowledge of and prior experi-
ence with the medium to impact the perception of it (Lombard and Ditton, 1997), and
this could be an indication of such for how IJ is experienced, at least vis-à-vis the experi-
ence gratifications.

Affective gratifications: Emotion and empathy.  The second category of gratifications relates
less to physical or mental immersion, and more to affective responses. The first is emo-
tion. This included positive and negative emotional reactions to IJ content; gratifications
do not have to be experienced as positive (Orlik, 2015). In the current case, negative
emotions experienced (such as feeling claustrophobic) are still regarded as a gratification
because they contribute to the overall understanding of the story.
The com group expressed how they ‘got pretty scared sometimes’ (B6), how it was
‘extremely uncomfortable’ (B5), and that it was ‘disorientating’ (B3), but also how emo-
tions enriched the experience despite the unpleasantness. B2 and B5 both suggested that
‘If you want an emotional response from the viewer, then VR is the way to go’ (B2).
The non-com group found it ‘cool, but also a bit stressful’ (A1), to be a ‘very active
way of consuming’ (A2), and A3 found it ‘exciting’ and ‘tense’ even though she at first
found it very uncomfortable due to claustrophobia. Although responses such as ‘disori-
enting’ and feeling sick could be categorized as unintended consequences rather than as
actual gratifications, almost all participants expressed some individual emotional reac-
tions as gratifications from their IJ experiences.
In addition, participants often linked their experience to the notion of empathy for
others: ‘When you can get the feeling of how it is to be there [in solitary confinement],
you kind of understand why they get crazy’ (B1). Empathy is, therefore, the fourth grati-
fication identified. Both groups touched upon the opportunity IJ presents to put people in
others’ shoes, which B4 called ‘unique’ because not enough people ‘look outside their
own life’. However, the non-com group had a larger focus on empathy and the
Nielsen and Sheets 9

‘emotional investment’ (A1) in the ‘characters’ as an important gratification, one that

could lead users to care about topics or stories they may otherwise have gotten desensi-
tized to. ‘Every time there is a war, some people are saying “this can never happen again”
and it always happens again’ and ‘maybe they really need to realize what is going on and
VR could contribute to that’ (A5).
This resonates with De la Peña et al. (2010), who found that IJ leads to emotions
accompanying news and greater audience involvement with the stories, which can create
empathy. Emotion and emotional release are key elements in the literature on U&G,
considered to belong within ‘diversion’ as one of the four broad motives for using media
(McQuail et al., 1972).
Emotion and empathy are not new media gratifications, but the immediacy and inten-
sity with which IJ elicits them might make these particularly relevant gratifications for
this sort of journalism. Such gratifications can give audiences a more profound and richer
understanding of stories by appealing to their personal feelings in ways that contribute to
a strong understanding of others. For journalists, this is potentially appealing as part of
their role conception may be as mobilizers to take action on pressing issues (Beam et al.,
2009). As such, there is clear potential in VR for journalists to achieve that goal.

Agency gratifications: Information and control.  The third category of gratifications relates to
the way users can learn from and control the content of IJ. Both groups said IJ would be
useful to gather and help simplify information on complex matters: ‘I thought about his-
tory education [. . .] about the 16th century, which I think would help especially young
people understand better how things were’ (A7). Both groups felt that information needs
might be specially served by IJ for areas that users were already interested in; A4 noted
that it would be great for occasionally experiencing a ‘special piece’ one already had an
interest in and wanted to know more about. Most participants also considered IJ useful
for getting a new perspective on generally well-known topics. Notably, however, a con-
sensus emerged in the non-com group that IJ was too intense to use for everyday infor-
mation gathering.
A second gratification emerged here: control. Both groups highlighted how they could
control the experience and therefore also the information they were interested in when
using IJ: ‘I wanted to listen to the whole thing [about letters on the bed in the prison cell],
so I stayed there and kept looking’ (B4). Unlike a traditional news story, in IJ, users can
not only explore and find their own answers to questions but also choose to stay in the
story for a long time and to get purposefully lost while exploring. The ability to look
around was found by the com group to make it a very personal experience.
This idea of control was particularly relevant to the IJ app experience; participants –
especially in the non-com group – distinguished between the app experience and the
360° video by describing the latter as more limiting, which A4 called ‘like you are a
GoPro [camera] being carried around’. Also, the participants’ body language was indica-
tive: during the 360° video, only one person stood up, whereas three stood up and even
walked around the room during 6x9. While doing so, B6 stumbled over an item shown in
the video and almost walked into the camera recorder, B1 moved her hand to reach out
for a virtual item and B2 walked so far away from the table that he almost hit a wall on
the opposite of the 85 m2 big room. This, of course, not only exemplifies the immersion
10 Journalism 00(0)

mentioned previously but also illustrates the level of agency related to control and infor-
mation in the experience.
Information-seeking has, as noted, been a constant across most U&G studies (Sundar
and Limperos, 2013), and for media studies in general. In the age of information, media
users will seek information (Ruggiero, 2000). IJ presents a new way of getting information,
however, that gives more agency and control to the user/audience. Thus, information and
control are important gratifications that increase users’ agency, adding value to traditional
news stories – especially for complex topics, where the immediacy and control of the expe-
rience can simplify the content and provide a more personal information experience.

RQ2: IJ versus traditional journalism

The discussion of RQ2 was facilitated by participants trying out the IJ app on solitary
confinement after having watched a clip from a TV documentary on the same topic (and
based on the same journalistic research; Jones and Edge, 2014). Participants in both
groups agreed the two formats had different, complementary qualities: IJ adds value to
traditional journalism. They emphasized how the TV piece was more pleasant for being
introduced to facts while the IJ app gave a deeper and more memorable understanding of
being in solitary confinement: ‘Watching it on TV communicated to my brain, where the
[app] was communicating more to my heart’ (B5).
Participants discussed how traditional TV can feel ‘overdramatized’ whereas IJ can be
‘more authentic’: ‘You’re genuinely like this prisoner, you listen to their story and there is
no element of over-acting’ (B2). The notion of empathy was included in the authenticity
discussion and linked to the experience with comments such as ‘[In the documentary] it’s
very easy to distance yourself from them [prisoners] and to not really care about their
cause, but when you feel like it is you sitting there, you suddenly feel much closer to them’
(A1). Thus, authenticity emerged as a way that IJ can differ from traditional journalism.
This perceived authenticity also prompted discussion of potential manipulation and
over-editing in both traditional journalism and IJ, where the two groups had diverging
perspectives. The com group was positive about the prospects of IJ content because the
entire scene – not just one angle of it – is presented firsthand. The non-com group was
more skeptical, and members emphasized how it is still ‘something editors did’ (A6) and
that ‘[I don’t think] we should discard our objection to bias because – you can still make
anything biased – even VR’ (A7).
A3 and A7 argued that IJ also has moral complications because it can give news about
real people a ‘video-game feel’. Addressing the best way to make IJ content seem real
and not manipulated or like a video-game, Migielicz and Zacharia (2016) produced a
practical guide for VR journalism that touches upon issues also raised by scholars such
as positioning of the journalist or the narrative direction in storytelling (Aronson-Rath
et al., 2015; De la Peña et al., 2010). Scholars have found it problematic that IJ simply
appears very real (Kool, 2016: 9). Thus, we see that IJ treads a fine line between provid-
ing a sense of greater authenticity for some users, whereas others see it as video-game-
esque and no less subject to manipulation than traditional news stories.
Both groups highlighted the new and personal perspective as the most crucial dif-
ference between the two kinds of journalism. Individuals in both groups (A4 and B5)
Nielsen and Sheets 11

drew parallels to TV’s impact on the Vietnam War when the American people got their
first real pictures of war; such images are credited with turning public opinion against
the war (Mandelbaum, 1982). This led to specific points of caution in the discussion
of IJ’s impact: A3 found it problematic and said ‘We don’t need more technology to
enhance our moral judgment [. . .] I can still say that it’s horrible what happened in
Iraq, but I don’t need to experience it to know it’, and B5 encouraged media who want
to use IJ to study its effect carefully before using it over traditional journalism: ‘This
[IJ] can have the same impact [as the Vietnam War had] that people can get much
more engaged than they were before, and you have to know what you are playing
with’. Interestingly, scholars have also discussed IJ related to the effect of technology
during the Vietnam War. Kool (2016: 9) notes how we should think carefully about
how it can ‘change the transmission, the reception, and the understanding of news
around the world’.
In sum, when comparing traditional journalism and IJ, the most important aspects are
the personal experience and emotional impact of IJ. According to the focus groups, IJ is
not set to replace traditional news, but instead, it provides complementary features, not
without their own ethical issues.

RQ3: VR as a medium for journalism

Participants were all asked before and after the main portion of the focus group whether
they thought they would use IJ on a regular basis for their news in the future. There was
a difference between the two groups. In the com group, one of six answered ‘yes’ before
the examples/discussion, versus five of six after they had tried it. They all believed IJ had
the potential to be the ‘next big thing’ and hoped to see more options for customized user
experiences. Their biggest hesitation was the social constraint of feeling self-conscious
and looking silly using VR viewers. A similar finding was reported by the BBC, whose
research suggested current limitations to the way audiences experience VR ranging from
‘clunky user experiences of the headsets to confusion around varying user experience’
(Watson, 2017: 37).
The social constraint was echoed by the non-com group, though they believed it
would evolve along with the development of more convenient technology: ‘If everyone
is walking around with special glasses that can switch the real world on and off and have
different channels, then I would also use it on the streets or in the metro’ (A3). For per-
sonal news use in the future, however, only two of seven said ‘yes’ while the rest said
either ‘maybe’ or ‘no’, both before and after trying it. Only one member changed her
mind and went from ‘maybe’ to ‘no’, thus the non-com members were more pessimistic
about IJ’s mainstream implementation. This could be due to different approaches to the
concept of ‘news’ and how to use it. Furthermore, the com group had a much clearer idea
of what VR was before the group session started, and that knowledge alone combined
with their interest in participating could be an indicator of how prior interest in VR and
its development impact the experience positively. In any case, practitioners and theorists
alike should be cautious before assuming that all users are ready to adopt the technology.
Participants in both groups agreed that IJ would never be the only way of consuming
news, but that it would and should supplement other productions.
12 Journalism 00(0)

Discussion
Attaining ‘value’ is one of the most essential drivers of success in people’s acceptance
and use of (new) media and technology (Rauschnabel, 2018). This study takes a small,
though important first step toward understanding what media users think of VR technol-
ogy – and specifically IJ – as a means of future news consumption.
Our findings suggest that although some users have reservations about the tech-
nology and their likelihood to embrace it, they see great potential in the use of IJ. To
them, IJ will never be the only way of consuming news, but if done right, it can add
value to many journalistic productions. Specifically, six interconnected gratifica-
tions from using IJ were identified: immersion, transportation, emotion, empathy,
information, and control. These gratifications are individually echoed in research on
immersive media (Aronson-Rath et al., 2015; De la Peña et al., 2010) or U&G
research on traditional and new media (Katz et al., 1974; Ruggiero, 2000; Sundar
and Limperos, 2013), but as a set of gratifications specifically linked to IJ, it is
unique. VR technology in journalism indeed offers ‘unheard-of-possibilities for
journalism’ as news becomes ‘an experience’ (Kasem et al., 2015: 16). As the focus
group discussions on authenticity suggest, VR can potentially serve an important
purpose for building trust with audiences by letting them experience the news ‘with
their own eyes’ (Newman et al., 2016).
Despite that optimism, the results here show that users may find IJ less suitable for
presenting facts and statistics, to be too stressful and attention-demanding for everyday
use, to raise moral issues, and to be relatively inconvenient in its current form. The con-
straints regarding wearable technologies should not be overlooked, but when it comes to
fashion adoption, social influence matters (Grant and Stephen, 2005); as A3 pointed out
in the focus group, this would naturally change with more people using it.
Our results confirm that media houses – at least those with sufficient budget and
expertise – could benefit from exploring the use of VR technology further. IJ can give
audiences a deeper and richer understanding of stories, appeal to emotions and enhance
empathy (Laws, 2017), and create a strong notion of being present elsewhere. New
media and technology come with new user gratifications (Ruggiero, 2000; Sundar and
Limperos, 2013) and by satisfying experience, affect, and agency gratifications, IJ may
be a powerful tool to cover and understand otherwise inaccessible places. This is espe-
cially relevant for journalists, in their role as social mobilizers on pressing issues (Beam
et al., 2009). It can provide a personal experience of journalism not matched by tradi-
tional news and might provide a competitive edge for media houses competing in the
information age.
That said, the results are necessarily tentative, primarily due to our method. Focus
group data cannot be considered generalizable, as dominant individuals taking control of
the discussion, member contributions being limited to what they are willing to share in a
group, and particular attitudes toward the topic brought up early on can affect the conver-
sation going forward (Carey, 1995; David and Sutton, 2011). Likewise, in terms of our
sample, the two groups mainly comprised students in their 20s based in a large European
city. This sample of higher-educated university students is not representative of other
demographic segments, and it is safe to assume that users less familiar with smartphones,
Nielsen and Sheets 13

social media, and new technologies may have a different attitude to IJ. However, younger
audiences are considered particularly interesting for IJ because their news habits are still
developing (Marchi, 2012); furthermore, they are ‘digital natives’ more likely to accept
new technology (Kasem et al., 2015).
What our sample allowed, however, was the interesting subject-field difference to
emerge: the com group was much more ‘on board’ with the technology (and with news
itself), almost uncritically persuaded about IJ’s potential. Conversely, the distrust toward
journalism in general expressed by the non-com group is in itself worthy of further inves-
tigation, in addition to their greater skepticism toward the technology and its effects. This
suggests follow-up studies should continue to consider the ‘starting position’ of respond-
ents relative to both news and technology. If only those users already relatively trusting of
journalism see benefits to IJ, then IJ may not (yet) be able to bring distant audiences back
to journalism or boost trust among the skeptical. Future work could probe this idea further,
for example, with experiments examining the effects of IJ on trust in the news, as moder-
ated by prior news attitudes. Additional focus groups with more varied participants would
also expand our understanding of how users experience these technologies for journalism.
Interviews with newsmakers and storytellers are also important next steps to illuminate
the goals newsrooms have for IJ and VR – and focus group findings can be shared with
those practitioners to facilitate recognition of U&G on both sides of the equation.
Although we know from research that the level of interactivity contributes posi-
tively to the level of immersion, we chose not to include a fully interactive IJ experi-
ence in the focus group experience, as these are still not widely accessible for
consumers. (Similarly, our use of Google Cardboards instead of better equipment
reflects that these were, at the time, the most available and affordable way to familiar-
ize audiences with VR.) This points toward another limitation: technology is ever-
changing, and contemporary IJ providers are continually updating the content and
functionality of their productions, which makes it difficult to follow the development
longitudinally (Shin and Biocca, 2018). While the IJ productions we included reflect
themes in current productions, these will likely change in the future. Precisely because
of these rapid developments, we urge researchers and practitioners to continue
approaching VR in journalism as a subject of research. Only then can we better assess
where the hype ends and reality begins.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was supported by Google News Lab, which donated a
set of Google Cardboards for the focus group participants.

ORCID iDs
Søren Lund Nielsen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0332-2959
Penelope Sheets https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-9321

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
14 Journalism 00(0)

Note
1. Even though the gratifications sought from media use differ from the gratifications obtained
from this use, both types of gratifications are strongly correlated, and a regular use of media
over time is seen to imply that the gratifications sought are gratifications obtained (Levy and
Windahl, 1984; Palmgreen et al., 1980). This article therefore focuses on gratifications as
the preferred term, acknowledging that these can be either sought, obtained, or both from
media use.

References
Anderson C, Bell E and Shirky C (2014) Post Industrial journalism: Adapting to the present.
Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 7(2): 32–123.
Aronson-Rath R, Milward J, Owen T, et al. (2015) Virtual reality journalism. Report, Tow Center
for Digital Journalism, Columbia University, New York, 11 November.
Basilisco R and Cha KJ (2015) Uses and gratification motivation for using Facebook and the impact
of Facebook usage on social capital and life satisfaction among Filipino users. International
Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications 9(4): 181–194.
Beam RA, Weaver DH and Brownlee BJ (2009) Changes in professionalism of U.S. journalists
in the turbulent twenty-first century. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86(2):
277–298.
Boeije H (2010) Analysis in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
Cantril H (1942) Professor quiz: A gratifications study. In: Lazarsfeld PF and Stanton F (eds)
Radio Research 1941. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, pp. 34–45.
Carey M (1995) Comment: Concerns in the analysis of focus group data. Qualitative Health
Research, 5(4): 487–495.
Cauwenberge AV, d’Haenens L and Beentjes H (2013) Young people’s news orientations and uses
of traditional and new media for news. Communications 38(4): 367–388.
CNN Press Room (2017) CNN digital debuts its virtual reality unit. CNN. Available at: http://
cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2017/03/07/cnn-digital-vr-virtual-reality-cnnvr/ (accessed 21
March 2017).
Cornia A, Sehl A and Nielsen RK (2016) Digital News Project 2016: Private Sector Media and
Digital News. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Daly J, Kellehear A and Gliksman M (1997) The Public Health Researcher: A Methodological
Approach. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Oxford University Press.
David M and Sutton CD (2011) Social Research: An Introduction, vol. 2. London: SAGE.
De la Peña N, Weil P, Llobera J, et al. (2010) Immersive journalism: Immersive virtual reality for
the first-person experience of news. Presence 19(4): 291–301.
Denzin N and Lincoln Y (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Döpfner M (2016) Mark Zuckerberg talks about the future of Facebook, virtual reality and artifi-
cial intelligence. Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuck-
erberg-interview-with-axel-springer-ceo-mathias-doepfner-2016-2?international=true&r=U
S&IR=T (accessed 12 March 2017).
Doyle P, Gelman M and Gill S (2016) Viewing the Future? Virtual Reality in Journalism. Miami,
FL: Knight Foundation.
Emamdjomeh A (2015) Discovering Gale Crager. LA Times. Available at: http://graphics.latimes.
com/mars-gale-crater-vr/ (accessed 18 February 2017).
Nielsen and Sheets 15

Grant IJ and Stephen GR (2005) Buying behaviour of ‘tweenage’ girls and key societal communi-
cating factors influencing their purchasing of fashion clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal 9(4): 450–467.
Green MC and Brock TC (2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narra-
tives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 701–721.
Grueskin B, Seave A and Graves L (2011) The story so far: What we know about the business
of digital journalism. Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia Journalism School.
Available at: https://archives.cjr.org/the_business_of_digital_journalism/the_story_so_far_
what_we_know.php
Guardian (2016) 6x9: A virtual experience of solitary confinement. Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2016/apr/27/6x9-a-virtual-experience-
of-solitary-confinement (accessed 21 March 2017).
Jones EC (Producer) and EdgeD (Producer and Director) (2014) Frontline: Solitary Nation
[Motion picture]. Arlington, VA: PBS.
Jones S (2017) Disrupting the narrative: Immersive journalism in virtual reality. Journal of Media
Practice 18(2–3): 171–185.
Karlin B, Kim HT, Kelly R, et al. (2018) Does Medium Matter? Exploring the Role of Virtual Reality
in Journalism. Knight Foundation & Media Impact Project of the USC Annenberg Norman
Lear Center. Available at: http://www.mediaimpactproject.org/uploads/5/1/2/7/5127770/
frontlinevrreport_final.pdf
Kasem A, Waes M and Wannet K (2015) What’s New(s)? Scenarios for the Future of Journalism.
Den Haag: Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek.
Katz E (1959) Mass communication research and the study of popular culture. Studies in Public
Communication 2: 1–6.
Katz E, Blumler JG and Gurevitzt M (1974) Utilization of mass communication by the individual.
In: Blumler JG and Katz E (eds) The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on
Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 19–32.
Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between
research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness 16: 103–121.
Kool H (2016) The ethics of immersive journalism: A rhetorical analysis of news storytelling with
virtual reality technology. Intersect 9(3). Available at: http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/
intersect/article/view/871
LaRose R and Eastin MS (2004) A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications:
Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
48(3): 358–377.
Laws ALS (2017) Can immersive journalism enhance empathy? Digital Journalism. Epub ahead
of print 20 October 2017. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1389286.
Leung L and Wei R (2000) More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular
phone (How news is shaped). Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77(2): 308–320.
Levy MR and Windahl S (1984) Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification
and exploration. Communication Research 11: 51–78.
Lombard M and Ditton T (1997) At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 3. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-03229-004
Lunt P and Livingstone S (1996) Rethinking the focus group in media and communications
research. Journal of Communication 46(2): 79–98.
McQuail D, Blumler JG and Brown J (1972) The television audience: A revised perspective. In:
McQuail D (ed.) Sociology of Mass Communication. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 135–165.
Mandelbaum M (1982) Vietnam: The television war. Daedalus 111(4): 157–169.
16 Journalism 00(0)

Marchi R (2012) With Facebook, blogs, and fake news, teens reject journalistic ‘Objectivity’.
Journal of Communication Inquiry 36(3): 246–262.
Migielicz G and Zacharia Z (2016) Stanford journalism program’s guide to using virtual real-
ity for storytelling – Dos & don’ts. Medium.com. Available at: https://medium.com/@
StanfordJournalism/stanford-journalism-programs-guide-to-using-virtual-reality-for-story-
telling-dos-don-ts-f6ca15c7ef3c#.23rpc9ox7 (accessed 12 February 2017).
Milk C (2015) How virtual reality can create the ultimate empathy machine. Ted. Available at:
https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_milk_how_virtual_reality_can_create_the_ultimate_empa-
thy_machine? (accessed 10 March 2017).
Mufson B (2014) Is virtual reality the future of journalism? Vice. Available at: http://thecreatorspro-
ject.vice.com/blog/is-virtual-reality-the-future-of-journalism (accessed 12 March 2017).
Newman N, Fletcher R, Levy D, et al. (2016) Reuters Digital News Report 2016. Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/
sites/default/files/research/files/Digital%2520News%2520Report%25202016.pdf?utm_
medium=referral&utm_source=digitalnewsreport.org/ (accessed 20 March 2017).
Orlik PB (2015) Media Criticism in a Digital Age: Professional and Consumer Considerations.
New York: Routledge.
Owen LH (2015) The New York Times is sending out a million Google Cardboards to go with
its upcoming VR films. NiemanLab. Available at: http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/10/the-
new-york-times-is-sending-out-a-million-google-cardboards-to-go-with-its-upcoming-vr-
films/?relatedstory (accessed 22 February 2017).
Palmgreen P (1984) Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. In: Bostrom RN (ed.)
Communication Yearbook 8. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 20–55.
Palmgreen P, Wenner LA and Rayburn JD (1980) Relations between gratifications sought and
obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research 7: 161–192.
Pew Research Center (2016) State of the news media 2016. Available at: https://www.journalism.
org/2016/06/15/state-of-the-news-media-2016/2010/
Phelan D (2017) Apple CEO Tim Cook: As Brexit hangs over UK, ‘times are not really awful,
there’s some great things happening’. The Independent. Available at: http://www.independ-
ent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/apple-tim-cook-boss-brexit-uk-theresa-may-
number-10-interview-ustwo-a7574086.html (accessed 10 April 2017).
Quinn K (2016) Why we share: A uses and gratifications approach to privacy regulation in social
media use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 60: 61–86.
Rauschnabel PA (2018) Virtually enhancing the real world with holograms: An exploration of
expected gratifications of using augmented reality smart glasses. Psychology & Marketing
35(8): 557–572.
Rice P and Ezzy D (1999) Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus. Melbourne, VIC,
Australia: Oxford University Press.
Rubin AM (2009) Uses and gratifications – An evolving perspective of media effects. In: Nabi RL
and Oliver MB (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE, pp. 147–159.
Ruggiero TE (2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and
Society 3: 3–37.
RYOT (2015) The Nepal earthquake. RYOT. Available at: http://www.ryot.org/stories/the-nepal-
earthquake (accessed 15 March 2017).
Schubert T, Friedmann F and Regenbrecht H (2001) The experience of presence: Factor analytic
insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10(3): 266–281.
Sherman WR and Craig AB (2003) Understanding Virtual Reality: Interface, Application, and
Design. San Francisco, CA: Morgen Kaufmann Publishers.
Nielsen and Sheets 17

Shin D and Biocca F (2018) Exploring immersive experience in journalism. New Media & Society
20: 2800–2823.
Smith W (2015) Stop calling Google Cardboard’s 360-degree videos ‘VR’. Wired. Available at:
https://www.wired.com/2015/11/360-video-isnt-virtual-reality/ (accessed 15 March 2017).
Steed A, Pan Y, Watson Z, et al. (2018) ‘We wait’ – The impact of character responsiveness and
self-embodiment on presence and interest in an immersive news experience. Frontiers in
Robotics and AI 5: 112.
Stewart DW and Shemdasani PN (2015) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 3rd edn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sundar SS, Kang J and Oprean D (2017) Being there in the midst of the story: How immersive
journalism affects our perceptions and cognitions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking 2017; 20(11): 672–682.
Sundar SS and Limperos AM (2013) Uses and Grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57(4): 504–525.
The New York Times (2016) The fight for Falluja. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.
nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/14/magazine/fight-for-falluja-vr.html?_r=0 (accessed 21
March 2017).
Watson Z (2017) VR for News: The New Reality – Digital News Project 2017. Reuters Institute for
the Study of Journalism. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/
files/research/files/VR%2520for%2520news%2520-%2520the%2520new%2520reality.pdf
Woodruff B (2015) Inside the Hermit Kingdom: A virtual reality journey through North Korea.
ABC News. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/International/inside-hermit-kingdom-vir-
tual-reality-journey-north-korea/story?id=35654118 (accessed 22 February 2017).
Yoo CY (2011) Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification seeking process in online
newspapers. Communication Theory 21: 67–89.

Author biographies
Søren Lund Nielsen holds a joint Master of Arts in Journalism, Media and Globalization from
Aarhus University, Denmark, and the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. He previously
obtained a Bachelor in Journalism from The Danish School of Media and Journalism. He has
worked in journalism and in communication.
Penelope Sheets is a lecturer and researcher in Political Communication and Journalism at the
Department of Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam. Her research focuses on
the use of group identity in news coverage and strategic political communication and the effects of
such cues on public opinion.