To steer public opinion, autocracies prioritize state media reports of political news while marginalizing commercial and foreign media. Can this dominance guarantee people’s trust in state media news? We contend that rumors, circulated via informal channels and resistant to state information control, present a formidable challenge to public trust in state media news. Our two survey experiments in China pitted news of varying information quality (e.g. informative/detailed reports vs cursory mentions of events) from state media sources against rumors, showing that state media news can retain high levels of trustworthiness only if its information quality is high; however, low-quality state media news resulting from information control diminishes its trustworthiness and prompts people to believe rumors. Low-quality rumors have more negative effects than high-quality rumors on news trustworthiness and citizens’ satisfaction with government policies. Thus, information control can paradoxically erode trust in state media, which often represent the government in autocracies.
AdeoyeORanB (2023) Government Transparency: Paradoxes and Dilemmas. Public Management Review. Epub ahead of print 28 February. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2023.2181981
2.
AllcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives31 (2): 211–236.
3.
AllportGWPostmanL (1947) The Psychology of Rumor. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
4.
AustinEWDongQ (1994) Source V. Content Effects on Judgments of News Believability. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly71 (4): 973–983.
5.
BerinskyAJ (2017) Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation. British Journal of Political Science47 (2): 241–262.
6.
BoasTC (2006) Weaving the Authoritarian Web: The Control of Internet Use in Nondemocratic Regimes. In: ZysmanJNewmanA (eds) How Revolutionary Was the Digital Revolution? National Responses, Market Transitions, and Global Technology. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books, pp.361–378.
7.
BordiaPDiFonzoNHainesR, et al. (2005) Rumors Denials as Persuasive Messages: Effects of Personal Relevance, Source, and Message Characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology35 (6): 1301–1331.
8.
BovitzGLDruckmanJNLupiaA (2002) When Can a News Organization Lead Public Opinion? Ideology Versus Market Forces in Decisions to Make News. Public Choice113 (1): 127–155.
9.
BradyA-M (2017) Plus Ça Change? Media Control Under Xi Jinping. Problems of Post-Communism64 (3–4): 128–140.
10.
CainG (2014) Kill One to Warn One Hundred: The Politics of Press Censorship in Vietnam. The International Journal of Press/politics19 (1): 85–107.
ChoH (2000) Public Opinion as Personal Cultivation: A Normative Notion and a Source of Social Control in Traditional China. International Journal Public Opinion Research12 (3): 299–323.
13.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2012) Counterframing Effects. Journal of Politics75 (1): 1–16.
14.
CoastDFoxJ (2015) Rumour and Politics. History Compass13 (5): 222–234.
15.
CohenPA (1997) History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth. New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
DeLisleJGoldsteinAYangG (eds) (2016) The Internet, Social Media, and a Changing China. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
17.
DiFonzoNBordiaP (2007) Rumor Psychology: Social and Organizational Approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
18.
DimitrovMK (2015) Internal Government Assessments of the Quality of Governance in China. Studies in Comparative International Development50 (1): 50–72.
19.
DruckmanJN (2001) On the Limits of Framing: Who Can Frame?Journal of Politics63 (4): 1041–1066.
20.
EdmondC (2013) Information Manipulation, Coordination, and Regime Change. The Review of Economic Studies80 (4): 1422–1458.
21.
EgorovGGurievSSoninK (2009) Why Resource-Poor Dictators Allow Freer Media: A Theory and Evidence from Panel Data. American Political Science Review103 (4): 645–668.
22.
FarrellH (2012) The Consequences of the Internet for Politics. Annual Review of Political Science15: 35–52.
23.
FineGA (2007) Rumor, Trust and Civil Society: Collective Memory and Cultures of Judgment. Diogenes54 (1): 5–18.
24.
GehlbachSSoninK (2014) Government Control of the Media. Journal of Public Economics118: 163–171.
25.
GiffinK (1967) The Contribution of Studies of Source Credibility to a Theory of Interpersonal Trust in the Communication Process. Psychological Bulletin68 (2): 104–120.
26.
GläßelCPaulaK (2020) Sometimes Less Is More: Censorship, News Falsification, and Disapproval in 1989 East Germany. American Journal of Political Science64 (3): 682–698.
27.
GreenhillKMOppenheimB (2017) Rumor Has It: The Adoption of Unverified Information in Conflict Zones. International Studies Quarterly61 (3): 1–17.
28.
GurievSTreismanD (2019) Informational Autocrats. Journal of Economic Perspectives33 (4): 100–127.
29.
HanR (2018) Contesting Cyberspace in China: Online Expression and Authoritarian Resilience. New York: Columbia University Press.
30.
HarwitEClarkD (2001) Shaping the Internet in China: Evolution of Political Control Over Network Infrastructure and Content. Asian Survey41 (3): 377–408.
31.
HassidJ (2008) Controlling the Chinese Media: An Uncertain Business. Asian Survey48 (3): 414–430.
32.
HuYShaoZ (2022) What Drives Chinese Internet Users to Watch State-Media Broadcasts? An Audience Analysis. Journal of Chinese Political Science27: 19–40.
33.
HuangH (2015) A War of (Mis)information: The Political Effects of Rumors and Rumor Rebuttals in An Authoritarian Country. British Journal of Political Science47 (2): 283–311.
34.
JohnsonHMSeifertCM (1994) Sources of the Continued Influence Effect: When Misinformation in Memory Affects Later Inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition20 (6): 1420–1436.
35.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (1998) Cruising Is Believing? Comparing Internet and Traditional Sources on Media Credibility Measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly75 (2): 325–340.
36.
KalathilSBoasTC (2003) Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
37.
KapfererJ-N (1987) Rumeurs: Le Plus Vieux Média du Monde [Rumors: The Oldest Media in the World]. D.Seuil. Paris: France Loisirs.
38.
KingGPanJRobertsME (2013) How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism But Silences Collective Expression. American Political Science Review107 (2): 326–343.
39.
KingGPanJRobertsME (2017) How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument. American Political Science Review111 (3): 484–501.
40.
KnappRH (1944) A Psychology of Rumor. Public Opinion Quarterly8 (1): 22–37.
41.
KuhnPA (1990) Soulstealers: The Chinese Sorcery Scare of 1768. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LeeYWStrongDMKahnBK, et al. (2002) AIMQ: A Methodology for Information Quality Assessment. Information & Management40 (2): 113–146.
44.
LefebvreG (2019) The Coming of the French Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
LvZ (2021) Rumor in Early Chinese Empires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MaiJ-E (2013) The Quality and Qualities of Information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology64 (4): 675–688.
47.
MaorM (2020) Policy Over- and Under-Design: An Information Quality Perspective. Policy Sciences53: 395–411.
48.
MoehlerDCSinghN (2011) Whose News Do You Trust? Explaining Trust in Private Versus Public Media in Africa. Political Research Quarterly64 (2): 276–292.
49.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2010) When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior32 (2): 303–330.
50.
PetrovicS (2020) Tracing Individual Perceptions of Media Credibility in Post-3.11 Japan. The Asia-Pacific Journal18 (3): 1–26.
RobertsME (2018) Censored: Distraction and Diversion inside China’s Great Firewall. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
RobertsME (2020) Resilience to Online Censorship. Annual Review of Political Science23: 401–419.
54.
SchroederR (2018) Social Theory after the Internet: Media, Technology and Globalization. London: UCL Press.
55.
SchweigerW (2000) Media Credibility-Experience or Image? A Survey on the Credibility of the World Wide Web in Germany in Comparison to Other Media. European Journal of Communication15 (1): 37–59.
56.
ShadmehrMBernhardtD (2015) State Censorship. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics7 (2): 280–307.
57.
ShiT (1997) Political Participation in Beijing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
ShiTLuJAldrichJ (2011) Bifurcated Images of the U.S. in Urban China and the Impact of Media Environment. Political Communication28 (3): 357–376.
59.
ShirkS (2010) Changing Media, Changing China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
SiebertFSiebertFTPetersonT, et al. (1956) Four Theories of the Press. Urbana, IL and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
61.
SlaterMDRounerD (1996) How Message Evaluation and Source Attributes May Influence Credibility Assessment and Beuet Change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly73 (4): 974–991.
62.
StockmannDGallagherME (2011) Remote Control: How the Media Sustain Authoritarian Rule in China. Comparative Political Studies44 (4): 436–467.
63.
SvenssonM (2017) The Rise and Fall of Investigative Journalism in China: Digital Opportunities and Political Challenges. Media, Culture & Society39 (3): 440–445.
TsfatiYArielyG (2014) Individual and Contextual Correlates of Trust in Media Across 44 Countries. Communication Research41 (6): 760–782.
68.
TsfatiYCohenJ (2005) The Influence of Presumed Media Influence on Democratic Legitimacy: The Case of Gaza Settlers. Communication Research32 (6): 794–821.
69.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012) Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication62 (2): 363–379.
70.
WalkerCOrttungRW (2014) Breaking the News: The Role of State-Run Media. Journal of Democracy25 (1): 71–85.
WangCHuangH (2021) When Fake News Becomes Real: The Consequences of False Government Denials in an Authoritarian Country. Comparative Political Studies54 (5): 753–778.
73.
WangRYStrongDM (1996) Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems12 (4): 5–34.
74.
WeaverD (1991) Political Issues and Voter Need for Orientation. In: ProtessDMccombsME (eds) Agenda Setting. Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking. New York: Routledge, pp.131–140.
75.
ZhaoD (2008) The Power of Tiananmen. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
76.
ZhaoY (1998) Media, Market, and Democracy in China: Between the Party Line and the Bottom Line. Urbana, IL and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
77.
ZhuJWangC (2021) I Know What You Mean: Information Compensation in an Authoritarian Country. International Journal of Press/Politics26 (3): 587–608.
78.
ZhuJLuJShiT (2013) When Grapevine News Meets Mass Media: Different Information Sources and Popular Perceptions of Government Corruption in Mainland China. Comparative Political Studies46 (8): 920–946.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
