As online and mobile information technologies continue to become more commonplace, Americans are increasingly turning to these sources for news. Online news sites often allow readers to post comments about news stories. Using an experiment, the authors of this study sought to understand how user comments influence individual perceptions of media bias and third person perception in online political news. Results indicate that user comments accompanying online content can influence perceptions of bias in media depictions of presidential candidates. Additionally, user comments can influence perceptions of how much online news affects the political attitudes of others (third-person perception).
BraderT. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds. In How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BrisbaneA. S. (2010, December11). Readers with plenty to say. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com
3.
CohenJ.MutzD.PriceV.GuntherA. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161–173.
4.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15.
5.
DuckJ. M.TerryD. J.HoggM. A. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 305–325.
6.
EvelandW. P.Jr.ShahD. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101–117.
7.
GibbonP.DurkinK. (1995). The third-person effect: Social distance and perceived media bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 597–602.
8.
GlaserM. (2008, January16). Traditional media ready to elevate the conversation online—With moderation. Mediashift: Your Guide to the Digital Media Revolution. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pbs.org/mediashift/
9.
GolanG. J.DayA. G. (2008). The first-person effect and its behavioral consequences: A new trend in the twenty-five year history of third-person effect research. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 539–556.doi: 10.1080/15205430802368621
10.
GuntherA. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355–372.
11.
GuntherA. C.SchmittK. (2004). Mapping the boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55–70.
12.
IngramM. (2010, June16). Yes, comments can get noisy, but we like them anyway. Salon. Retrieved fromhttp://www.salon.com
13.
LowryD. T.ShidlerJ. A. (1995). The sound bites, the biters, and the bitten: An analysis of network TV news bias in campaign’92. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 33–44.
14.
Perez-PenaR. (2010, April11). News sites rethink anonymous online comments. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.newyorktimes.com
15.
Pew Research Center. (2010, September12). Americans spending more time following the news. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://people-press.org/reports/pdf/652.pdf
16.
PittsL. (2010, March31). Anonymity brings out the worst instincts. The Miami Herald. Retrieved fromhttp://www.www.miamiherald.com
17.
SmithG. R. (2010). Politicians and the news media: How elite attacks influence perceptions of media bias. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15, 319–343.
18.
SpitzbergB. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 629–666. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
19.
SunY.PanZ.ShenL. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Using evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58, 280–300.
ThorsonK.VragaE.EkdaleB. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 289–313.doi: 10.1080/15205430903225571
23.
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577–585.
24.
WaltherJ. B.CarrC.ChoiS.DeAndreaD.KimJ.TongS. T.Van Der HeideB. (2010). Interaction of interpersonal, peer, and media influence sources online: A research agenda for technology convergence. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 17–38). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
WaltherJ. B.DeAndreaD.KimJ.AnthonyJ. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36, 469–492. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01384.x
26.
YzerM. C.SouthwellB. G. (2008). New communication technologies, old questions. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 8–20. doi: 10.1177/0002764208321338
