Distrust Profiles: Identifying the Factors That Shape Journalism’s Credibility Crisis

IF 2.7 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Media and Communication Pub Date : 2023-11-08 DOI:10.17645/mac.v11i4.7071
Thomas B. Ksiazek, Su Jung Kim, Jacob L. Nelson, Ahran Park, Sushobhan Patankar, Olivia Sabalaskey, Harsh Taneja
{"title":"Distrust Profiles: Identifying the Factors That Shape Journalism’s Credibility Crisis","authors":"Thomas B. Ksiazek, Su Jung Kim, Jacob L. Nelson, Ahran Park, Sushobhan Patankar, Olivia Sabalaskey, Harsh Taneja","doi":"10.17645/mac.v11i4.7071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span id=\"docs-internal-guid-c76c70fc-7fff-57e7-76ea-4562d4897bc3\">Trust in news is declining globally and has been for some time a phenomenon that has been amplified in the context of a global pandemic, the rise in anti-media populism, and social and political unrest. Overall, public trust in journalism remains low (44% globally), according to the <em>Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021</em>. Building on a growing body of research on predictors of (dis)trust among news audiences, this study examines survey data from the <em>Reuters Institute Digital News Report</em> <em>2021 </em>to explore distrust profiles—comparative profiles of users based on their relative distrust in news in general, news they consume, and news accessed through digital intermediaries like social and search—across distinct news environments: India, South Korea, and the US. We conclude that, across all three countries, there are large segments who either trust everything or distrust everything, suggesting a trust polarization phenomenon. Moreover, the results identify segments of swing trusters, users who trust some news and distrust other types but do not indicate a blanket tendency to trust or distrust everything. Normative expectations about the institution of journalism (i.e., folk theories) seem to be the most powerful factors in explaining the relative likelihood of membership in all profiles, where expectations regarding impartiality, concern about fake news, and fair coverage were important indicators of (dis)trust, with varying degrees depending on the media, political, and technological contexts in which they are situated. These findings suggest that to regain trust, journalists should consider how they can change people’s folk theories when it comes to news by comprehensively taking into account the unique trajectory of a given country’s media system.</span>","PeriodicalId":18348,"journal":{"name":"Media and Communication","volume":"86 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i4.7071","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trust in news is declining globally and has been for some time a phenomenon that has been amplified in the context of a global pandemic, the rise in anti-media populism, and social and political unrest. Overall, public trust in journalism remains low (44% globally), according to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021. Building on a growing body of research on predictors of (dis)trust among news audiences, this study examines survey data from the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021 to explore distrust profiles—comparative profiles of users based on their relative distrust in news in general, news they consume, and news accessed through digital intermediaries like social and search—across distinct news environments: India, South Korea, and the US. We conclude that, across all three countries, there are large segments who either trust everything or distrust everything, suggesting a trust polarization phenomenon. Moreover, the results identify segments of swing trusters, users who trust some news and distrust other types but do not indicate a blanket tendency to trust or distrust everything. Normative expectations about the institution of journalism (i.e., folk theories) seem to be the most powerful factors in explaining the relative likelihood of membership in all profiles, where expectations regarding impartiality, concern about fake news, and fair coverage were important indicators of (dis)trust, with varying degrees depending on the media, political, and technological contexts in which they are situated. These findings suggest that to regain trust, journalists should consider how they can change people’s folk theories when it comes to news by comprehensively taking into account the unique trajectory of a given country’s media system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不信任档案:确定塑造新闻公信力危机的因素
span id="全球范围内对新闻的信任度正在下降,一段时间以来,这种现象在全球大流行、反媒体民粹主义抬头以及社会和政治动荡的背景下被放大了。"据路透社研究所《2021年数字新闻报告》显示,总体而言,公众对新闻业的信任度仍然很低(全球为44%)。基于对新闻受众(不信任)预测因素的越来越多的研究,本研究检查了路透社数字新闻报道研究所(em>Reuters Institute Digital news report)的调查数据。2021 </em>在不同的新闻环境中:印度、韩国和美国,探索不信任概况-基于用户对一般新闻、他们消费的新闻以及通过社交和搜索等数字中介获取的新闻的相对不信任的比较概况。我们得出的结论是,在这三个国家中,有很大一部分人要么信任一切,要么不信任一切,这表明存在信任极化现象。此外,结果确定了摇摆信任者的部分,即信任某些新闻而不信任其他类型的用户,但并未表明信任或不信任一切的总体趋势。对新闻制度的规范性期望(即民间理论)似乎是解释所有档案中成员的相对可能性的最有力因素,其中对公正性,对假新闻的关注和公平报道的期望是(不信任)的重要指标,其程度取决于所处的媒体,政治和技术背景。这些发现表明,为了重新获得信任,记者应该考虑如何通过综合考虑特定国家媒体系统的独特轨迹来改变人们对新闻的民间理论。</span>
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Media and Communication
Media and Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.20%
发文量
108
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) is an international open access journal dedicated to a wide variety of basic and applied research in communication and its related fields
期刊最新文献
Media-Tech Companies as Agents of Innovation: From Radical to Incremental Innovation in a Cluster Legal and Ethical Regulation in Slovakia and Its Relation to Deliberative Communication Symbiosis or Precarity? Digital Platforms’ Role on Australian Digital-Native Journalism and Their Funding Models The Awkward Moment When You Agree With News Outlets That You Normally Distrust Can’t Fix This? Innovation, Social Change, and Solutionism in Design Thinking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1