This study employs the heuristic-systematic model to assess the influences of Twitter and Facebook comments compared to man-on-the-street interviews on audiences’ evaluations of news journalism. Comments from social network sites (SNSs) also varied in their use of appropriate grammatical form and internet lingo. Using a 2 × 3 × 2 between-subjects experimental design, participants responded on journalistic quality and credibility after watching a television news segment with different comment types. Results revealed that SNS comments, as heuristic cues, played a substantial role in affecting audiences’ evaluation of the news. Specifically, results found that Twitter comments received the highest perceptions of journalistic quality, especially when featured in hard news stories. Stories featuring SNS comments using internet lingo were received more favorably than those using normal language. The results suggest that Twitter comments possess journalistic value.
AppelmonA.BollsP. (2011). Article recall, credibility lower with grammar errors. Newspaper Research Journal, 32, 50–62.
2.
AreniC. S. (2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 349–375. doi:10.1002/mar.10077
3.
BellA. (1991). The language of news media. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
4.
BlankenshipK. L.HoltgravesT. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology24, 3–24. doi:10.1177/0261927X04273034
5.
BoczkowskiP. J. (2009). Rethinking hard and soft news production: From common ground to divergent paths. Journal of Communication59, 98–116. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01406.x
6.
BroersmaM.GrahamT. (2013). Twitter as a news source. Journalism Practice, 7, 446–464. doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.802481
7.
BrookesR.LewisJ.Wahl-JorgensenK. (2004). The media representation of public opinion: British television news coverage of the 2001 general election. Media, Culture & Society, 26, 63–80. doi:10.1177/0163443704039493
8.
BrunsA. (2012). Journalists and Twitter: How Australian news organizations adapt to a new medium. Media International Australia, 144, 97–107.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source vs. message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
11.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EagleyA. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York, NY: Guilford.
12.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
13.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (1999). Dual-process theories in social and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.
14.
ChangC. (2004). Country of origin as a heuristic cue: The effects of message ambiguity and product involvement. Media Psychology, 9, 169–192. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_3
15.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Guilford.
CrossK. A. (2010). Experts in the news: The differential use of sources in election television news. Canadian Journal of Communication, 35, 413–429.
18.
DaschmannG. (2000). Vox pop & polls: The impact of poll results and voter statements in the media on the perception of a climate of opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 160–181.
19.
DeuzeM. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 6, 442–464. doi:10.1177/1464884905056815
20.
DillardJ. P. (2007). Persuasion. In Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.MonohanJ. (Eds.), Social cognition and communication: Theories and methods (pp. 203–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
GarrisonB.SalwenM. B. (1989). Professional orientations of sports journalists: A study of Associated Press sports editors. Newspaper Research Journal, 10, 77–84.
22.
GazianoC.McGrathK. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451–462. doi:10.1177/107769908606300301
23.
HolbertR. L.GarrettR. K.GleasonL. S. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60, 15–34. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01470.x
24.
JonesG. M.SchieffelinB. B. (2009). Talking text and talking back: “My BFF Jill” from boob tube to YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1050–1079. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01481.x
25.
KhangH.KiE.-J.YeL. (2012). Social media research in advertising, communication, marketing, and public relations, 1997-2010. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 279–298. doi:10.1177/1077699012439853
26.
KimH. J.CameronG. T. (2011). Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness in the public’s response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response. Communication Research, 38, 826–855. doi:10.1177/0093650210385813
27.
LacyS.WildmanS. S.FicoF.BerganD.BaldwinT.ZubeP. (2013). How radio news uses sources to cover local government news and factors affecting source use. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 457–477. doi:10.1177/1077699013493790
28.
Lehman-WilzigS. N.SeletzkyM. (2010). Hard news, soft news, ‘general’ news: The necessity and utility of an intermediate classification. Journalism, 11, 37–56. doi:10.1177/1464884909350642
29.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
30.
MillerA.KurpiusD. (2010). A citizen-eye view of television news source credibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 54, 137–156. doi:10.1177/0002764210376315
MurphyJ. C.AuterP. J. (2012). The politics of the source: How the credibility of a news source changes based on the political perception of blogs. American Communication Journal, 14, 1–17.
34.
NapoliP. (2010). Revisiting ‘mass communication’ and the ‘work’ of the audience in the new media environment. Media, Culture & Society, 32, 505–516. doi:10.1177/0163443710361658
35.
PlasserF. (2005). From hard to soft news standards? How political journalists in different media systems evaluate the shifting quality of news. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics10, 47–68. doi:10.1177/1081180X05277746
Radio Television Digital News Association. (2012). TV and radio news staffing and profitability survey. Retrieved on February 7, 2013, fromhttp://www.rtdna.org/uploads/files/vv5.pdf
38.
SchmierbachM.Oeldorf-HirschA. (2012). A little bird told me, so I didn’t believe it: Twitter, credibility, and issue perceptions. Communication Quarterly, 60, 317–337. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.688723
39.
SundarS. S. (1999). Exploring receivers' criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 373–386. doi:10.1177/107769909907600213
40.
TodorovA.ChaikenS.HendersonM. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 195–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
WelchM. (2012). The boy in the bubble. Columbia Journalism Review, 53, 14–17.
42.
WhetmoreE. J. (1991). Mediamerica: Form, content and consequence of mass communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
