China’s online news production

Since the 1980s, Chinese government institutions have promoted media commercialization through reforms to alleviate fiscal pressure. With the expansion of the Internet, television, and online news websites in the late 1990s, information dissemination gradually became integrated into the national informatization strategy. During this period, journalists and audiences developed new spaces for expression enabled by technological innovation, such as online forums, although these spaces remained constrained by ideological boundaries [21,22]. Studies of online dissemination patterns based on historical data from more than one thousand Chinese news portals reveal that hot-spot events, even when first reported by a small news portal, can rapidly spread across the entire network through reposting by major news portals [23]. News production thus reflected a form of controlled liberalization.

The rise of Web 2.0 and social media platforms has changed how journalism works, leading to participatory journalism. “Engagement” has become a buzzword, though research shows that most practices emphasize audience feedback and quantitative metrics rather than substantive participatory contributions [24,25]. In the Chinese context, online journalism has been characterized as hybrid, shaped simultaneously by market competition, professional aspirations, and state-imposed boundaries on permissible discourse [26]. Platforms such as WeChat and Weibo enable decentralized participation, sparking debates on transparency and free speech in China [27]. Research on citizen journalism demonstrates that while real-name registration policies have constrained individual practices, citizens collectively employ social media to influence commercial media agendas and, to some extent, policy discussions, thereby reshaping journalism and the public sphere [28,29].

News production requires substantial investment, and social media platforms have consequently reshaped how news is produced, expressed, and received. Chinese online journalism displays several distinctive features. Studies have shown that digital news practitioners in China tend to adopt non-confrontational strategies in news production, prioritizing data traffic over the public interest [30]. In addition, the discursive construction of online news in China is influenced by multiple factors, including legitimacy concerns and the pursuit of international reputation [31]. Taken together, these findings underscore the complex interplay of technology, politics, media regulation, and individual agency in shaping the landscape of digital news production in China.

Actor-network theory in journalism studies

In recent years, Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory (ANT) has become a prominent framework in journalism and communication research [32]. The theory has gained wide recognition because it rejects the traditional subject-object dichotomy and offers a distinctive perspective for interactions between human and nonhuman entities. Unlike other network theories, Latour employs “agency” to denote all entities exerting influence in action processes, agency is distributed across both human and nonhuman actants. Agency, mediator, and network constitute the core concepts. ANT posits that all mobilized elements in actions, including human actors and non-human objects, function as mediators. In Latour’s formulation, a network comprises a string of actions, emphasizing processes of work, interaction, flow, and change. Consequently, ANT mandates reinterpreting “actants” anew in each instance, respecting their diversity, and documenting how varied participants translate and construct reality [18].

ANT’s emphasis on continuity and dynamism makes it ideal for examining how technology supports and transforms journalism, thereby challenging and broadening traditional views of news production [17]. Turner [15] pioneered ANT’s application in journalism studies, highlighting its value in identifying and critiquing “hybrid actors that are increasingly becoming a feature of journalism in multimedia environments” (p. 322). Similarly, Couldry [33] views ANT as a tool for analyzing complex power dynamics and actor roles in media networks [19]. Teurlings [34] delved into network connections, role distributions, and actors’ influence on media content to enhance understanding of media power structures. Research on automation in newsrooms reveals that, while journalists position machines as final arbitrators, these technologies play a more transformative role than mere mediation [35]. Nawaarthne and Storni [18] employ ANT to reevaluate news production’s capacity for truth revelation, framing it as a “progressive black box” where truth arises not as a static entity but from “chains of news made of heterogeneous materials and connections” (p. 1647). These applications demonstrate ANT’s value in reassessing journalism’s capacity for truth amid digital disruptions.

This perspective offers a valuable lens for examining the negotiable dynamics of media interactions [16] and equips scholars with a methodological toolkit that prioritizes descriptions of media ecologies over prescriptive models.

Social media, news and actor-network theory

Since the surge of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, “post-truth” has become widely discussed. These phenomena have challenged the traditional authority of journalism and reshaped how the public perceives truth. Scholars have pointed out that the spread of fake news reflects deeper tensions in contemporary society, revealing the contested status of journalism and the dynamic processes through which beliefs are formed [14]. It symbolizes the collapse of an older news order and the fragmentation of the modern public sphere. In this context, revisiting the question of news authenticity and understanding the role of social media have become increasingly important.

Social media connect journalists, editors, audiences, and advertisers, forming complex networks in which multiple human and nonhuman actors interact. Platforms such as Weibo and WeChat have introduced decentralized forms of participation, allowing audiences to comment on, share, and evaluate news content. These interactive features influence agenda-setting and shape the construction of authenticity [27]. Studies suggest that such engagement often focuses on visibility and quantitative metrics rather than substantive participation [24,25].

Within this media ecology, social media algorithms and technical architectures operate as nonhuman actors that affect news production, circulation, and reception. Algorithmic recommendation systems tend to prioritize stories that attract high levels of attention and engagement, which may not necessarily align with journalistic accuracy or public interest [36]. As a result, journalists and editors must adapt to platform logic and audience demand, sometimes making compromises in news selection and framing. Meanwhile, audiences’ perceptions of authenticity are shaped by the discursive environment of social media and by the opinions of others, leading to diverse interpretations of what constitutes truth.

In China, these transformations unfold within a hybrid system shaped by market competition, professional norms, and state regulation [26]. Research shows that digital news practitioners often adopt non-confrontational and pragmatic strategies, emphasizing web traffic over public service goals [29]. The discursive construction of news is further influenced by concerns about legitimacy, authority, and international reputation [27]. Under these conditions, social media serve as both participatory spaces and instruments of governance, linking emotional expression with institutional mechanisms of control. To capture the complexity of these interactions, recent scholarship has increasingly drawn on Actor-Network Theory (ANT). In journalism studies, ANT has been used to investigate how digital infrastructures, algorithms, and material devices shape news practices [19,37].

Although actor-network theory is useful when studying investigative journalism, it still has some problems. For instance, while conceptualizing all individuals and entities as “actors” is innovative, it risks oversimplifying the analysis of subjects and may not effectively uncover the institutional power relations, governance arrangements, and structural inequalities that shape news production processes. Additionally, the construction path of actor networks lacks unified standards, making it challenging to develop a general theory across cases. Building on the method of controversy mapping, this study proposes an analytical framework that enables researchers to better trace how actors interact and negotiate with one another. It conceptualizes news authenticity as the relational outcome of translation among multiple actors. This approach offers a useful lens for analyzing the development and legitimization of China’s online news ecology.

Based on the above, this study explored the following questions:

RQ1: Which human and non-human actors are most salient in China’s digital news environment, and how do they interact to shape journalistic practices?

RQ2: In what ways do actor-networks influence the visibility and legitimacy of news, and which nodes function as mediators within these processes?

RQ3: How is “truth” negotiated and produced within actor-networks across China’s social media platforms?

Case selection

The multiple case study method is widely employed to explore complex social phenomena, construct theoretical frameworks, and enhance external validity through cross-case comparisons [38,39]. In this study, case selection followed a theoretically informed comparative logic rather than convenience sampling, ensuring that each case contributes to identifiable analytical dimensions relevant to truth production in digital journalism. The selection of three cases is not arbitrary. Each case anchors a distinct mode of controversy formation in China’s digital news ecology and, taken together, they form a deliberately constructed comparative matrix that reveals how “truth” is produced across heterogeneous domains.

Specifically, the cases were selected based on four criteria: (1) cross-domain variation, ensuring that controversies emerged in distinct social domains, including public safety, celebrity consumption, and educational equity; (2) actor heterogeneity, involving interactions among citizens, journalists, institutions, and platform infrastructures; (3) complete controversy cycles, allowing observation from initial exposure to institutional stabilization; and (4) high platform visibility, ensuring that events triggered large-scale online participation and media intervention.

By analyzing multiple cases, we aim to capture not only the structural dynamics of networks but also the interpretive processes through which truth is constructed. The selected cases span distinct issue domains, public safety, celebrity consumption, and educational equity, while remaining independent of one another. They feature heterogeneous actors, unfold within complete temporal cycles, and have stimulated broad platform-based discussions of social significance, thereby ensuring their representativeness and relevance to the research focus.

Importantly, the three cases also enable comparison across key analytical dimensions, including (1) degrees of platform amplification, and (2) mechanisms through which official institutions ultimately stabilized or redefined truth claims. According to Golden-Biddle and Locke [40] and Pozzebon [41], interpretive case studies are expected to demonstrate authenticity, plausibility, criticality, and reflexivity in order to ensure methodological rigor. We attempted to log all available materials appearing in social networks to reconstruct the trajectories of investigative activities for three events. The three selected cases represent different pathways through which controversies moved from online exposure to institutional resolution, thereby allowing comparison of how actor-networks reorganize around competing truth claims.

We attempted to log all available materials appearing in social networks to reconstruct the trajectories of investigative activities for three events. Case 1 (a child disappearance in Shanghai, 2023). Case 2 (the Jewelry Exposure Case involving Actor Huang, 2025). Case 3 (the college entrance examination migration violation involving Actor Na, 2025). Together, the cases enable comparison between emergencies driven by public anxiety (Case 1), entertainment scandals amplified by consumption and class discourse (Case 2), and institutional controversies concerning policy fairness (Case 3), thus revealing how different social contexts shape truth negotiation processes.

Analytical procedures

Our data collection strategy was divided into two steps: First, systematically collecting and organizing qualitative materials, including media articles, and official statements, to identify key actors. For each case, we constructed a chronologically ordered narrative depicting the interactions between key events and their actors [32]. According to Latour’s [42] theory and previous research, the method for identifying and determining actors is not a static classification but a dynamic, empirical process that emphasizes “following the actors.” Therefore, we attempted to start from the case phenomena, listing all possible participating entities without presupposing their importance. By observing all discoverable public actions of actors in social media, we collected the actors’ trajectories in time and space and traced associations. Through the processes of following and translation, we constructed the actor network and confirmed actors via cross-source triangulation, ensuring comprehensive capture of heterogeneous networks.

We adopted a structured protocol for data identification, extraction, and analysis across the three cases. The study relied on publicly available data from major national news outlets, and provincial media platforms. The observation window for each case extended from its first online appearance to the point at which official announcements were issued and public discussion significantly declined, as indicated by the disappearance of event-related hashtags.

All retrieved materials were manually archived. Inclusion criteria required that data be: (1) publicly accessible, (2) directly related to the event, and (3) anchored to a verifiable actor or institutional source. Exclusion criteria comprised duplicated posts, missing timestamps, unverifiable rumors, and incomplete screenshots lacking provenance.

Although the four stages of translation provide a theoretical structure, stage identification in this study was guided by observable empirical transitions. In analysis, actors were identified through systematic tracing of publicly observable actions, including posting, commenting, reposting, issuing statements, and producing documentary evidence across platforms, allowing actor participation to be reconstructed through time-stamped interactions rather than predefined classifications. Transitions between stages were often gradual and sometimes overlapping.

Case description

Problematization: Making controversies and actors visible

Controversy provides a valuable opportunity to observe society, for it is precisely in such moments that actors become visible and their relationships emerge [43]. Across the three cases, problematization reveals which actors become visible and how initial networks are assembled, thereby addressing RQ1 concerning the identification and interaction of salient human and non-human actors. Before analyzing how each controversy became problematized, Table 1 outlines the discoverable public actions and the initial points of contention associated with each case. These actions serve as early indicators of how individual events were recast as matters of public concern.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Discoverable public actions and main controversies of three online news cases.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348284.t001

Marres and Moats [44] note that public controversies are spaces where social materiality and technological mediation are intricately intertwined. Problematization marks the moment when a controversy becomes explicit, when dominant explanations can no longer satisfy public demands for interpretation [45]. In other words, problematization is not merely the articulation of a problem; rather, it is a process through which discourse and media entanglements transform specific events into issues that can be socially perceived and acted upon.

In the Shanghai disappearance case, family members used personal media accounts to seek help, turning a private tragedy into a public concern about safety supervision and social rescue mechanisms. The absence of surveillance footage and tidal data at the scene triggered the first wave of public discussion. Subsequently, the father’s ambiguous statements redirected online attention toward questions of parental responsibility, transforming the Weibo hashtag “Shanghai Beach Missing Girl” into a temporary site of controversy.

In the second case, a birthday photo posted on social media sparked discussions about class consumption and the ethics of public officials. Online commentary shifted between verifying the authenticity of the earrings and questioning the legitimacy of political income. In the third case, the Gaokao migration controversy began with an actress’s personal interview, which exposed the gray areas of the education system. News outlets later conducted timeline based investigations into the legality of her university admission.

According to the translation logic, this process represents the core outcome of problematization, defining who has the authority to name the problem and who is required to respond [32]. Dispersed digital traces such as photos, administrative documents, screenshots, and rapidly shifting user emotions gradually converged through platform architectures and circulation practices. Emotional reactions from users created strong adhesion, drawing diverse participants into a shared space of attention. Through this combined work of platforms, users, documents, and news organizations, individual events were reassembled into socially recognizable issues.

During this process, both human and non-human actors, including hashtags, screenshots, and databases, reviewed and challenged the weak points within these authoritative frameworks. In China’s online news environment, the coexistence of official epistemic authority and platform based interpretive communities further intensified this dynamic [20]. Extensive digital data chains enabled users to cross reference official statements, screenshots, and transaction records, creating an alternative evidentiary circuit outside traditional journalistic gatekeeping systems, even though the reliability of such information remained uncertain.

Interessement: Alliance formation and network intensification

Interessement refers to a set of actions through which network builders seek to impose and stabilize the definitions established during problematization by engaging other participants [42]. At this stage, non-human actors such as evidence, news reports, and policy documents played key mediating roles. They did not merely circulate information but helped connect actors and align competing interpretations. When artifacts such as surveillance clips, screenshots, or official notices were repeatedly shared across platforms, they became focal reference points that reorganized interactions. In doing so, they formed traceable chains of evidence that structured public scrutiny. Social media platforms operated as obligatory passage points, channeling participation through trending lists, topic pages, and comment interfaces [45,46]. Table 2 summarizes the controversy mapping of actor-networks across the three cases, identifying key human and non-human actors, their connections, mediating roles, and translation effects during the development of online controversies.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Actors across three online news controversies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348284.t002

In Case 1, the circulation of surveillance footage and rescue updates aligned parents, volunteers, media, and police around the search effort. However, conflicting statements among rescue teams and suspicions directed at the father quickly fragmented this coalition, revealing the instability of alliances grounded in emotional urgency.

In Case 2, comment sections and screenshots transformed a personal image into a moral controversy over wealth legitimacy. Users, bloggers, and journalists formed a media-user coalition that questioned class privilege. The introduction of appraisal reports and regulatory investigation reoriented the network toward institutional accountability.

In Case 3, policy documents and archival records connected whistleblowers, journalists, and education authorities within a debate on fairness. As documentary evidence circulated, alliances were repeatedly reorganized, demonstrating how material artifacts both stabilize and reconfigure interpretive positions.

Across cases, interessement represents the moment of peak relational density. Alliances intensify through shared focal points but remain provisional. New documents, reinterpretations, or institutional interventions can rapidly reorganize network alignments. Rather than producing stability, this stage amplifies interpretive competition before later consolidation.

Enrollment: Role stabilization and narrative consolidation

Enrollment marks the stage in which actor positions become more clearly defined and network roles are consolidated. Compared to the fluid alliances of interessement, this phase is characterized by stronger evidentiary integration and clearer role differentiation.

In Case 1, rescue teams and volunteers initially gained visibility as executors of the search effort. However, conflicting statements among organizations blurred role boundaries until the police issued a forensic report and official statement. These institutional inscriptions re-centered authority and stabilized a traceable version of events, transforming emotional mobilization into institutional credibility.

In Case 2, bloggers and media accounts acted as narrative mediators, framing the controversy around wealth legitimacy through screenshots and value comparisons. As appraisal reports and disciplinary notices entered the network, interpretive competition narrowed. Institutional documentation reorganized the debate into a formal accountability framework.

In Case 3, policy documents and media investigations structured the controversy into a discussion of educational fairness. Editorial commentary and fact-checking activities consolidated dispersed claims into a coherent evidentiary chain. The subsequent intervention of the education department formalized this consolidation through official statements and rectification notices.

Across cases, enrollment represents the transition from interpretive competition to structured role assignment. Documentary artifacts and institutional actors gained centrality, reducing ambiguity and consolidating the network around more stable narrative configurations.

Mobilization: Stabilizing representations and producing public truths

Mobilization represents the stage in which actor-networks are consolidated through stabilized representations and delegated authority [45,47]. Certain actors begin to speak on behalf of others, and institutional inscriptions transform contested interpretations into administratively recognized facts. Table 3 summarizes the empirical findings across the three cases and outlines the actor configurations and relational mechanisms at each stage of the ANT translation process.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. The four-stage translation process in Chinese online news controversies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348284.t003

Across the three cases, stabilization occurred through bureaucratic documentation and visibility control. Police reports, disciplinary notices, and official statements translated dispersed narratives into institutional discourse, while platform algorithms privileged authoritative accounts and reduced competing interpretations. Through this combined mechanism of inscription and visibility management, “truth” was produced as a coordinated institutional representation.

In Case 1, the police forensic report re-centered authority and closed interpretive ambiguity. In Case 2, disciplinary investigations formalized accountability and reframed moral criticism into regulatory outcomes. In Case 3, official verification and rectification notices transformed debates on fairness into matters of administrative correction. In each instance, public speculation was absorbed into institutional procedures.

Mobilization thus marks the transition from contestation to governable knowledge. Authority becomes centralized, interpretive plurality declines, and the network stabilizes around institutional narratives.

Reflections

The study extends the application of ANT within journalism studies by providing an empirically grounded account of how truth is assembled across interconnected technological and institutional systems [32,52]. More broadly, the findings suggest that contemporary journalism should be understood as a technocultural practice in which credibility and news value are co-produced through interactions among human actors and material infrastructures. Rather than being solely generated within professional newsrooms, factual authority emerges through distributed processes of verification, circulation, and institutional recognition. This perspective helps explain why controversies in digital media environments often evolve through complex cycles of amplification, reinterpretation, and stabilization.