This study investigates how health journalists report handling misinformation shared by a public figure. Survey results from 629 U.S. journalists show that nearly 70% said they would gatecheck the information or make an explicit reference that the information was incorrect. Using the gatekeeping theory and the Hierarchy of Influences model, we examined the individual and organizational influences on information correction and found that women and more experienced professionals were less likely to correct the public figure. For those who chose to correct the public figure, their motivations included public-figure accountability, journalistic duty, concern that the audience would further pursue misinformation, and informing the public. Meanwhile, concerns about balance, maintaining neutrality in the marketplace of ideas, and amplifying misinformation could dissuade them.
BalodHSSHameleersM (2021) Fighting for truth? The role perceptions of Filipino journalists in an era of mis- and disinformation. Journalism22(9): 2368–2385.
2.
Banet-WeiserS (2021) Misogyny and the politics of misinformation. In: The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge, 211–220.
3.
Bélair-GagnonVSearlesKVragaE, et al. (2024) Attacks on journalism as an occupational hazard. International Journal of Communication18: 20.
4.
BodeLVragaEKTangR (2023) User correction. Current Opinion in Psychology56: 101786.
5.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change14(2): 125–136.
6.
CarlsonCRWittH (2020) Online harassment of U.S. women journalists and its impact on press freedom. First Monday, Epub ahead of print 22 October 2020.
7.
ChenLTangH (2023) Intention of health experts to counter health misinformation in social media: effects of perceived threat to online users, correction efficacy, and self-affirmation. Public Understanding of Science32(3): 284–303.
8.
CorbinJMStraussA (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology13(1): 3–21.
9.
CraftSDavisCN (2021) Principles of American Journalism: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.
EjazWIttefaqMArifM (2022) Understanding influences, misinformation, and fact-checking concerning climate-change journalism in Pakistan. Journalism Practice16(2–3): 404–424.
12.
FarhallKCarsonAWrightS, et al. (2019) Political elites’ use of fake news discourse across communications platforms. International Journal of Communication13: 23.
13.
GalvãoJ (2021) COVID-19: the deadly threat of misinformation. The Lancet Infectious Diseases21(5): e114.
14.
GrahamTFitzGeraldKM (2024) Exploring the role of political elites in post-truth communication on social media. Media International Australia1329878X241244919.
15.
HarcupTO’neillD (2017) What is news? News values revisited (again). Journalism Studies18(12): 1470–1488.
HinnantAJenkinsJSubramanianR (2016) Health journalist role conceptions: existing and emerging professional identities. Journalism Practice10(6): 763–781.
18.
HoltonAEBélair-GagnonVBossioD, et al. (2023) “Not their fault, but their problem”: organizational responses to the online harassment of journalists. Journalism Practice17(4): 859–874.
19.
HunterLYBiglaiserG (2022) The effects of social media, elites, and political polarization on civil conflict. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism48: 1–28.
20.
KimHS (2002) Gatekeeping international news: an attitudinal profile of U.S. television journalists. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media46(3): 431–452.
21.
KlemmCDasEHartmannT (2019) Changed priorities ahead: journalists’ shifting role perceptions when covering public health crises. Journalism20(9): 1223–1241.
LasserJAroyehunSTSimchonA, et al. (2022) Social media sharing of low-quality news sources by political elites. PNAS Nexus1(4): pgac186.
24.
LewandowskySEckerUKHSeifertCM, et al. (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society13(3): 106–131.
25.
LiJYangX (2024) Does exposure necessarily lead to misbelief? A meta-analysis of susceptibility to health misinformation. In: Public Understanding of Science. Sage Publications Ltd, 09636625241266150.
26.
Marín-SanchizC-RCarvajalMGonzález-EstebanJ-L (2023) Survival strategies in freelance journalism: an empowering toolkit to improve professionals’ working conditions. Journalism Practice17(3): 450–473.
27.
McClure HaugheyMMuralikumarMDWoodCA, et al. (2020) On the misinformation beat: understanding the work of investigative journalists reporting on problematic information online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4(CSCW2): 1–22.
28.
MillJS (1985) On liberty (1859). na. Epub ahead of print 1985.
29.
MoslehMRandDG (2022) Measuring exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter. Nature Communications13(1): 7144.
30.
NanXWangYThierK (2021) Health misinformation. In: The Routledge Handbook of Health Communication. Routledge, 318–332.
31.
NanXWangYThierK (2022) Why do people believe health misinformation and who is at risk? A systematic review of individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation. Social Science & Medicine314: 115398.
32.
ReeseSD (2001) Understanding the global journalist: a hierarchy-of-influences approach. Journalism Studies2(2): 173–187.
33.
ReichZHanitzschT (2013) Determinants of journalists’ professional autonomy: individual and national level factors matter more than organizational ones. Mass Communication & Society16(1): 133–156.
34.
RibeiroNZelizerB (2024) Media and propaganda| where propaganda lives on—introduction. International Journal of Communication18: 6.
35.
SaldañaMVuHT (2022) You are fake news! factors impacting journalists’ debunking behaviors on social media. Digital Journalism10(5): 823–842.
36.
SarelskaDJenkinsJ (2023) Truth on demand: influences on how journalists in Italy, Spain, and Bulgaria responded to Covid-19 misinformation and disinformation. Journalism Practice17(10): 2178–2196.
37.
SchmidPAltaySSchererLD (2023) The psychological impacts and message features of health misinformation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. European Psychologist28(3): 162–172.
38.
SchwalbeCBSilcockBWCandelloE (2015) Gatecheckers at the visual news stream: a new model for classic gatekeeping theory. Journalism Practice9(4): 465–483.
SingerJB (2023) Closing the barn door? fact-checkers as retroactive gatekeepers of the COVID-19 “infodemic”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly100(2): 332–353.
41.
SkovsgaardMAlbækEBroP, et al. (2013) A reality check: how journalists’ role perceptions impact their implementation of the objectivity norm. Journalism14(1): 22–42.
42.
StahelLSchoenC (2020) Female journalists under attack? Explaining gender differences in reactions to audiences’ attacks. New Media & Society22(10): 1849–1867.
43.
Suarez-LledoVAlvarez-GalvezJ (2021) Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(1): e17187.
44.
TangRFangYSunJ, et al. (2025b) Automating accuracy: scalable approaches to correcting disinformation with artificial intelligence on social media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly10776990251359660.
45.
TangRFangYVragaEK (2025a) Strategic subjectivity shapes user engagement: a case study on health journalists’ COVID-19 tweets. In: Journalism Practice 0(0). Routledge, 1–19.
46.
ThakerJSubramanianA (2021) Exposure to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is as impactful as vaccine misinformation in inducing a decline in vaccination intentions in New Zealand: results from pre-post between-groups randomized block experiment. Frontiers in Communication6: 721982.
47.
ThomasRJTandocECHinnantA (2017) False balance in public health reporting? Michele bachmann, the HPV vaccine, and “Mental Retardation”. Health Communication32(2): 152–160.
48.
ThompsonEE (2019) Communicating a health risk/crisis: exploring the experiences of journalists covering a proximate epidemic. Science Communication41(6): 707–731.
49.
ThomsonTJAngusDDootsonP, et al. (2022) Visual mis/Disinformation in journalism and public communications: current verification practices, challenges, and future opportunities. Journalism Practice16(5): 938–962.
TranV-TPorcherRFalissardB, et al. (2016) Point of data saturation was assessed using resampling methods in a survey with open-ended questions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology80: 88–96.
52.
van AntwerpenNFieldingV (2023) Constructive journalism: techniques for improving the practice of objectivity. Journal of Media Ethics38(3): 176–190.
53.
Van Der Meer TglaJinY (2020) Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: the effects of corrective information type and source. Health Communication35(5): 560–575.
54.
ViswanathKBlakeKDMeissnerHI, et al. (2008) Occupational practices and the making of health news: a national survey of U.S. health and medical science journalists. Journal of Health Communication13(8): 759–777.
55.
VosTP (2015) Revisiting gatekeeping theory during a time of transition. In: Gatekeeping in Transition. Routledge.
56.
VragaEKBodeL (2020) Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication37(1): 136–144.
57.
VragaEKBodeLTullyM (2021) The effects of a news literacy video and real-time corrections to video misinformation related to sunscreen and skin cancer. In: Health Communication. Taylor & Francis, 1–9.
58.
WaldmanAE (2017) The marketplace of fake news. U. Pa. J. Const. L20: 845.
59.
WallaceJ (2018) Modelling contemporary gatekeeping: the rise of individuals, algorithms and platforms in digital news dissemination. Digital Journalism6(3): 274–293.
60.
Walsh-ChildersKMcKinnonM (2024) Why science and health journalism matters. In: Walsh-ChildersKMcKinnonM (eds) Palgrave Handbook of Science and Health Journalism. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 1–13. Available at: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-49084-2_1 (accessed 23 October 2024).
61.
WalterNBrooksJJSaucierCJ, et al. (2021) Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: a meta-analysis. Health Communication36(13): 1776–1784.
62.
WangYMcKeeMTorbicaA, et al. (2019) Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine240: 112552.
63.
WhiteDM (1950) The “gate keeper”: a case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly27(4): 383–390.
64.
ZhangFPengXHuangL, et al. (2022) A caring leadership model in nursing: a grounded theory approach. Journal of Nursing Management30(4): 981–992.
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.
