Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines journalism’s role in bridging divides by presenting diverse perspectives in societal debates. While prior research has emphasized the significance of diverse news content, this study investigates how audiences perceive and value such diversity and its impact on their attitudes. Through an online experiment in the Flemish (Belgian) context, it was found that actor diversity is more noticeable, yet increasing diversity in actors and viewpoints does not enhance a news item’s perceived credibility. Moreover, although people are influenced in the direction of the viewpoint provided in a one-sided article, it appears that when a diversity of viewpoints is presented, people tend to primarily consider those opinions that already align with their pre-existing viewpoints. By gaining a deeper understanding of how audiences receive news coverage, journalists can critically evaluate the voices they present and contribute to a more diverse public debate.

Keywords

Actor diversity experiment news content diversity news credibility viewpoint diversity

In recent years, democracies all over the world have been moving toward increased political polarization (Carothers and O’Donohue, 2019; McCoy et al., 2018). The role of journalism in helping bridge political divides and the need for news media to present diverse voices in societal debates are often discussed in this regard. A core democratic function of news media is keeping the public informed about what is going on in society (Gans, 2004). This, in turn, helps citizens develop informed opinions on political issues and participate in democracy. Due to its democratic function, news media are expected to inform the public on matters of public policy by presenting debates, offering alternatives, and providing a platform for a diverse range of voices in the news (McNair, 2009; Schultz, 1998; Thompson, 1995). The diversity of news content has garnered substantial attention in academic research, societal debates, and policymaking. However, for content diversity to fulfill its democratic role, citizens must be not only exposed to it but also ‘receive’ it. This study seeks to investigate whether audience members notice when news media incorporate diversity and whether it affects their perceptions and judgments of the news item and the issues covered.

In existing empirical research, news diversity as received by audiences is often neglected at the advantage of more comprehensive analyses centered around the supply side of news content (Hendrickx et al., 2022). A large part of the literature analyzes the diversity of news content, often referred to as “internal news diversity” (Van Cuilenburg, 1999). To date, extant research has conceptualized and analyzed both the diversity of actors (e.g., Beckers and Van Aelst, 2019; Bennett, 1990; Benson, 2009) and the diversity of viewpoints (e.g., Masini and Van Aelst, 2017; Voakes et al., 1996) in the news. These studies conclude that some news topics are covered in a more diverse way than others, but that elite voices dominate such discussions and that issues are often presented in a one-sided manner. Another strand of studies looks at the broader diversity of news supply in the media landscape (“external diversity”), focusing on the diversity of news outlets and the influence it has on content diversity (Beckers et al., 2019; Boczkowski and De Santos, 2007; Hendrickx, 2020). Here, it is often observed that a more diverse news supply does not necessarily lead to more diverse content, as many outlets tend to offer considerably similar content in terms of actors and viewpoints. All these studies seem to agree, though, that more news diversity is beneficial for society as a whole.

However, the long-held view that citizens will automatically have a more varied media diet and more diverse viewpoints if only media offer diverse content is no longer taken for granted (Van der Wurff, 2011). Referred to as “exposure diversity,” a growing number of studies consider how audiences receive diversity in the news (e.g., Van Rees and Van Eijck, 2003; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012). However, most of these studies focus on the diversity of the news supply, i.e., the number of news outlets present in a media market. Despite the proliferation of (online) media outlets and expanded opportunities for diverse media consumption, audiences remain fragmented, often choosing to follow only a limited number of outlets (Van Rees and Van Eijck, 2003; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012). Based on these findings, it would appear that most people prefer not to consume diverse news outlets. However, despite the finding that many people stick to their preferred medium, this does not mean they do not value diversity. In Europe, public service media, designed for internal diversity, consistently rank among the most trusted (EBU, 2022). Rather than reading both right-wing and left-wing sites, for instance, some might prefer outlets that offer high diversity within their content, highlighting relevant positions from both sides.

Less is known about the influence of this content diversity within news content on audiences. Does a more ‘diverse’ news story in terms of actors and viewpoints lead to more diverse and nuanced attitudes towards that story? And do people even notice the presence of content diversity in news stories to begin with? In an online experiment conducted in Belgium, involving 987 adult participants, the aim is to examine how actor and viewpoint diversity in two news issues affect audiences’ perceptions of the news item and their perspectives on the news issue itself.

News diversity

Traditionally, research on news diversity has primarily focused on the supply side of the news. News content diversity, often referred to as ‘internal news diversity’ (Van Cuilenburg, 1999), has been a recurring theme in news media research. News content diversity encompasses various characteristics, including diversity in topics (Abdulla, 2017), frames (Voakes et al., 1996), sources (Voakes et al., 1996), stories (Beckers et al., 2019), and geographical representation (e.g., foreign vs domestic; Abdulla, 2017). In political news coverage, emphasis is often placed on the diversity of viewpoints and actors, as these elements are frequently associated with journalistic quality. The presence of multiple voices in news media is considered critical for a healthy democracy (Hansen, 1991; McNair, 2009; McQuail, 1992). It is important to distinguish between actor diversity and viewpoint diversity, as some studies (e.g., Voakes et al., 1996) have shown that higher actor diversity does not necessarily lead to a greater variety of perspectives. Conversely, other research (Masini and Van Aelst, 2017) has identified a correlation between actor and viewpoint diversity.

Regarding actor diversity, many studies have focused on the distribution of actors in terms of affiliation or status (e.g., elite vs non-elite), employing differing numbers of categories (Beckers and Van Aelst, 2019; Benson, 2009; Vandenberghe et al., 2015). Almost consistently, these studies conclude that it are mostly elite sources, particularly political actors, that receive the bulk of the attention across media outlets and systems. Another core dimension of news content diversity is viewpoint diversity. Logically, achieving a plurality of perspectives requires a diversity of viewpoints in the news. Voakes et al. (1996, p. 585) provided an encompassing explanation of viewpoint diversity as the spectrum of “concepts, perspectives, attributions, opinions, or frames within a news offering.” Griswold (1999) considered viewpoint diversity to be more important than actor diversity, as it is ultimately the diversity of viewpoints that ensures the democratic benefit of content diversity, offering readers a multitude of perspectives on a given topic. Several studies have investigated viewpoint diversity in the news, examining frame diversity (Hanitzsch and Mellado, 2011; Van Gorp, 2005) or political viewpoints and/or slant (e.g., Hayes and Guardino, 2010; Ho and Quinn, 2008).

While numerous studies have traditionally focused on diversity within news content as provided by journalists, recent scholarship, influenced by Napoli (1999), has expanded the understanding of news diversity beyond content alone. Napoli proposed a comprehensive classification of news diversity, encompassing ownership, source, content, and exposure diversity. This framework has served as inspiration for similar categorizations of news diversity along various dimensions. For instance, Sjøvaag (2016) proposed organizational, structural, production, output, and reception diversity, while Hendrickx et al. (2022) outlined diversity in terms of ownership, brand, production, content, and consumption. All of these models share the underlying idea that news content diversity is an integral component of a broader, multifaceted framework. They are built on the premise that multiple factors, including the composition of the media system, market dynamics, organizational influences, and editorial decisions, can collectively shape news diversity in diverse and complex ways. This includes the consideration of how audiences interact with news content and use it to shape their own viewpoints on critical issues.

Indeed, for a diverse news supply to have a democratic effect, audiences must receive it to begin with. It is through the consumption of diverse ideas, sources, and perspectives that citizens can make well-informed decisions in democratic societies (Sunstein, 1993). From this perspective, the marketplace ideal is not fulfilled solely through the provision of a variety of content but also necessitates that citizens are exposed to diverse perspectives and content. Several scholars have developed conceptualizations to understand how audiences engage with news diversity, using terms like exposure diversity (Napoli, 1999), reception diversity (Sjøvaag, 2016), consumption diversity (Hendrickx et al., 2022), or diversity as received (McQuail, 1992). However, in most cases, their focus has been on the diversity of the news supply (‘external diversity’), studying the choices individuals make regarding which outlets to consume. This has recently gained academic traction in the context of digitization, with a particular focus on algorithmic news recommender systems. These systems play a significant role in shaping the news consumption patterns of individuals, with people consuming news items from a larger variety of news outlets, and articles appearing higher in search results often having a higher readership (Hendrickx et al., 2021; Loecherbach et al., 2021; Mattis et al., 2021).

Relatively fewer studies have examined diversity within news content or whether people are even aware of the presence or absence of diversity in news content; i.e., do they perceive a diverse news item to be more diverse? An exception is a study by Urban and Schweiger (2013) on news quality perceptions, which found that people perceived a high-quality news item containing different viewpoints and actors at the same time to be more diverse than a low-quality news item containing fewer viewpoints and actors. Hendrickx and colleagues (2024) found similar results regarding viewpoint diversity. However, their study did not take actor diversity into account. Given the limited research on diversity perceptions that disentangles the influence of actor and viewpoint diversity, a first research question is proposed.

RQ1

Are people aware of the presence of news content diversity in terms of actor and viewpoint diversity?

Credibility perceptions

The trust citizens place in traditional news media is closely linked to their engagement with these media outlets (Kalogeropoulos et al., 2019). A common categorization scheme divides credibility into three primary domains: source, medium, and message (Metzger et al., 2003). In these domains, credibility is typically assessed in terms of attributes such as accuracy, trustworthiness, impartiality, and objectivity (Henke et al., 2019). Interpreting these concepts in different ways can affect whether content diversity would be considered beneficial or not. For accurate reporting, diverse viewpoints may not always be necessary. A narrow interpretation of objectivity as just separating facts from opinions might make diversity not always crucial. However, impartiality often seems to require diversity, assuming legitimacy among various parties.

On the one hand, there are reasons to expect that audiences will perceive diverse news items as credible. Diverse viewpoints are a main principle of “objective” journalism (Schultz, 1998), which is generally perceived as higher quality by audiences. It is also emphasized as a central journalistic principle in various editorial guidelines and media policies (Klimkiewicz, 2009). On the other hand, audiences might find one-sided stories more comprehensible and less complex (Benson, 2009), and therefore more attractive, especially when they align with their own views on the topic (Hendrickx et al., 2024; Metzger et al., 2020). Indeed, empirical research finds that despite an increase in (online) media outlets and greater opportunities to consume a diverse media diet, people tend to opt for a limited set of outlets (Van Rees and Van Eijck, 2003; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012), indicating that people do not automatically appreciate more diverse content.

Most studies indicate a positive effect of news content diversity on audiences’ credibility perceptions. For instance, Metzger et al. (2020) found that people attributed greater credibility to news stories when presented with a balanced set of viewpoints on political issues, using an online experiment. Choi and colleagues (2021), through a multi-method study combining a large survey with various types of news content analysis, discovered that it is not the linguistic or formal characteristics of a news item but news values (including diversity) that are the strongest predictors of news quality evaluation by audiences. Similarly, other empirical studies have suggested that citing scientific sources and using statistical information (Henke et al., 2019), as well as quoting both official and non-official actors in reporting, can enhance the perceived credibility of news reporting (Cozma, 2006).

H1a

People will perceive the diverse actor conditions to be more credible than the one-actor and control conditions

H1b

People will perceive the diverse viewpoint conditions to be more credible than the one-sided and control conditions

Attitudinal change

From a normative perspective, journalists ought to strive for diversity in the content they produce because, in a democracy, citizens need access and active exposure to a wide range of news and information (Schultz, 1998; Thompson, 1995). To accommodate competing interests within the democratic process, there need to be spaces in which citizens can be exposed to the views of their fellow citizens, and often these spaces are news media (Keane, 1991).

In the landscape of research on how individuals’ viewpoints are influenced by diversity within news content, one of the few studies is that of Van der Wurff (2011), which investigated how Dutch and Irish citizens engage with diversity when presented with news content centered around European integration. Notably, van der Wurff found that factors such as interest and familiarity with the subject matter emerged as stronger predictors of having diverse perspectives than media exposure to those perspectives.

Most research specifically focused on the influence of actual news content diversity on audience perceptions measures the impact at an aggregate rather than individual level. For instance, Van der Wurff (2011) explored the connection between media consumption and viewpoint diversity by surveying participants about their media consumption habits and the various perspectives they encountered. Huang (2009) compared a content analysis of media frames with the frames audience members held, revealing that media frame diversity corresponds to audience frame diversity at an aggregate level. In a study examining the relationship between diversity in the media agenda and the public’s agenda on an aggregate level, Peter and De Vreese (2003) found a positive relationship between the diversity of television news agenda and public agenda diversity in Denmark.

While these studies provide valuable insights, they do not establish causal effects of news content diversity on viewpoint diversity. Nonetheless, they do suggest a connection between the diversity of the news content supply and audience viewpoints. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2a

People exposed to diverse viewpoints in a news item will have more nuanced attitudes toward the news issue as compared to people exposed to a one-sided news item

H2b

The combined presence of high actor and viewpoint diversity in a news item will exert a stronger influence on individuals’ attitudinal changes towards the news issue compared to news items characterized by high diversity in either actors or viewpoints alone.

As mentioned before, people tend to expose themselves to news content that aligns with their own pre-existing views (Metzger et al., 2020). The theoretical foundations hereof lie in selective exposure theory, which posits that individuals actively choose information that aligns with their existing beliefs and attitudes (Stroud, 2008). Moreover, this can be linked to “confirmation bias” (Nickerson, 1998), which describes the cognitive process that occurs after information is encountered. Here, even when exposed to diverse information, people often give more weight to and are influenced more by information that reinforces their existing point of view while downplaying or dismissing contradictory information (Sude and Knobloch-Westerwick, 2022). These two separate processes both can come into play when it comes to consuming (diverse) news content and might even result in a reinforcement pattern.

Building upon these theories, this study incorporates political orientation as a key moderator in the relationship between viewpoint diversity and attitudinal change. Political orientation is recognized as a fundamental factor influencing information processing and decision-making on political topics (Hahnel et al., 2020). Given the focus on socio-economic and sociocultural political issues, this study explores how political orientation moderates the impact of news content diversity, specifically in terms of actor and viewpoint diversity, on people’s attitudes.

RQ2

What is the moderating role of people’s political orientation in how news content diversity influences people’s attitudes toward the news issue?

Methodology

To test the influence of news content diversity on diversity perceptions, news item credibility, and attitudes towards the issue, an online survey experiment was conducted in Flanders, Belgium. The experiment has a 2 (news issue: socio-economic, sociocultural) by 3 (viewpoint diversity: low viewpoint diversity in favor; low viewpoint diversity against; balanced viewpoint diversity) by 3 (actor diversity: expert; civil society actor; diverse actors) experimental design, supplemented by a control condition containing only the basic news item without quoted actors or viewpoints.

The experimental stimuli consisted of constructed, but realistic news items on two issues; the first article covered a socio-economic issue and reported on how package delivery services warn that they need to increase their rates in response to soaring inflation. The free delivery often offered by delivery services is therefore under pressure. The article discusses the choice for increasing the costs of delivery for consumers. The second article discusses a sociocultural issue concerning several municipalities with temporary asylum centers. These municipalities have been requested by the government to keep these centers open for a longer duration. Furthermore, there has been an expansion in the number of crisis centers established to manage the growing volume of asylum applications. The article delves into the debate regarding whether the capacity for asylum seekers should be expanded. The use of two news issues serves as a robustness check. The full basic news items (control conditions) can be found in Appendix A, followed by all actor quotes. In the diverse conditions, different combinations of the quotes were provided (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Experimental conditions.

	Actor diversity	Viewpoint diversity
1	Expert	In favor
2	Expert	Against
3	Expert	Diverse
4	Civil society	In favor
5	Civil society	Against
6	Civil society	Diverse
7	Diverse	In favor
8	Diverse	Against
9	Diverse	Diverse in favor/against
10	Diverse	Diverse against/in favor
11	Control	Control

In the conditions with low actor diversity, either an expert (“expert e-commerce” for the socio-economic issue and “immigration expert from university” for the sociocultural issue, respectively) or a representative of a civil society organization (a representative of a consumer organization or representative of civil society organization that protests for or against the issue, respectively). In the conditions with high actor diversity, both the expert and the civil society actor were quoted.

The conditions with low viewpoint diversity contained only a viewpoint in favor or against, regardless of the number of actors (so in the diverse actor conditions, both actors gave the same viewpoint). In the diverse viewpoint condition, either one actor gave two different viewpoints, or different actors gave different viewpoints. The condition with diverse actors (both an expert and a civil society actor) and diverse viewpoints (in favor and against in one item), consisted of two versions, one in which the expert gave the opinion in favor, one in which the civil society actor did. For the analyses, these two conditions were taken together as the diverse condition. Table 1 lists all the different conditions.

This experiment was conducted in the Flemish context, which is known for its overall relatively high levels of trust in the mainstream news media (Picone, 2023) and a strong position of the public service broadcaster. It is characterized by high levels of journalistic professionalism (Hallin and Mancini, 2004). Study participants were recruited using Dynata, a survey distribution service, which uses quota sampling to produce a sample that is representative of the Flemish population in terms of age, gender, and level of education. Following IRB approval, the study was fielded from February 10–28, 2023. In total, 1321 people finished the survey. Speeders, respondents who spent less than 25% of the time it takes to complete the survey on average (less than 384 s) finishing the full survey, were removed. Consequently, all respondents finishing the survey in less than 384 s were removed. Moreover, participants who spent less than 22 s on the page with the experimental stimuli were excluded from the analysis. A total of 987 respondents were included in the final study. There were on average 45 people per experimental condition (SD = 3.8), with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50.

56.4% of the participants identified as female, 43.5% as male, and 0.1% as other. The average age was 51 years old (SD = 17.92). 2.1% of participants had no education, 5.0% completed primary school, 56.5% completed secondary school, 25.8% held a higher education non-university degree, and 10.5% attained a university degree. In terms of their political alignment on a left-right scale (“In politics, people sometimes talk of “left” and “right”. Where would you place yourself on this scale, where 0 means left and 10 means right?”). The average was 5.47 (SD = 2.16), so our respondents overall were slightly right-leaning. In Figure 1, the distribution of participants based on their political alignment is visualized.

Figure 1.

Political orientation of participants on left(0)-right(10) scale.

Randomization checks were conducted to check if participants were randomly divided across conditions. Randomization was successful for age (F (10, 974) = 1.33, p = .212, gender (X² (1, N = 104) = 1.7, p > .05) level of education (X² (20, N = 987) = 18.10, p = .581), and political orientation (F (10, 976) = 2.46, p = .861.

Dependent variables

After exposure to the experimental stimulus article, participants’ personal attitudes towards the issues were surveyed by asking: “We are interested in your personal attitude regarding higher parcel shipping costs. What is your preference?” The response options ranged from ‘The shipping costs for online orders should not increase (1)’ to ‘The shipping costs for online orders may increase (7)’ for the socio-economic issue. For the sociocultural issue, we asked: “We are interested in your personal attitude regarding more investments in asylum centers. What is your preference?” with response options ranging from ‘No expansion of asylum centers (1)’ to ‘Expansion of asylum centers (7)’.

To measure the credibility of the news item, a scale based on Gaziano and McGrath (1986) was employed. Participants were asked for their opinion on the news item they had just read, using statements such as “The news item was believable,” “The news item was balanced,” “The news item contained reliable information,” “The news item was accurate,” “The news item reported honestly on the subject,” and “The news item was understandable.” Participants responded on a 7-point scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Using the same question format, perceptions of diversity were also assessed using three items: “The news item contained various points of view,” “The news item included a diversity of actors,” and “The news item presented different voices in the debate.” These items were also measured on a 7-point scale going from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

Results

Do people notice diversity?

Our first analysis to test whether audiences in the first place notice diversity, consisted of a two-way independent ANOVA with the experimental manipulations (actor and viewpoint diversity) as independent variables, and diversity perceptions as dependent variable, followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests.

As can be seen in Table 2, our results show that actor diversity has the largest effect on diversity perceptions (F(2, 970) = 12.145, p < .001, partial η² = .024), more than viewpoint diversity (F(2, 970) = 5.010, p = .007, partial η² = .010). People perceived the diverse conditions with several actors to be significantly more diverse (M = 4.71, SD = 1.06) than the ones with one actor, for which there was no difference between the condition with only an expert (M = 4.23, SD = 1.19) or only a civil society actor (M = 4.42, SD = 1.08). All news items with an actor were perceived as significantly more diverse than the control condition (M = 3.87, SD = 1.03), which lacked actors altogether.

Table 2.

Analysis of variance with diversity perceptions as dependent variable.

	df	Mean Square	F	p	Partial Eta²
Issue (sociocultural = ref)	1	13.868	11.920***	<.001	.012
Actor diversity	2	14.130	12.145***	<.001	.024
Viewpoint diversity	2	5.829	5.010**	.007	.010
Actor diversity * Viewpoint diversity	4	2.800	2.406*	.048	.010
Issue * actor diversity	2	0.349	0.300	.397	.001
Issue* viewpoint diversity	2	1.075	0.924	.741	.002

Adjusted R² = 0.086.

Regarding viewpoint diversity, all news items containing viewpoints (both the one-sided and the diverse ones) were perceived to be significantly more diverse than the control condition (M = 3.87, SD = 1.03). Moreover, news items containing more than one viewpoint—regardless of the number of actors giving these viewpoints—were perceived to be more diverse (M = 4.60, SD = 1.10) than the news item with a viewpoint in favor of the issues (M = 4.26, SD = 1.13), but no significant difference was found with the conditions against (M = 4.53, SD = 1.13).

Regarding news issue (F(1, 970) = 11.920, p < .001, partial η² = .012), the socio-economic news item on delivery services overall was perceived to be more diverse (M = 4.60, SD = 1.12) than the sociocultural news item about immigration (M = 4.26, SD = 1.11). However, the direction of the effects of actor and viewpoint diversity moved in the same direction, as none of the interaction effects reached significance.

A significant interaction effect between actor and viewpoint diversity was found, though (F(4, 970) = 2.406, p = .048, partial η² = .010), which is visualized in Figure 2. For the news articles with low actor diversity that only contain an expert or civil society actor, there is no difference between the condition with a viewpoint in favor, against, or the diverse condition. It thus seems that it are mostly the traits of the actors that steer perceptions of diversity here. In the case of diverse actors, when both actors express an opinion in favor, people perceive it as less diverse than the other conditions containing diverse actors. No difference is found between the conditions in which the two actors present viewpoints against and the conditions in which the two actors present two different viewpoints. Both are perceived as the most diverse of all experimental conditions by the participants. This difference between the one-sided article in favor, and the one-sided article against is interesting. As the two actors both being critical of the basic premise of the proposed policy in the article is seen as more ‘diverse’ than when both actors give a viewpoint in line with the base-rate article. It seems that people seem to perceive that true diversity in reporting emerges only when multiple voices are present, and at least one of them adopts a critical stance toward an issue.

Figure 2.

Interaction effect of actor diversity and viewpoint diversity on diversity perceptions.

Do people find diverse news more credible?

Secondly, the experiment examines how actor and viewpoint diversity influence people’s judgments of the credibility of the news item itself (Table 3). Despite the aforementioned finding that actor diversity had the strongest effect on diversity perceptions, it does not exert a similar influence on credibility perceptions. Hence, we do not find support for H1a, as people do not perceive the diverse actor conditions to be more credible than the one-actor and control conditions. Regarding viewpoint diversity, the diverse condition, which featured two distinct viewpoints, was not perceived to possess significantly greater credibility compared to the condition that supported only one side of the issue; favoring nor opposing, rejecting Hypothesis 1b. The article focusing on the socio-economic issue of delivery services (M = 5.20, SD = 0.85), received a higher overall credibility rating compared to the sociocultural immigration article (M = 5.06, SD = 0.79); F(1, 969) = 6.469, p = .011, partial η² = .007. This suggests that the issue itself can affect how people perceive the credibility of news content, which might have been influenced by people’s pre-existing attitudes on the issues. None of the interaction effects reached significance.

Table 3.

Analysis of variance with perceived news item credibility as dependent variable.

	df	Mean Square	F	p	Partial Eta²
Issue (sociocultural = ref)	1	4.365	6.469*	.011	.007
Actor diversity	2	0.310	0.459	.632	.001
Viewpoint diversity	2	5.829	5.010	.270	.003
Actor diversity * Viewpoint diversity	4	0.678	1.005	.404	.004
Issue * actor diversity	2	0.570	0.845	.430	.002
Issue* viewpoint diversity	2	1.381	2.048	.130	.004

Adjusted R² = 0.005.

Are people influenced by diversity?

Our third variable of interest is how actor and viewpoint diversity influence people’s own attitudes toward the issues at hand. In Table 4, the results of the analysis of variance are presented. People’s political orientation on an 11-point left-right scale is included as a variable in the model. Notably, there is a strong main effect of political orientation (F(1, 960) = 27.137, p < .001, partial η² = .027), indicating that individuals who lean more to the right tend to hold stronger attitudes against the general stance of the articles for both issues (i.e., shipping costs may increase and the expansion of asylum centers), evidencing that both issues are politicized in nature.

Table 4.

Analysis of variance with attitudes towards the issue as dependent variable.

	df	Mean Square	F	p	Partial Eta²
Issue (sociocultural = ref)	1	117.827	31.417***	<.001	.032
Actor diversity	2	12.382	3.301*	.037	.007
Viewpoint diversity	2	16.218	4.324*	.014	.009
Political orientation (right)	1	101.776	27.137***	<.001	.027
Actor diversity * Viewpoint diversity	4	4.121	1.099	.356	.005
Issue * actor diversity	2	0.499	0.133	.875	.000
Issue* viewpoint diversity	2	1.949	0.520	.595	.001
Issue * political orientation	1	178.879	47.695***	<.001	.047
Actor diversity * political orientation	2	7.758	2.068	.127	.004
Viewpoint diversity * political orientation	2	10.946	2.919*	.050	.006
Actor diversity * viewpoint diversity* political orientation	4	2.731	0.728	.573	.003

Adjusted R² = 0.090.

Even though individuals perceived the news item with multiple actors as being most diverse (as indicated in Table 1), actor diversity in itself seems to affect people’s opinions on the issue, with people in the diverse actor condition being less supportive overall (M = 3.27, SD = 2.01) than participants in the one-actor (M_Expert = 3.49, SD_Expert = 2.07; M_{Civil society} = 3.68, SD_{Civil society} = 2.03) or control conditions (M = 3.54, SD = 1.98); F(2, 960) = 3.301, p = .037, partial η² = .007. There is also a main effect of viewpoint diversity; F(2, 960) = 4.324, p = .014, partial η² = .009. People tended to become more supportive after reading an article in favor of the issue (M = 3.72, SD = 2.06), more opposed after reading an opposing article (M = 3.12, SD = 1.96), and adopted, on average, a position in-between the previous two when exposed to a balanced perspective (M = 3.53, SD = 1.98), which did not differ significantly from the control condition (M = 3.54, SD = 1.98), according to Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests. Particularly, the condition opposing the issue had a strong influence and differed from the other conditions. An interaction effect between actor and viewpoint diversity was not found, and we did not establish the cumulative effect of actor and viewpoint diversity on attitudinal change as formulated in H2b.

The strong effect size for political orientation warrants further investigation into the role of political orientation. Indeed, a significant interaction effect between political orientation and viewpoint diversity is found; F(2, 960) = 2.919, p = .050, partial η² = .006. As visualized in Figure 3, for all conditions, a more right-leaning political orientation resulted in less supportive attitudes toward the issue. However, this effect was even stronger for the diverse viewpoint condition. It appears that when different viewpoints are presented, people tend to primarily consider those opinions that already align with their own political orientation. Hence, although the main effect for viewpoint diversity seemed to indicate support for H2a, with people ending up with more nuanced attitudes toward the issue after exposure to the diverse condition as compared to the one-sided conditions, this interaction effect demonstrates that reality is more complex.

Figure 3.

Interaction effect between viewpoint diversity and political orientation with attitudes towards the issue as dependent variable.

Regarding the specific news issues, individuals across conditions leaned more towards support for the discussed issue after reading the socio-economic article on delivery services (M = 3.59, SD = 2.04) than after reading the sociocultural article on immigration (M = 3.33, SD = 2.01); F(1, 960) = 31.417, p = <.001, partial η² = .032. The effects of actor and viewpoint diversity moved in the same direction for both issues, with none of the interaction effects reaching significance.

Discussion

A pluralistic media landscape, representing various actors and viewpoints, remains a fundamental principle in democracies (Mattis et al., 2021; Napoli, 2011). While numerous studies investigate whether individuals access a range of news sources (e.g., Van Rees and Van Eijck, 2003; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012), limited research explores how audiences receive diversity within news content. This study addresses that gap by using an experimental approach to examine how audiences perceive and are influenced by the diversity of viewpoints and actors in news content. It aims to understand how such diversity affects perceptions of diversity, the credibility of the news, and individuals’ attitudes.

The findings indicate that while audiences perceive content with diverse actors and viewpoints as more diverse, they may not always equate it with higher credibility. Previous research (e.g., Cozma, 2006; Henke et al., 2019) suggests that increasing viewpoint diversity in news content boosts its perceived credibility. However, our findings reveal a more nuanced reality. Although people may recognize diversity, simply increasing the number of viewpoints or actors in news content does not necessarily enhance its perceived credibility.

Moreover, while news items with high levels of actor diversity are most notably perceived as diverse, people do not seem to specifically notice viewpoint diversity. However, these viewpoints significantly influence people’s attitudes toward the issue. Individuals became more supportive after reading a favorable article, more opposed after encountering an opposing viewpoint, and adopted an average position between the two when exposed to diverse perspectives. Political orientation significantly affected attitudes, with individuals holding more right-leaning views more likely to oppose both issues. This effect was amplified in the presence of diverse viewpoints, suggesting that when exposed to differing opinions, people often gravitate toward viewpoints that align with their pre-existing beliefs, reinforcing their attitudes. These findings align with the literature on “confirmation bias” (Nickerson, 1998), which states that people often give more weight to information that supports their existing views while downplaying or dismissing contradictory information (Sude and Knobloch-Westerwick, 2022).

Hence, diverse news content does not necessarily make people’s attitudes more nuanced. However, a single exposure to a counterargument is unlikely to immediately shift people toward a middle position. Over time, comprehension of both sides in political debates might guide people away from polarized extremes toward more moderate views. Additionally, in the Western understanding of journalism, it is not necessarily the role of news to influence people’s judgments. Instead, facilitating the recognition of diverse perspectives, even those diverging from one’s own, without also influencing a specific viewpoint, aligns more with the idea of “the free marketplace of ideas” rather than promoting distinct attitudinal changes (Strömbäck, 2005).

These findings have several implications for newsrooms. Journalists should try to feature a wide range of actors and viewpoints in their reporting, especially on more controversial or morally loaded issues. For these topics, it is crucial to stimulate critical thinking and a deeper understanding of the various perspectives. This involves not only covering diverse sources but also including underrepresented voices. While participants were better at identifying actor diversity, diverse viewpoints had the most significant influence on attitudes. Journalists should be aware of confirmation bias, as presenting diverse content may not always lead to more nuanced viewpoints among audiences. Additionally, simply adding more actors or viewpoints does not automatically enhance a news item’s perceived quality or credibility. Instead, journalists should focus on the quality and depth of information when presenting diverse viewpoints, which may enhance credibility and impact, potentially mitigating confirmation bias.

Our experimental design has several limitations that warrant acknowledgment and could be addressed in future research. Participants noticed actor diversity when assessing the diversity of an item, but it did not seem to influence their subsequent perceptions or the impact of the article. This may be attributed to the non-visual nature of our article, where limited information was provided about the actors. Future research could explore how visual and contextual attributes of actors embodying viewpoints in the news affect audience perceptions. Another limitation is that our ‘diverse’ viewpoint conditions for both issues consist of two opposing viewpoints in one news story. In reality, viewpoint diversity is often more nuanced, involving different frames within one item (Huang, 2009) or presenting diversity across multiple news items. Moreover, striving for balance in each news item may not always align with journalists’ objectives or be deemed desirable. This approach can lead to a scenario referred to as 'false equivalency’ of opinions (Jamieson and Waldman, 2003), where opposing viewpoints may not accurately represent public opinion in certain cases. It would be interesting to investigate how more nuanced manipulations of diversity, such as frame diversity, influence audiences.

In summary, this study contributes to journalism studies by enhancing our understanding of how journalists can deliver more multiperspectival news. By better understanding their audiences, journalists can critically assess which voices they present and how they can contribute to a more diverse public debate. In times of increased political polarization, the need for journalism to provide diverse, inclusive, and informed coverage that also reaches and informs citizens might have never been more important than it is today.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Diverse news, diverse perceptions? Investigating the effects of actor and viewpoint diversity in news content on audience perceptions and opinions

Supplemental Material for Diverse news, diverse perceptions? Investigating the effects of actor and viewpoint diversity in news content on audience perceptions and opinions in Kathleen Beckers in Journalism

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UAntwerpen (FFB210065).

ORCID iD

Kathleen Beckers

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biography

Kathleen Beckers is an assistant professor in Political Communication and Journalism at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research interests are situated at the intersection of journalism studies and public opinion research.

References

Abdulla

(2017) How diverse are Egypt’s media: a look at the post-revolution presidential elections. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies 6(3): 507–525. DOI: 10.1386/ajms.6.3.507_1.

Beckers

Van Aelst

(2019) Look who’s talking: an analysis of actors in television news (2003–2016). Journalism Studies 20(6): 872–890.

Beckers

Masini

Sevenans

, et al. (2019) Are newspapers’ news stories becoming more alike? Media content diversity in Belgium, 1983–2013. Journalism 20(12): 1665–1683.

Bennett

(1990) Toward a theory of press‐state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication 40(2): 103–127.

Benson

(2009) What makes news more multiperspectival? A field analysis. Poetics 37(5–6): 402–418. DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2009.09.002.

Boczkowski

De Santos

(2007) When more media equals less news: patterns of content homogenization in Argentina’s leading print and online newspapers. Political Communication 24(2): 167–180. DOI: 10.1080/10584600701313025.

Carothers

O'Donohue

(2019) Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Choi

Shin

Journalism

SK-D

(2021) Predicting audience-rated news quality: using survey, text mining, and neural network methods. Digital Journalism, 9(1), 84–105. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1842777.

Cozma

(2006) Source diversity increases credibility of risk stories. Newspaper Research Journal 27(3): 8–21. DOI: 10.1177/073953290602700302.

10.

EBU (2022) Trust in News. Retrieved from https://www.ebu.ch/publications/research/login_only/report/trust-in-media

11.

Gans

(2004) Democracy and the News. USA: Oxford University Press.

12.

Gaziano

McGrath

(1986) Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism quarterly 63(3): 451–462.

13.

Griswold

(1999) Shaping the news mirror: community structure, reporter specialization, and content diversity. In: Demers

Viswanath

(eds) Mass Media, Social Control, and Social Change: A Macrosocial Perspective. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 183–196.

14.

Hahnel

Mumenthaler

Spampatti

, et al. (2020) Ideology as filter: motivated information processing and decision-making in the energy domain. Sustainability 12(20): 8429.

15.

Hallin

Mancini

(2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Hanitzsch

Mellado

(2011) What shapes the news around the world? How journalists in 18 countries perceive influences on their work. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16(3): 404–426. DOI: 10.1177/1940161211407334.

17.

Hansen

(1991) Source diversity and newspaper enterprise journalism. Journalism Quarterly, 68(3): 474–482. DOI: 10.1177/107769909106800318.

18.

Hayes

Guardino

(2010) Whose views made the news? Media coverage and the March to War in Iraq. Political Communication 27(1): 59–87. DOI: 10.1080/10584600903502615.

19.

Hendrickx

(2020) Trying to survive while eroding news diversity: legacy news media’s catch-22. Journalism Studies 21(5): 598–614. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2019.1694430.

20.

Hendrickx

Smets

Ballon

(2021) News Recommender systems and news diversity, two of a kind? A case study from a small media market. Journalism and Media 2(3): 3. DOI: 10.3390/journalmedia2030031.

21.

Hendrickx

Ballon

Ranaivoson

(2022) Dissecting news diversity: an integrated conceptual framework. Journalism 23(8): 1751–1769. DOI: 10.1177/1464884920966881.

22.

Hendrickx

Beckers

Van Droogenbroeck

(2024) Does news diversity work among audiences? A citizen experiment. Journalism Practice. Advance Online Publication.

23.

Henke

Leissner

Möhring

(2019) How can journalists promote news credibility? Effects of evidence on trust and credibility. Journalism Practice 14(3): 299–318. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2019.1605839.

24.

Quinn

(2008). Viewpoint diversity and media consolidation: An empirical study. Stanford Law Review 61(4): 781–868.

25.

Huang

(2009) Frame-Rich, frame-poor: an investigation of the contingent effects of media frame diversity and individual differences on audience frame diversity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 22(1): 47–73. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edp024.

26.

Jamieson

Waldman

(2003) The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories that Shape the Political World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Kalogeropoulos

Suiter

Udris

, et al. (2019) News media trust and news consumption: factors related to trust in news in 35 countries. International journal of communication 13(22): 3672–3693.

28.

Keane

(1991) The Media and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

29.

Klimkiewicz

(2009) Is the clash of rationalities leading nowhere? Media pluralism in European regulatory policies. In Czepek

Hellwig

Nowak

(Eds.), Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe: Concepts and Conditions (pp. 62-64). Intellect.

30.

Loecherbach

Welbers

Moeller

, et al. (2021) Is this a click towards diversity? Explaining when and why news users make diverse choices. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference, Virtual, New York, 21–25 June 2021, pp. 282–290. Association for Computing Machinery.

31.

Masini

Van Aelst

(2017) Actor diversity and viewpoint diversity: two of a kind? Communications 42(2): 107–126. DOI: 10.1515/commun-2017-0017.

32.

Mattis

Masur

Möller

, et al. (2021) Nudging towards diversity: a theoretical framework for facilitating diverse news consumption through recommender design. SocArXiv. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/wvxf5.

33.

McCoy

Rahman

Somer

(2018) Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 16–42.

34.

McNair

(2009) Journalism and democracy. In: Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. London: Routledge, 237–249.

35.

McQuail

(1992) Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. London: Sage, Vol. 144.

36.

Metzger

Flanagin

Eyal

, et al. (2003) Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In: Kalbfleisch

(ed) Communication Yearbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Vol. 27, 293–335.

37.

Metzger

Hartsell

Flanagin

(2020) Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research 47(1): 3–28.

38.

Nickerson

(1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2): 175–220.

39.

Peter

De Vreese

(2003) Agenda‐rich, agenda‐poor: a cross‐national comparative investigation of nominal and thematic public agenda diversity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15(1): 44–64.

40.

Picone

(2023) Digital News Report 2023: Belgium. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023/belgium

41.

Schultz

(1998) Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability, and the Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Sjøvaag

(2016) Media diversity and the global superplayers: operationalising pluralism for a digital media market. Journal of Media Business Studies 13(3): 170–186.

43.

Strömbäck

(2005) In search of a standard: four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies 6(3): 331–345.

44.

Stroud

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

45.

Sude

Knobloch-Westerwick

(2022) Selective exposure and attention to attitude-consistent and attitude-discrepant information: Reviewing the evidence. In: Strömbäck

Wikforss

Glüer

Lindholm

Oscarsson

(eds). Knowledge resistance in high-choice information environments. Routledge, 88–105.

46.

Sunstein

(1993) Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York, NY: Free Press.

47.

Thompson

(1995) The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

48.

Urban

Schweiger

(2013) News Quality from the Recipients’ Perspective: investigating recipients’ ability to judge the normative quality of news. Journalism Studies 15(6): 821–840.

49.

Van Cuilenburg

(1999) On competition, access and diversity in media, old and new: some remarks for communications policy in the information age. New Media & Society 1(2): 183–207.

50.

Van der Wurff

(2011) Do audiences receive diverse ideas from news media? Exposure to a variety of news media and personal characteristics as determinants of diversity as received. European Journal of Communication 26(4): 328–342. DOI: 10.1177/0267323111423377.

51.

Van Gorp

(2005) Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage of the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication 20(4): 484–507. DOI: 10.1177/026732310505825.

52.

Van Rees

Van Eijck

(2003) Media repertoires of selective audiences: the impact of status, gender, and age on media use. Poetics 31(5–6): 465–490. DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2003.09.005.

53.

Vandenberghe

d’Haenens

Van Gorp

(2015) Demografische diversiteit in het Vlaamse perslandschap. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 43(2): 169–185.

54.

Voakes

Kapfer

Kurpius

, et al. (1996) Diversity in the news: a conceptual and methodological framework. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73(3): 582–593. DOI: 10.1177/107769909607300306.

55.

Webster

Ksiazek

(2012) The dynamics of audience fragmentation: public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication 62(1): 39–56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x.

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.

0.00 MB

0.52 MB

Diverse news,diverse perceptions? Investigating the effects of actor and viewpoint diversity in news content on audience perceptions and opinions

Abstract

Keywords

News diversity

Credibility perceptions

Attitudinal change

Methodology

Dependent variables

Results

Do people notice diversity?

Do people find diverse news more credible?

Are people influenced by diversity?

Discussion

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Diverse news, diverse perceptions? Investigating the effects of actor and viewpoint diversity in news content on audience perceptions and opinions

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Supplemental Material

Author biography

References

Supplementary Material