Perusing pages and skimming screens: Exploring differing patterns of selective exposure to hard news and professional sources in online and print news

Abstract

Changing structures to online news have instigated concerns that the electorate may predominantly consume soft news for entertainment purposes while neglecting public affairs information. The Internet in particular brought an increase in outlets, including unconventional low-credibility sources. A 2 × 2 × 2 within-subjects experiment (n = 197) investigated whether delivery format (print vs online) and source type (high vs low credibility) shape the extent to which recipients select different types of news (public affairs news vs soft news). Participants browsed 32 news items, half of them hard news and the other half soft news, either associated with high- or low-credibility sources, and did so online or via print magazine. Results show that greater preference for online news fostered selective exposure to hard news. Greater habitual news use via social media reduced selective exposure to news from high-credibility sources.

Keywords

Citizen journalism journalism online news soft news source credibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

(2006) Online News. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Althaus

Tewksbury

(2002) Agenda setting and the “new” news: patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times. Communication Research 29: 180–207.

Atkin

(1973) Instrumental utilities and information seeking. In: Clarke

(ed.) New Models for Mass Communication Research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 205–243.

Baum

(2002) Sex, lies, and war: how soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review 96: 91–109.

Bennett

(2012) The personalization of politics political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 644: 20–39.

Boukes

Boomgaarden

(2015) Soft news with hard consequences? Introducing a nuanced measure of soft versus hard news exposure and its relationship with political cynicism. Communication Research 42: 701–731.

Bro

Wallberg

(2014) Digital gatekeeping: news media versus social media. Digital Journalism 2(3): 446–454.

Burbules

(1998) Rhetorics of the web: hyper reading and critical literacy. In: Snyder

(ed.) Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. London: Routledge, pp. 102–122.

Choi

Kim

(2016) Online news flow: temporal/spatial exploitation and credibility. Journalism 18: 1184–1205.

10.

Curran

Salovaara-Moring

Coen

et al . (2010) Crime, foreigners and hard news: a cross-national comparison of reporting and public perception. Journalism 11: 3–19.

11.

D’Haenens

Jankowski

Heuvelman

(2004) News in online and print newspapers: differences in reader consumption and recall. New Media & Society 6: 363–382.

12.

Donsbach

(2009) Cognitive dissonance theory—roller coaster career. In: Hartmann

(ed.) Media Choice: A Theoretical and Empirical Overview. New York: Routledge, pp. 128–149.

13.

Eppler

Mengis

(2004) The concept of information overload: a review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society 20: 325–344.

14.

Gans

(2003) Democracy and the News. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15.

Gaziano

McGrath

(1986) Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 63: 451–462.

16.

Gigerenzer

Todd

(1999) Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17.

Gottfried

Shearer

(2016) News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

18.

Greenwald

(1976) Within-subjects designs: to use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin 83: 314–320.

19.

Guadagno

Rempala

Murphy

et al . (2013) What makes a video go viral? An analysis of emotional contagion and Internet memes. Computers in Human Behavior 29: 2312–2319.

20.

Gunter

Campbell

Touri

et al . (2009) Blogs, news and credibility. Aslib Proceedings 61: 185–204.

21.

Hardy

(2016) Facebook and the problem with news online. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/technology/facebook-and-the-problem-with-news-online.html?_r=0

22.

Hautala

(2016) How to avoid getting conned by fake news sites. Available at: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-avoid-getting-conned-by-fake-news-sites/ (accessed 20 January 2017).

23.

Holan

(2016) 2016 lie of the year: fake news. Available at: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/2016-lie-year-fake-news/ (accessed 31 January 2017).

24.

Sundar

(2009) Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Communication Research 37: 105–132.

25.

Johnson

Kaye

(2000) Using is believing: the influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested Internet users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77: 865–879.

26.

Jurkowitz

(2014) Small digital news sites: young, lean and local. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/10/small-digital-news-sites-young-lean-and-local/ (accessed 26 March 2017).

27.

Kalogeropoulos

Newman

(2017) I Saw the News on Facebook: Brand Attribution When Accessing News from Distributed Environments. Reuters Institute. Available at: https://agency.reuters.com/en/insights/industryreports/brand-attribution.html

28.

Kang

Bae

Zhang

et al . (2011) Source cues in online news: is the proximate source more powerful than distal sources? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 88: 719–736.

29.

Kiely

Robertson

(2016) How to spot fake news. Available at: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/ (accessed 20 January 2017).

30.

Knobloch

Hastall

Zillmann

et al . (2003) Imagery effects on the selective reading of internet news magazines. Communication Research 30: 3–29.

31.

Knobloch-Westerwick

(2015) Choice and Preference in Media Use: Advances in Selective Exposure Theory and Research. New York: Routledge.

32.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Kleinman

(2012) Preelection selective exposure: confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research 39: 170–193.

33.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Johnson

Westerwick

(2013) To your health: self-regulation of health behavior through selective exposure to online health messages. Journal of Communication 63: 807–829.

34.

Kohut

Doherty

Dimock

et al . (2012) In Changing News Landscape, Even Television Is Vulnerable. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

35.

Kopper

Kolthoff

Czepek

(2000) Research review: online journalism—a report on current and continuing research and major questions in the international discussion. Journalism Studies 1: 499–512.

36.

Media Insights Project (2017) Who shared it? How Americans trust what news to trust on social media. Available at: https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-social-media/

37.

Metzger

(2007) Making sense of credibility on the Web: models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58: 2078–2091.

38.

Metzger

Flanagin

(2015) Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online. In: Sundar

(ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 445–466.

39.

Metzger

Flanagin

(2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics 59: 210–220.

40.

Metzger

Flanagin

Medders

(2010) Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication 60: 413–439.

41.

Mitchelstein

Boczkowski

(2009) Between tradition and change: a review of recent research on online news production. Journalism 10: 562–586.

42.

Mustafaraj

Metaxas

(2010) From obscurity to prominence in minutes: political speech and real-time search. Paper presented at the web science conference, Raleigh, NC. Available at: http://repository.wellesley.edu/computersciencefaculty/9/

43.

Patterson

(2000) Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism Are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy—and What News Outlets Can Do about It. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

44.

Pearson

GDH

Kosicki

(2016) How way-finding is challenging gatekeeping in the digital age. Journalism Studies 18: 1087–1105.

45.

Pew Research Center (2015) Millennials and political news. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2015/06/01/millennials-political-news/

46.

Pingree

Brossard

McLeod

(2014). Effects of journalistic adjudication on factual beliefs, news evaluations, information seeking, and epistemic political efficacy. Mass Communication and Society 17(5): 615–638.

47.

Pirolli

(2003) Exploring and finding information. In: Carroll

(ed.) HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kauffmann, pp. 157–191.

48.

Pirolli

(2005) Rational analyses of information foraging on the web. Cognitive Science 29: 343–373.

49.

Pirolli

(2007) Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

50.

Pirolli

Card

(1999) Information foraging. Psychological Review 106: 643–645.

51.

Prior

(2005) News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science 49: 577–592.

52.

Prior

(2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Reinemann

Stanyer

Scherr

et al . (2011) Hard and soft news: a review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism 13: 221–239.

54.

Reuters (2016) Digital news report. Available at: http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/ (accessed 1 October 2016).

55.

Schönbach

(2000) Does tabloidization make German local newspapers successful? In: Sparks

Tulloch

(eds) Tabloid Tales: Global Debates Over Media Standards. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 63–74.

56.

Shadish

Cook

Campbell

(2001) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

57.

Silverman

(2016) This analysis shows how fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. Available at: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.lbZvnVymk#.deK3waOVd (accessed 31 December 2016).

58.

Simon

(2011) Build the wall. In: McChesney

Pickard

(eds) Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It. New York: New Press, pp. 45–54.

59.

Stroud

(2008) Media use and political predispositions: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior 30: 341–366.

60.

Sundar

(2008) The main model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility: 73–100.

61.

Sundar

Knobloch-Westerwick

Hastall

(2007) News cues: information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58: 366–378.

62.

Tandoc

(2014) Journalism is twerking? How web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping. New Media & Society 16(4): 1–17.

63.

Tewksbury

(2003) What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the Internet. Journal of Communication 53: 694–710.

64.

Tewksbury

Althaus

(2000) Differences in knowledge acquisition among readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77: 457–479.

65.

The Economist (2009) The promiscuity problem. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/15017453 (accessed 26 September 2016).

66.

Thorson

Vraga

Ekdale

(2010) Credibility in context: how uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society 13: 289–313.

67.

Trilling

Schoenbach

(2013) Skipping current affairs: the non-users of online and offline news. European Journal of Communication 28: 35–51.

68.

Turow

(1983) Local television: producing soft news. Journal of Communication 33: 111–123.

69.

Yang

Grabe

(2011) Knowledge acquisition gaps: a comparison of print versus online news sources. New Media & Society 13: 1211–1227.

70.

Yee

(2016) Facebook posts fake Megyn Kelly story in trending section. Variety. Available at: http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/facebook-megyn-kelly-fired-fake-story-trending-1201846725/

71.

Zaller

(2003) A new standard of news quality: burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication 20: 109–130.

72.

Zillmann

Knobloch

(2001) Effects of photographs on the selective reading of news reports. Media Psychology 3: 301–324.