Concern about partisan audiences blindly following partisan news brands while simultaneously being unable to distinguish the credible news from hoax news dominates media criticism and theoretical inquiries. Companies and media literacy advocates have suggested credibility labels as a solution. This experiment tests the effectiveness of credibility labels at the intersection of partisan news brands and partisan news stories. Using news credibility theory and Partisan Media Opinion hypothesis, it investigates the effects credibility labels have on partisan audiences, partisan news brands, and partisan news stories. It finds that credibility labels may be an effective news literacy tool, and that credibility is enhanced when the news story’s ideological perspective does not match the ideology of the news brand.
AmazeenM. A.MuddimanA. R. (2018). Saving media or trading on trust? The effects of native advertising on audience perceptions of legacy and online news publishers. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 176–195.
2.
AmazeenM. A.ThorsonE.MuddimanA.GravesL. (2018). Correcting political and consumer misperceptions: The effectiveness and effects of rating scale versus contextual correction formats. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 28–48.
3.
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS. (1996). Can the press monitor campaign advertising? An experimental study. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 1(1), 72–86.
4.
AriyantoA.HornseyM. J.GalloisC. (2007). Group allegiances and perceptions of media bias: Taking into account both the perceiver and the source. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 266–279.
5.
ArmstrongC. L.McAdamsM. J. (2009). Blogs of information: How gender cues and individual motivations influence perceptions of credibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 435–456.
6.
BaumM. A.GroelingT. (2008). New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345–365.
7.
BaumM. A.GroelingT. (2009a). Shot by the messenger: Partisan cues and public opinion regarding national security and war. Political Behavior, 31(2), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9074-9
8.
BaumM. A.GroelingT. J. (2009b). War stories: The causes and consequences of public views of war. Princeton University Press.
9.
BaumM. A.GussinP. (2008). In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(1), 1–31.
BucyE. P. (2003). Media credibility reconsidered: Synergy effects between on-air and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 247–264.
12.
BucyE. P. (2004). The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused. In BucyE. P.NewhagenJ. E. (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use (pp. 47–72). Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
BullockJ.GerberA.HillS.HuberG. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 519–578. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00014074
14.
BurbulesN. C. (1998). Rhetorics of the web: Hyperreading and critical literacy. In SnyderI. (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 102–122). Routledge.
15.
CappellaJ. N.JamiesonK. H. (1994). Broadcast adwatch effects: A field experiment. Communication Research, 21(3), 342–365.
16.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
17.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473.
18.
ChoiJ. H.WattJ. H.LynchM. (2006). Perceptions of news credibility about the war in Iraq: Why war opponents perceived the internet as the most credible medium. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), 209–229.
19.
CoeK.TewksburyD.BondB. J.DrogosK. L.PorterR. W.YahnA.ZhangY. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x
20.
DiakopoulosN. (2019). Automating the news: How algorithms are rewriting the media. Harvard University Press.
21.
DuncanM. (2019). The effectiveness of credibility indicator interventions in a partisan context. Newspaper Research Journal, 40, 487–503.
GarrettR. K.CarnahanD.LynchE. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/0.1007/s11109-011-9185-6
JungJ.SongH.KimY.ImH.OhS. (2017). Intrusion of software robots into journalism: The public’s and journalists’ perceptions of news written by algorithms and human journalists. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 291–298.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Sage.
37.
KiousisS. (2006). Exploring the impact of modality on perceptions of credibility for online news stories. Journalism Studies, 7(2), 348–359.
38.
KohringM.MatthesJ. (2007). Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34(2), 231–252.
39.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K.CookJ. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
40.
LiuB.WeiL. (2019). Machine authorship in situ: Effect of news organization and news genre on news credibility. Digital Journalism, 7(5), 635–657.
41.
LiuZ. (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web. Information Processing & Management, 40(6), 1027–1038.
42.
MackayJ. B.LowreyW. (2011). The credibility divide: Reader trust of online newspapers and blogs. Journal of Media Sociology, 3(1–4), 39–57.
43.
MahoneJ. A. (2014). Attribution has little effect on perceived credibility. Newspaper Research Journal, 35(1), 108–122.
44.
MarshE. J.YangB. W. (2017). A call to think broadly about information literacy. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 401–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.012
45.
McCroskeyJ. C.YoungT. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Communication Studies, 32(1), 24–34.
46.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.EyalK.LemusD. R.McCannR. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 293–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029
47.
MetzgerM. J.HartsellE. H.FlanaginA. J. (2020). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research, 47, 3–28. https://doi.org/0093650215613136
48.
MeyerP. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 567–574.
49.
NewellS. J.GoldsmithR. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235–247.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
O’SullivanP. B.GeigerS. (1995). Does the watchdog bite? Newspaper ad watch articles and political attack ads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 771–785.
54.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2017). Assessing the effect of “disputed” warnings and source salience on perceptions of fake news accuracy. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3035384
55.
PorterE.WoodT. J. (2019). False alarm: The truth about political mistruths in the Trump era. Cambridge University Press.
56.
PrasadM.PerrinA. J.BezilaK.HoffmanS. G.KindlebergerK.ManturukK.PowersA. S. (2009). “There must be a reason”: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification. Sociological Inquiry, 79(2), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00280.x
57.
SchaffnerB. F.RocheC. (2016). Misinformation and motivated reasoning: Responses to economic news in a politicized environment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw043
58.
SearsD. O.FreedmanJ. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31(2), 194–213.
StroudN. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9
62.
StroudN. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576.
SundarS. S. (1999). Exploring receivers’ criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 373–386.
65.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). The MIT Press.
66.
SundarS. S.Knobloch-WesterwickS.HastallM. R. (2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 366–378.
ThorsonE. (2016). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33(3), 460–480.
69.
TsfatiY.CappellaJ. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30(5), 504–529.
70.
TurnerJ. (2007). The messenger overwhelming the message: Ideological cues and perceptions of bias in television news. Political Behavior, 29(4), 441–464.
71.
WaddellT. F. (2019). Can an algorithm reduce the perceived bias of news? Testing the effect of machine attribution on news readers’ evaluations of bias, anthropomorphism, and credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 82–100.
72.
WesterwickA.JohnsonB. K.Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2017). Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 343–364.
73.
WoodT.PorterE. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41, 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y
74.
XuQ. (2013). Social recommendation, source credibility, and recency: Effects of news cues in a social bookmarking website. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(4), 757–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013503158
75.
YoungD. G.JamiesonK. H.PoulsenS.GoldringA. (2018). Fact-checking effectiveness as a function of format and tone: Evaluating FactCheck. org and FlackCheck. org. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 49–75. https://doi.org/1077699017710453
