Introduction to Communication Science - Week 4 - Media Bias & Misinformation - PDF

Introduction to Communication Science Week 4 Media bias and misinformation Dr. Toni van der Meer September 25 2024 Source: Beeldbank UvA Today’s agenda Bias in news media Where does it come from What are the consequences Misinformation Link to real...

Introduction to Communication Science Week 4 Media bias and misinformation Dr. Toni van der Meer September 25 2024 Source: Beeldbank UvA Today’s agenda Bias in news media Where does it come from What are the consequences Misinformation Link to real news What is it and why is it difficult to correct How omnipresent is it  Question of this week “How do media bias and misinformation affect our worldview?" Role of media in our worldview How does the media affect how we see the world? (Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk) Joris Luyendijk basically says that news are exceptions to the rule. And we learn from these exceptions (e.g., disasters, political scandals, attacks). Bias in news media Come into existence in media’s selection process Refers to inaccurate representation Numerous bias exist: Coverage bias Gatekeeping bias Distortion bias Mainstream bias Partisan bias Sensationalism False balance Focus of today Distortion bias Negativity bias Sensationalism Distortion bias News is about the extraordinary and exceptional The paradoxical character of news Event driven Episodic > thematic framing Negativity bias Overemphasize negative events Negativity more attractive Positive news = no news Sensationalism Use of content features and formal features to provoke attention or arousal Topic selection Embedded sensationalism Vividness of information Other terms: infotainment, soft (vs hard) news, tabloid news vs quality newspapers Example of media focus Drivers Where does the focus on the exception, negative events, and sensational stories come from? Drivers Market-driven journalism Conflicting norms: traditional norms to inform versus maintaining advertising revenues Media environment has grown more competitive (online and offline) Online attention more measurable Biases and evolutionary theory Evolutionary theory as explanation of sensationalism in news Hardwired to pay attention to deviations and threats (emotions) Our modern western societies far more secure, news as threat detector Consequences What if news only portrays the exception, negative events, and sensational stories? Informative but also harmful? Sensationalism and the informative function “News can only fulfil its informative function if the audience watches it.” Sensationalism could enhance memory Negativity bias and information function “Burglar alarm news standard” (Zaller) But what if the “alarm” keeps ringing? (Bennett) Zaller, J. (2003). A new standard of news quality: Burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication, 20(2), 109–130. Bennett, W. L. (2003). The burglar alarm that just keeps ringing: A response to Zaller. Political Communication, 20(2), 131–138. Consequences of sensationalism Sensationalism can also disturb the informative function Selection based on attention grabbing capacity (interesting > informational stories) Recognition and recall problem Sensational features -> cognitive overload (Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message Processing) Distract from the important part Consequences of media bias Variety of consequences – e.g., less tolerant political opinions, lower political engagement, spiral of cynicism News avoidance Distorted worldview Consequences of media bias Variety of consequences – e.g., less tolerant political opinions, lower political engagement, spiral of cynicism News avoidance Distorted worldview Skovsgaard, M., & Andersen, K. (2020). Conceptualizing news avoidance: Towards a shared understanding of different causes and potential solutions. Journalism studies, 21(4), 459-476. Consequences of media bias Variety of consequences – e.g., less tolerant political opinions, lower political engagement, spiral of cynicism News avoidance Distorted worldview Consequences of media bias Overestimates frequencies Misperceive reality Examples: (disproportionate) fear of to become victim of violence or fear of terrorism Negative conseuqences of negativity Vliegtuigpaper Van der Meer, T. G.L.A., Kroon, A. C., Verhoeven, P., & Jonkman, J. (2019). Mediatization and the disproportionate attention to negative news: The case of airplane crashes. Journalism Studies, 20(6), 783  Plane crash study Content analysis Media attention plane crashes, 1991-2015 (N=9,443) Data on number of plane crashes Number of passengers boarding a plane  Media attention follows a different overtime trend as compared to the actual occurrence of negative incidents (i.e., airplane crashes). 100 0.014 90 0.012 80 Number of plane crashes Relative media attention 70 0.01 60 0.008 50 0.006 40 30 0.004 20 0.002 10 0 0 Media coverage Year Number of crashes Figure 1. Overtime change in media attention for plane crashes and actual plane crashes Conclusion study Media can create their own reality (not aligned with real-world data) News is about exceptions and negative events Media blind spot for progression? Should we blame the news media? Different types of news (e.g., background stories) Not all news is sensational (e.g., difference between investigative journalism vs daily news updates) Challenged by a lot: Complexity of accurately reporting on what happens in the world Commercialization High and contradicting audience demands Context of fear of misinformation and delegitimization of information Good intentions versus distorted worldview Not only supply side but also demand side From biased news to fake news, a small step? Click bait to gain revenue income Misinformation to gain revenue income 34 34 Misinformation Misinformation refers to false information that is not intended to cause harm. Disinformation refers to false information that is intended to manipulate, cause damage, or guide people, organizations, and countries in the wrong direction. false information = what is considered to be Malinformation refers to information that incorrect by expert consensus stems from the truth but is often exaggerated in a way that misleads and causes potential Not always straight forward harm. How to spot misinformation? Challenging task How to spot misinformation? https://library.csi.cuny.edu/c.php?g=619342&p=4376665 Misinformation can be dangerous Can mislead people Worse than ignorance Difficult to correct Pizzagate Capitol Hill riots Covid conspiracy theories Sources of misinformation Fiction Rumours and urban myths Quality of online and offline information Presenting (false) balanced coverage Corporate-vested interests Challenging to counter misinformation False memory Retrieval failure Reactance preexisting attitudes and beliefs Backfire/boomerang Often intertwined with strong held (political) beliefs (worldview) Misinformation and cognitive dissonance Feeling of discomfort, due to holding inconsistent cognitions Most powerful when there is a threat to self-image Reduce by: changing based on dissonant cognition justify current views by changing the dissonant cognition justify current views by adding new cognitions Heaven’s Gate mass suicide 1997 Misinformation and pre-existing attitudes Individuals evaluate information in a biased manner to remain consistent (Mis)information in line with prior held belief = more credible And vise versa Multiple ways of fighting misinformation Fact checking Tagging/flagging Inoculation strategies (vaccination) News media literacy training (serious game) Regulation (Digital Service Act) Important in retracting Explicit warnings beforehand Repetition Alternative explanation Misinformation in people news diet US study elections 2016 (Grinberg et al., 2019) US study elections 2016 (Grinberg et al., 2019) Fake news comprised about 6% of all news consumption Superconsumers: But highly concentrated - only 1% of users were exposed to 80% of fake news Supershares: 0.1% of users were responsible for sharing 80% of fake news. Spread of misinformation Outside election time and US US: 0.7% - 6% news diet and 0.15% full media (Altay et al., n.d.; Grinberg et al., 2019; Guess et al., 2018; Guess, Lerner, et al., 2020; Osmundsen et al., 2021) France: 4% - 5% news diet and 0.16% full media (Altay et al., n.d. (Cordonier & Brest, 2021) Germany: 1% news diet (Altay et al., n.d.; Boberg et al., 2020) UK: 0.1% news diet (Altay et al., n.d.) Europe: EU elections less than 4% of news on Twitter (Marchal et al., 2019) ”Perceived” misinformation presence van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Hameleers, M. (2024). Misinformation perceived as a bigger informational threat than negativity: A cross-country survey on challenges of the news environment. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review. https://10.37016/mr-2020-142 Misinformation discourse Misinformation as a salient threat in media and public debate Misinformation in media Draw a lot of attention to the threat of misinformation Can spillover to credibility rating of real news Critical ≠ cynical In sum The complex process on news making, in combination with market-driven journalism, can create biased coverage Biased coverage can create a different media reality And therewith distort audience’s worldview Misinformation nothing new and overlap with other types of “news” Misinformation can have real consequences, especially since it is difficult to correct But perhaps the omnipresence of misinformation is less than expected  End Thanks for participating! Next week: How do we create our own information environment?