Social media algorithmic versus professional journalists’ news selection: Effects of gate keeping on traditional and social media news trust

Rebecca Scheffauer, M. Goyanes, Homero Gil de Zúñiga
{"title":"Social media algorithmic versus professional journalists’ news selection: Effects of gate keeping on traditional and social media news trust","authors":"Rebecca Scheffauer, M. Goyanes, Homero Gil de Zúñiga","doi":"10.1177/14648849231179804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research has shown positive attitudes toward journalists and their roles foster pro-democratic outcomes. With the rise of social media as news sources, algorithms operate as gatekeepers, which may alter linkages between public opinion, journalists, and media trust. However, results from a panel-survey conducted in the U.S. underline citizens’ preference for journalist gatekeeping in fueling trust in traditional and social media news. Conversely, preference for algorithmic news selection does not affect people’s levels of trust. Furthermore, traditional news use moderates this relationship as those who report higher traditional news use and a preference for professional news gatekeeping trust traditional news the most. This study contributes to current discussions on the effects of preference for journalists’ or algorithmic news selection, arguing that evaluations of journalists’ editorial work remain critical to explain media trust.","PeriodicalId":74027,"journal":{"name":"Journalism (London, England)","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231179804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Research has shown positive attitudes toward journalists and their roles foster pro-democratic outcomes. With the rise of social media as news sources, algorithms operate as gatekeepers, which may alter linkages between public opinion, journalists, and media trust. However, results from a panel-survey conducted in the U.S. underline citizens’ preference for journalist gatekeeping in fueling trust in traditional and social media news. Conversely, preference for algorithmic news selection does not affect people’s levels of trust. Furthermore, traditional news use moderates this relationship as those who report higher traditional news use and a preference for professional news gatekeeping trust traditional news the most. This study contributes to current discussions on the effects of preference for journalists’ or algorithmic news selection, arguing that evaluations of journalists’ editorial work remain critical to explain media trust.
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
社交媒体算法与专业记者新闻选择:守门对传统和社交媒体新闻信任的影响
研究表明,对记者及其角色的积极态度促进了亲民主的结果。随着社交媒体作为新闻来源的兴起,算法扮演着看门人的角色,这可能会改变公众舆论、记者和媒体信任之间的联系。然而,在美国进行的一项小组调查的结果显示,公民对记者把关的偏好增加了对传统和社交媒体新闻的信任。相反,对算法新闻选择的偏好并不影响人们的信任程度。此外,传统新闻的使用调节了这一关系,因为那些报告更高传统新闻使用和更倾向于专业新闻守门人的人最信任传统新闻。这项研究有助于当前关于记者偏好或算法新闻选择影响的讨论,认为对记者编辑工作的评估仍然是解释媒体信任的关键。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Shifting the protest paradigm? Legitimizing and humanizing protest coverage lead to more positive attitudes toward protest, mixed results on news credibility “Remember that?” A temporal perspective on how audiences make sense of the news China’s metaphorically “othered” image in The New York Times (1949-2020) Prehistory of journalism studies: Discovering the Brazilian tradition The digital turn from a newsroom perspective – How German journalists from different generations reflect on the digitalization of journalism
×
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