Readers focus on the qualities within news stories

Reserach defies previous research that suggests that audiences reactions are based on the media source

University of Maryland journalism students have released a study suggests that despite the frequently debated issue of bias in the media may not be as much of an issue as it is made out to be.

Student researchers conducted the study using data from NewsTrust, which is a website that allows reviewers to rate and comment on news stories to see if they are good journalism, such as accuracy, fairness and quality of facts. The researchers found that the majority of observed reviewers erred away from discussing the issues of the stories reviewed. Rather reviewers tended to focus more on the technical merits and downfalls of the story, according to the results of this research.

The hypothesis of the study was that some of the reviewers would rate the story based on the issues in the story rather than the journalistic quality of the story
The findings of this study fly directly in the face of what has been found in other research regarding hostile media effect, according to lead researcher and Maryland journalism student Tony Herman.

Researchers examined content of the stories as well as the subject’s comments

Previous research on hostile media effect created the expectation for the researchers that audience members will view mass media outlets as publishing or broadcasting stories that go against their beliefs. Based on this theory the researchers examined the content of the comments that NewsTrust users left on four stories.
“We were looking for pretty obvious examples,” Herman says. “We expected a lot of people to be like ‘Well this is from so and so media source so naturally it’s selected like this.’ It didn’t turn out that way.”

The study also examined how often reviewers mentioned the media source in their comments. Given that reviewers did not engage in hostile media effect, very few reviewers mentioned the name of the media outlet, which was one of the things researchers were looking at in reviewer’s comments.

The researchers also assessed the perceived credibility rating that reviewers gave each story and if the review focused on the quality of the story or the issues within the content of the story and found that reviewers were more likely to review the journalistic qualities of the story rather than the issues at hand.

Previous research suggests that people are affected by the source of news stories

If the study played out as the researchers had hypothesized then people would have automatically felt an article went against their beliefs because of the source it came from, according to Herman.

The findings indicate that the reviewers in this study tended to review the stories based off of the hard facts and quotes that were contained in the stories.
The reviewers also tended to overwhelmingly believe that all four of the stories included in the research were at least somewhat credible, with a propensity for believing that the story was very credible.

This aspect in particular goes against Hostile Media Effect directly, as the theory suggests that those who espouse the effect will automatically feel that a story is biased against their beliefs even if the story has been considered to be unbiased by researchers.

The subjects may not be like everyone else

However, the research was not without some limitation as the sample size was only 22 subjects who were predominantly college students and friends of students in two courses taught by the professor. Regardless, this research might still give some pause to those who suggest that people do not judge the credibility of the news they receive from its source, but rather the qualities within each story.

NewsTrust, which was founded in 2005, appears to attract a different type of user than most news website, which is a potential explanation for why the results of Herman and Betty Klinck’s report “Assessing Audience Perceptions of Credibility Using Hostile Media Effect” differ from previous work.

Another issue with the study was that it only focused on four stories, some of which had less than 10 comments that explained the scores given to the stories.
Herman says he does not put a lot of weight in his study’s findings despite them putting a widely researched theory in dispute as he believes that NewsTrust is not an accurate representation of those who leave comments on a regular news website.
“I think our results are limited enough that I really don’t think it is applicable,” Herman says.

One possible explanation for the unexpected results is that research subjects did not put much effort into reviewing the stories and just completed the project out of a favor for the researchers, according to the study.

The ethics of using social media as a source

Popular social networking websites such as Facebook have certainly made finding information about some people significantly easier for not just journalists, but the public as a whole. However, given that 78 percent of people in a recent survey would change the content that appeared on their accounts if they knew that the mainstream media would use it clearly indicates that using this information is a very relevant ethical issue.

On the other side of the coin, if the people who did not want media outlets to use the content available on their profiles, they could easily change the privacy settings so that that information would be much more difficult for someone to find without the user’s consent. If people were more aware of this then the ethical issue would be far less pronounced because people who allowed their accounts to remain public would be knowingly allowing the content that they post to be exposed to anyone.

If one were to change their account settings to prevent everyone with access to the internet from seeing what they post, then the issue of using information on these sites becomes afar negative issue given that the user have purposefully chosen not to share their account with everyone. Using deceptive means to access this information would be no different from stealing someone’s personal journal taping a private conversation without consent, which are both unethical tactics.

The biggest issue facing user is that many do not think before they begin posting whatever comes to mind onto the internet. There needs to be a better understanding for users that what they post on the internet can be found and used against them if its content is questionable or condemning.

However, whenever I encounter a story that has referenced something that appeared on someone’s page, it always gives the impression that the reporter has not done a good job of trying to use human sources as a means of breaking stories. The only time that writing about what people post onto their accounts would be if a public figure made an announcement via this medium or in the case of a criminal investigation where the authorities had used content posted on someone’s account to solve a crime.

The Wilting Climate Change Debate coding data

It is very apparent that this article is written from a liberal writer when coding for the bias of the author. For this article I decided to code for how many paragraphs were based in opinion and how many were based in fact. I calculated that of the 10 paragraphs of the story, seven were reliant on facts. Consequently this shows that despite the author very strongly stating his opinion in the article, there is a very significant amount of factual evidence to back his argument up rather than simply bemoaning the Republicans for ignoring the climate issue. This is useful to note given that only four out of 15 reviewers ranked the story below a 3.0, which indicates most reviewers think that the story is at least relatively goo journalism. In addition it is important to note that the facts of the story were rated by all of the reviewers as a 3.7 in total.

Opinion on NewsTrust

At first I was incredibly skeptical of NewsTrust. It seemed as if it was simply going to be a site that anyone could post one without having any sort of differentiation about who was a qualified poster and who was not. It would have been somewhat useful for people to be able to post reviews of articles as a way of allowing them to be more involved with media outlets. However, I believe that it is very useful that the people who are reviewing articles on the site are reviewed as well. Doing this allows there to be a far greater element of credibility to the site rather than having it be made up of people who trash articles that they do not agree with.

I think the system that requires members to build up their credibility is very important given that as can be seen many places on the internet, that there are people who are not necessarily qualified to comment on certain subjects. Consequently, I would not change anything about the site. In it’s current state there seems to be enough oversight. If the site flourishes as it should, however, there will obviously be a need for greater oversight.
I feel that in order to help the site thrive and attract more traffic, the management of the site should try to establish relationships with media outlets around the country that will allow for there to be a NewsTrust link on every story on the media outlets’ websites. In addition to raising the profile of the website, it would also help out the news organizations providing the links because they are openly having their writers work examined.

I am very interested in finding out the political leanings of the people who review different articles, how they choose to rate them and how the higher level members of NewsTrust view their reviews. This would be an interesting topic to look at given that I feel that there is a huge risk for people to give stories negative reviews based on what they believe.

Creditability of the Daily Show

For more than a decade news outlets have reported on people around the country using "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central as their primary news source. While it may seem absurd on the surface, the show has been able to inform it viewer while still mocking other media outlets and politicians alike.

A 2007 study from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press indicates that six percent of people under 30-years-old admired "Daily Show" host John Stewart as the journalist whom they admired most, beating out all others besides Bill O'Reilly. It is important to note that people over 30-years-old in the survey were far less enamored with Stewart, which suggests an age gap in how people approach how they receive information about current events.

While it may seem somewhat questionable to use a show that is written as a satire of public figures as a legitimate news source, a 2009 article posted on the Poynter Institute's website suggests that the producers and writers of the program put more into each show that is broadcast than simply writing a few jokes that may not necessarily be based in fact and calling a day. The writers and producers of the show are constantly searching around the major news outlets to find things that contradict themselves or are questionable. However, the show is often not taken seriously because of the station it is broadcast on and that some of the show’s content lacks seriousness. In addition the means that the sow informs its viewers differs greatly from the norm of other news programs.
Given that the show takes a very satirical approach does not mean that it is entirely devoid of content. Thus, while it may seem foolish on the surface, people who watch Jon Stewart’s show are better informed than it would seem. However, it would be prudent to consume other sources of news in order to ensure that audience members are getting a more well rounded view of what is going on in the media.