As fake news becomes a pressing social concern, governments from many countries have considered legislation against fake news. This study examined how citizens formed opinions about fake news and an anti-fake news bill in South Korea where political elites provide polarized discourse regarding fake news and associated regulatory politics. Progressive leaders more intensely criticized fake news and proposed an anti-fake news bill whereas conservative leaders vehemently opposed the bill. The analysis of survey data showed that elite polarization may affect citizens’ perceptions of fake news and attitudes toward anti-fake news legislation. Strong partisans tended to believe that fake news is more hostile toward their in-group and had stronger third-person perceptions, and such perceptions were positively related to the support of anti-fake news legislation. Moreover, progressive voters tended to have stronger hostile and third-person perceptions than conservative counterparts, reflecting endorsement of their in-group leaders’ positions. News reception about the bill further increased the gap in the level of support for the bill between progressive and conservative citizens.
BrummetteJDiStasoMVafeiadisM, et al. (2018) Read all about it: the politicization of “fake news” on Twitter. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95: 497–517.
5.
CarsonAGibbonsA (2023) The big chill? How journalists and sources perceive and respond to fake news laws in Indonesia and Singapore. Journalism Studies24: 1819–1838, Epub ahead of print 03 May 2023. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2023.2192299.
ChoiECYounS (2022) The media policy debate over punitive damages for media reports: a discourse network analysis. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies66(2): 5–69, (in Korean).
9.
CohenGL (2003) Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85: 808–822.
10.
DanceyLGorenP (2010) Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science54: 686–699.
11.
DavisonWP (1983) The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly47: 1–15.
12.
DruckmanJNPetersonESlothuusR (2013) How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review107: 57–79.
13.
DuckJMHoggMATerryDJ (1995) Me, us, and them: political identification and the third person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology25: 195–215.
14.
EgelhoferJLLechelerS (2019) Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: a framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association43: 97–116.
FarhallKCarsonAWrightS, et al. (2019) Political elites’ use of fake news discourse across communications platforms. International Journal of Communication13: 4353–4375.
17.
FarkasJSchouJ (2018) Fake news as a floating signifier: hegemony, antagonism and the politics of falsehood. Javnost - The Public25: 298–314.
18.
FenglerS (2019) Accountability in journalism. In: VosTPHanuschF (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–8.
19.
GillHChoiMTaySK (2023) Fake news and partisan blame attribution: exploring the mediating role of self-enhancing perceptual bias among young adults. Atlantic Journalof Communication: Epub ahead of print 17 March 2023. DOI: 10.1080/15456870.2023.2191202.
GuntherACChiaSC (2001) Predicting pluralistic ignorance: the hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly78: 688–701.
22.
HoffnerCRehkoffRA (2011) Young voters’ responses to the 2004 U.S. presidential election: social identity, perceived media influence, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Communication61: 732–757.
23.
HyunKSeoM (2021) The effects of HMP and TPP on political participation in the partisan media context. Communication Research48: 665–686.
24.
JangSMKimJK (2018) Third person effects of fake news: fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior80: 295–302.
25.
KangM (2005) The struggle for press freedom and emergence of “unelected” media power in South Korea. In: ErniJNChuaSK (eds) Asian Media Studies: Politics of Subjectivities. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 75–90.
26.
KangJ (2019) The attributes of fake news discourse and the direction of social practice in media reports. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies63(6): 7–64, (in Korean).
KimH (2016) The role of emotions and culture in the third-person effect process of news coverage of election poll results. Communication Research43: 109–130.
29.
KimEGHamiltonJW (2006) Capitulation to capital? OhmyNews as alternative media. Media Culture & Society28: 541–560.
30.
LaddJ (2012) Why Americans Hate the Media and How it Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
LeeTT (2005) The liberal media myth revisited: an examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media49: 43–64.
32.
LeeG (2021) Media and Politics. Seoul, Korea: Ewha Womans University Press. (in Korean).
33.
LenzGS (2013) Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians' Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
LischkaJA (2019) A badge of honor? How The New York Times discredits President Trump’s fake news accusations. Journalism Studies20: 287–304.
35.
MathesonKDursunS (2001) Social identity precursors to the hostile media phenomenon: partisan perceptions of coverage of the Bosnian conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations4: 116–125.
NeoR (2022) When would a state crack down on fake news? Explaining variation in the governance of fake news in Asia-Pacific. Political Studies Review20: 390–409.
ParkB (2021b) DP Steps Back on Contentious Media Bill, Agrees to Form Bipartisan Committee for Further Review: Yonhap News Agency. 29 September. Available at: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210929008600315 (accessed 7 December 2023).
RheeJW (2005) The advent of “critical discursive publics” in Korea and their demands for fairness. Studies of Broadcasting Culture17: 139–172(in Korean). Available at: https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/NODE02260776# (accessed 10 December 2021).
SlothuusRDe VreeseCH (2010) Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics72: 630–645.
47.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 33–37.
48.
TandocECJrLimZWLingR (2018) Defining “fake news” A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism6: 137–153.
49.
TongCGillHLiJ, et al. (2020) “Fake news is anything they say!” Conceptualization and weaponization of fake news among the American public. Mass Communication & Society23: 755–778.
50.
TurnerJCHoggMAOakesPJ, et al. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
51.
ValloneRPRossLLepperMR (1985) The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology49: 577–585.
52.
Van der LindenSPanagopoulosCRoozenbeekJ (2020) You are fake news: political bias in perceptions of fake news. Media, Culture & Society42: 460–470.
53.
Van der WurffRSchönbachK (2014) Audience expectations of media accountability in The Netherlands. Journalism Studies15(2): 121–137.
54.
Von KroghT (2012) Changing political attitudes towards media accountability in Sweden. Central European Journal of Chemistry5(09): 204–223.
WeiRChiaSCLoVH (2011) Third-person effect and hostile media perception influences on voter attitudes toward polls in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research23: 169–190.
57.
ZallerJR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
