Although viewpoint diversity is a key value for audiences, journalism and media policy, not much is known about how audiences process and evaluate it. This is critical because any positive effect we might expect from a broad range of views (e.g., on opinion formation) requires that recipients recognize and appreciate it as a part of news content. The current study examines how news readers process and evaluate argument diversity as a specific aspect of viewpoint diversity. In a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subject experiment, 1363 subjects were exposed to news reports containing a diverse or homogenous set of arguments in the context of two currently debated issues (artificial intelligence and immigration). Reports were either published by a single or multiple media outlets to determine potential differences between internal and external argument diversity. We find that readers not only recognize the presence of argument diversity, but that it leads to an increase in overall news satisfaction. This increase can be attributed to a higher credibility of news reports with diverse arguments.
AllenM (1998) Comparing the persuasive effectiveness of one and two sided messages. In: AllenMPreissRW (eds) Quantitative Methods in Communication. Persuasion. Advances through Meta-Analysis. New York, NY: Hampton Press, 97–98.
2.
ArltDWollingJ (2016) He refugees: threatening or beneficial? Exploring the effects of positive and negative attitudes and communication on hostile media rceptions. Global Media Journal6(1): 1–21.
3.
BachmannPEiseneggerMIngenhoffD (2021) Defining and measuring news media quality: comparing the content perspective and the audience perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics27(1): 9–37. DOI: 10.1177/1940161221999666.
BensonR (2009) What makes news more multiperspectival? A field analysis. Poetics37(5–6): 402–418. DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2009.09.002.
6.
BensonRHallinDC (2007) How states, markets and globalization shape the news. European Journal of Communication22(1): 27–48. DOI: 10.1177/0267323107073746.
7.
BrehmJ W (1972) Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of psychological reactance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
8.
CookJLewandowskySEckerUKH (2017) Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One12(5): e0175799. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175799.
9.
Costera MeijerIGroot KormelinkT (2017) Revisiting the audience turn in journalism: how a user-based approach changes the meaning of clicks, transparency and citizen participation. In: FranklinBEldridgeIIS (eds) The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies. London, UK: Routledge, 345–353.
10.
DixonGNClarkeCE (2013) Heightening uncertainty around certain science: media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication35(3): 358–382. DOI: 10.1177/1075547012458290.
11.
EildersC (2002) Conflict and consonance in media opinion: political positions of five German quality newspapers. European Journal of Communication17(1): 25–63. DOI: 10.1177/0267323102017001606.
12.
FawziNSteindlNObermaierM, et al. (2021) Concepts, causes and consequences of trust in news media – a literature review and framework. Annals of the International Communication Association45(2): 154–174. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2021.1960181.
13.
FlanaginAJWinterSMetzgerMJ (2020) Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: the role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society23(7): 1038–1056. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1547411.
GazianoCMcGrathK (1986) Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly63(3): 451–462.
16.
HabermasJ (1996) Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
HabermasJ (2006) Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory16(4): 411–426. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x.
18.
HabermasJ (2022) Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society39(4): 145–171. DOI: 10.1177/02632764221112341.
19.
HansenGJKimH (2011) Is the media biased against me? A meta-analysis of the hostile media effect research. Communication Research Reports28(2): 169–179. DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2011.565280.
20.
HarkinsSGPettyRE (1981) The multiple source effect in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin7(4): 627–635. DOI: 10.1177/014616728174019.
21.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
22.
HayesDGuardinoM (2010) Whose views made the news? Media coverage and the march to war in Iraq. Political Communication27(1): 59–87. DOI: 10.1080/10584600903502615.
23.
HeitzLLischkaJABirrerA, et al. (2022) Benefits of diverse news recommendations for democracy: a user study. Digital Journalism10: 1710–1730. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2021.2021804.
24.
HelbergerN (2011) Diversity by design. Journal of Information Policy1: 441–469. DOI: 10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0441.
25.
HelbergerNKarppinenKD’AcuntoL (2018) Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information, Communication & Society21(2): 191–207. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271900.
26.
HoffmannCPLutzCMeckelM, et al. (2015) Diversity by choice: applying a social cognitive perspective to the role of public service media in the digital age. International Journal of Communication9: 1360–1381.
27.
HopmannDNVan AelstPLegnanteG (2012) Political balance in the news: a review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 240–257. DOI: 10.1177/1464884911427804.
28.
HovlandCIWeissW (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly15(4): 635–650. DOI: 10.1086/266350.
29.
HovlandCILumsdaineAASheffieldFD (1949) Experiments on Mass Communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
JongenelisMIPettigrewSWakefieldM, et al. (2018) Investigating single- versus multiple-source approaches to communicating health messages via an online simulation. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP32(4): 979–988. DOI: 10.1177/0890117116673819.
31.
JorisGGroveFDvan DammeK, et al. (2021) Appreciating news algorithms: examining audiences’ perceptions to different news selection mechanisms. Digital Journalism9(5): 589–618. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1912626.
32.
KarppinenK (2013) Rethinking Media Pluralism. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
33.
KellyD (2019) Evaluating the news: (mis)perceptions of objectivity and credibility. Political Behavior41: 445–471. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-018-9458-4.
34.
KimDHKwakN (2017) Media diversity policies for the public: empirical evidence examining exposure diversity and democratic citizenship. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media61(4): 682–702. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2017.1375498.
35.
KochTZerbackT (2013) Helpful or harmful? How frequent repetition affects perceived statement credibility: helpful or harmful. Journal of Communication63(6): 993–1010. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12063.
36.
Lee-WonRJWhiteTNSongH, et al. (2020) Source magnification of cyberhate: affective and cognitive effects of multiple-source hate messages on target group members. Media Psychology23(5): 603–624. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2019.1612760.
37.
LinBLewisSC (2022) The one thing journalistic AI just might do for democracy. Digital Journalism10(10): 1627–1649. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2022.2084131.
38.
LoecherbachFMoellerJTrillingD, et al. (2020) The unified framework of media diversity: a systematic literature review. Digital Journalism8: 605–642. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1764374.
39.
LückJSchultzTSimonF, et al. (2022) Diversity in British, Swedish, and German newsrooms: problem awareness, measures, and achievements. Journalism Practice16(4): 561–581. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2020.1815073.
40.
MasiniAVan AelstP (2017) Actor diversity and viewpoint diversity: two of a kind?Communications42(2): 107–126. DOI: 10.1515/commun-2017-0017.
41.
MasiniAVan AelstPZerbackT, et al. (2018) Measuring and explaining the diversity of voices and viewpoints in the news. Journalism Studies19(15): 2324–2343. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1343650.
MaurerMHaßlerJKruschinskiS, et al. (2022) Looking over the channel: the balance of media coverage about the “refugee crisis” in Germany and the UK. Communications47(2): 219–240. DOI: 10.1515/commun-2020-0016.
44.
MaurerMJostPKruschinskiS, et al. (2023) Inkonsistent einseitig. Publizistik68(1): 13–35. DOI: 10.1007/s11616-022-00769-1.
45.
McQuailD (1992) Media performance. Mass Communication and the Public Interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
46.
MerkleyE (2020) Are experts (news)worthy? Balance, conflict, and mass media coverage of expert consensus. Political Communication37(4): 530–549. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1713269.
47.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMeddersRB (2010) Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication60(3): 413–439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x.
48.
MetzgerMJHartsellEHFlanaginAJ (2020) Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research47(1): 3–28. DOI: 10.1177/0093650215613136.
49.
MooreDJMowenJCReardonR (1994) Multiple sources in advertising appeals: when product endorsers are paid by the advertising sponsor. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science22(3): 234–243.
50.
NapoliPM (1999) Deconstructing the diversity principle. Journal of Communication49(4): 7–34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02815.x.
51.
NeroneJ (2013) The historical roots of the normative model of journalism. Journalism14(4): 446–458. DOI: 10.1177/1464884912464177.
ObermaierMSteindlNFawziN (2023) Independent or a political pawn? How recipients perceive influences on journalistic work compared to journalists and what explains their perceptions. Journalism24(4): 857–876. DOI: 10.1177/14648849211034359.
54.
OjalaM (2021) Is the age of impartial journalism over? The neutrality principle and audience (dis)trust in mainstream news. Journalism Studies22(15): 2042–2060. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.1942150.
55.
O’KeefeDJ (1999) How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: a meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Annals of the International Communication Association22(1): 209–249. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.1999.11678963.
56.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Berlin, Germany: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1.
57.
RobertsonCT (2021) Impartiality unpacked: a study of four countries. In: NewmanNFletcherRSchulzA, et al. (eds) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 38–41.
58.
RoggeveenALJoharGV (2002) Perceived source variability versus familiarity: testing competing explanations for the truth effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology12(2): 81–91. DOI: 10.1207/S15327663JCP1202_02.
59.
StroudNJ (2008) Media use and political predispositions: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior30(3): 341–366. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9.
60.
TarkiainenAArminenHKuivalainenO (2014) Online content: who is willing to pay and for what?International Journal of Business Information Systems17(3): 283. DOI: 10.1504/IJBIS.2014.064974.
61.
UrbanJSchweigerW (2014) News quality from the recipients’ perspective. Journalism Studies15(6): 821–840. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2013.856670.
62.
Van AelstPStrömbäckJAalbergT, et al. (2017) Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challence for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association41(1): 3–27.
63.
VoakesPSKapferJKurpiusD, et al. (1996) Diversity in the news: a conceptual and methodological framework. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly73(3): 582–593. DOI: 10.1177/107769909607300306.
64.
WolfgangJDVosTPKellingK, et al. (2021) Political journalism and democracy: how journalists reflect political viewpoint diversity in their reporting. Journalism Studies22(10): 1339–1357. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.1952473.
65.
ZerbackTKobilkeL (2022) The role of affective and cognitive attitude extremity in perceived viewpoint diversity exposure. New Media & Society2022: 146144482211174. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221117484.
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.
