看看真正的事实和专家是怎么说的!在虚假信息中使用专家参考资料和客观性声明:定性探索与类型学

IF 2.7 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Journalism Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1177/14648849241257383
Michael Hameleers, Emma van der Goot
{"title":"看看真正的事实和专家是怎么说的!在虚假信息中使用专家参考资料和客观性声明:定性探索与类型学","authors":"Michael Hameleers, Emma van der Goot","doi":"10.1177/14648849241257383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The popular assumption that mis- and disinformation are distinguishable from true information based on easy-to-identify content features is challenged in an online context where multiple claims of truthfulness compete for legitimacy. When conventional and alternative narratives both rely on seemingly objective and fact-based truth claims, it is difficult for citizens to separate false from true information. In this setting, we rely on an inductive qualitative analysis of social media and alternative media platforms to explore how mis- and disinformation refer to expertise and objectivity. Our main findings suggest that expertise and objectivity in mis- and disinformation can be legitimized by (1) quoting or involving message-congruent alternative experts; (2) selectively decontextualizing or quoting established experts; (3) contrasting ‘honest’ alternative experts/critical citizens to ‘dishonest’ established experts; (4) emphasizing people-centric expertise, common sense, and critical thinking as foundations of truth-telling; and (5) referring to visual information and lived experiences as direct reflections of reality. The typology aims to inform empirical research on the detection of mis- and disinformation and can be applied in the design of interventions to raise awareness about how false information signals legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":51432,"journal":{"name":"Journalism","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Look at what the real facts and experts say! The use of expert references and objectivity claims in disinformation: A qualitative exploration and typology\",\"authors\":\"Michael Hameleers, Emma van der Goot\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14648849241257383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The popular assumption that mis- and disinformation are distinguishable from true information based on easy-to-identify content features is challenged in an online context where multiple claims of truthfulness compete for legitimacy. When conventional and alternative narratives both rely on seemingly objective and fact-based truth claims, it is difficult for citizens to separate false from true information. In this setting, we rely on an inductive qualitative analysis of social media and alternative media platforms to explore how mis- and disinformation refer to expertise and objectivity. Our main findings suggest that expertise and objectivity in mis- and disinformation can be legitimized by (1) quoting or involving message-congruent alternative experts; (2) selectively decontextualizing or quoting established experts; (3) contrasting ‘honest’ alternative experts/critical citizens to ‘dishonest’ established experts; (4) emphasizing people-centric expertise, common sense, and critical thinking as foundations of truth-telling; and (5) referring to visual information and lived experiences as direct reflections of reality. The typology aims to inform empirical research on the detection of mis- and disinformation and can be applied in the design of interventions to raise awareness about how false information signals legitimacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journalism\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journalism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241257383\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241257383","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

摘要

人们普遍认为,错误信息和虚假信息可以根据易于识别的内容特征与真实信息区分开 来,但在网络环境中,这种观点受到了挑战,因为在网络环境中,多种真实性主张都在争夺 合法性。当传统叙事和另类叙事都依赖于看似客观和基于事实的真实性主张时,公民就很难将虚假信息和真实信息区分开来。在这种情况下,我们通过对社交媒体和另类媒体平台进行归纳定性分析,来探讨错误信息和虚假信息是如何涉及专业知识和客观性的。我们的主要研究结果表明,错误信息和虚假信息中的专业知识和客观性可以通过以下方式合法化:(1)引用或涉及信息一致的另类专家;(2)选择性地去语境化或引用既定专家;(3)将 "诚实的 "另类专家/批判性公民与 "不诚实的 "既定专家进行对比;(4)强调以人为本的专业知识、常识和批判性思维是讲真话的基础;以及(5)将视觉信息和生活经验作为现实的直接反映。该类型学旨在为检测错误信息和虚假信息的实证研究提供信息,并可用于设计干预措施,以提高人们对虚假信息如何发出合法信号的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Look at what the real facts and experts say! The use of expert references and objectivity claims in disinformation: A qualitative exploration and typology
The popular assumption that mis- and disinformation are distinguishable from true information based on easy-to-identify content features is challenged in an online context where multiple claims of truthfulness compete for legitimacy. When conventional and alternative narratives both rely on seemingly objective and fact-based truth claims, it is difficult for citizens to separate false from true information. In this setting, we rely on an inductive qualitative analysis of social media and alternative media platforms to explore how mis- and disinformation refer to expertise and objectivity. Our main findings suggest that expertise and objectivity in mis- and disinformation can be legitimized by (1) quoting or involving message-congruent alternative experts; (2) selectively decontextualizing or quoting established experts; (3) contrasting ‘honest’ alternative experts/critical citizens to ‘dishonest’ established experts; (4) emphasizing people-centric expertise, common sense, and critical thinking as foundations of truth-telling; and (5) referring to visual information and lived experiences as direct reflections of reality. The typology aims to inform empirical research on the detection of mis- and disinformation and can be applied in the design of interventions to raise awareness about how false information signals legitimacy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journalism
Journalism COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
10.30%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Journalism is a major international, peer-reviewed journal that provides a dedicated forum for articles from the growing community of academic researchers and critical practitioners with an interest in journalism. The journal is interdisciplinary and publishes both theoretical and empirical work and contributes to the social, economic, political, cultural and practical understanding of journalism. It includes contributions on current developments and historical changes within journalism.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge can wait? The epistemic conversion of new beat reporters Behind the black box: The moderating role of the machine heuristic on the effect of transparency information about automated journalism on hostile media bias perception Citizen journalism revisited: A case study of Kenya’s kibera news network (De)politicization of the environmental agenda in Russian media Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK
×
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