This paper develops a model of press-priming in which public evaluations of press performance are examined in the context of media scandals where news organizations through their own ethical lapses become the subject and conduit of priming effects. We argue that judgments about the press during a crisis depend on the activation of standing attitudes toward press freedom and media responsibility, which come into play with close attention to ongoing developments. Our model is tested with original survey data collected around two salient press scandals in Britain, one involving the now-defunct News of the World tabloid, the other the storied British Broadcasting Corporation. Support for the model is found. In the aftermath of a press crisis, attitudes toward press freedom and media responsibility are situationally activated by the unique attributes of each scandal, and these attitudes shape evaluations of credibility and support for regulation. Implications for improved understanding of the news evaluation process are discussed.
AlthausScott L.KimYoung Mie. 2006. “Priming Effects in Complex Information Environments: Reassessing the Impact of News on Presidential Approval.” Journal of Politics68 (4): 960–76.
2.
AndersonHenry A.1977. “An Empirical Investigation of What Social Responsibility Theory Means.” Journalism Quarterly54 (1): 33–39.
3.
BennettStephen E.RhineStaci L.FlickingerRichard S.BennettLinda M.1999. “‘Video Malaise’ Revisited: Public Trust in the Media and Government.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics4 (4): 8–23.
BucyErik P.2003. “Media Credibility Reconsidered: Synergy Effects Between On-Air and Online News.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly80 (2): 247–64.
DixonTravis L.2006. “Psychological Reactions to Crime News Portrayals of Black Criminals: Understanding the Moderating Roles of Prior News Viewing and Stereotype Endorsement.” Communication Monographs73 (2): 162–87.
8.
DreezensEllenMartijnCarolienTenbültPetraKokGerjode VriesNanne K.2005. “Food and Values: An Examination of Values Underlying Attitudes toward Genetically Modified and Organically Grown Food Products.” Appetite44 (1): 115–22.
9.
DruckmanJames N.2004. “Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election.” Political Psychology25 (4): 577–94.
10.
EaglyAlice H.ChaikenShelly. 1995. “Attitude Strength, Attitude Structure, and Resistance to Change.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, ed. PettyRichard E.KrosnickJon A., 413–32. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
GazianoCecilie. 1988. “How Credible Is the Credibility Crisis?” Journalism Quarterly65 (2): 266–78, 375.
13.
HamiltonDavid L.StroessnerSteven J.DriscollDenise M.1994. “Social Cognition and the Study of Stereotyping.” In Social Cognition: Impact on Social Psychology, ed. DevinePatricia G.HamiltonDavid L.OstromThomas M., 292–323. San Diego: Academic Press.
14.
HigginsE. Tory. 1996. “Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability, and Salience.” In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, ed. HigginsE. ToryKruglanskiArie W., 133–68. New York: Guilford Press.
15.
HindmanElizabeth B.2005. “Jayson Blair, the New York Times, and Paradigm Repair.” Journal of Communication55 (2): 225–41.
16.
HovlandCarl I.LumsdaineArthur A.SheffieldFred D.1949. Experiments on Mass Communication: Studies in Social Psychology in World War II. New Haven: Yale University Press.
17.
HutchinsRobert M.1947. A Free and Responsible Press. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
IyengarShantoKinderDonald R.1987. News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
JohnsonThomas J.KayeBarbara K.2000. “Using Is Believing: The Influence of Reliance on the Credibility of Online Political Information among Politically Interested Internet Users.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77 (4): 865–79.
20.
KosickiGerald M.McLeodJack M.1990. “Learning from Political News: Effects of Media Images and Information-Processing Strategies.” In Mass Communication and Political Information Processing, ed. KrausSidney, 69–83. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
KovachBillRosenstielTom. 2007. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. Rev. ed. New York: Three Rivers Press.
22.
LuleJack. 1992. “Journalism and Criticism: The Philadelphia Inquirer Norplant Editorial.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication9 (1) 91–109.
23.
McCloskyHerbertBrillAlida. 1983. Dimensions of Tolerance: What Americans Believe about Civil Liberties. New York: Russell Sage.
24.
McGrawKathleen M.LingCristina. 2003. “Media Priming of Presidential and Group Evaluations.” Political Communication20 (1): 23–40.
25.
MetzgerMiriam J.FlanaganAndrew J.EyalKerenLemusDaisy R.McCannRobert M.2003. “Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment.” In Communication Yearbook27, ed. KalbfleischPamela J., 257–92. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
MeyerPhilip. 1988. “Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an Index.” Journalism Quarterly65 (3): 576–74.
27.
MillerJoanne M.KrosnickJon A.1996. “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: A Program of Research on the Priming Hypothesis.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, ed. MutzDiana C.SnidermanPaul M.BrodyRichard A., 79–100. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
MoralesLymari. 2012. “U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High: Fewer Americans Closely Following Political News Now than in Previous Election Years.” Gallup Politics, September21. www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx (accessed November 19, 2012).
30.
PetersonTheodore. 1956. “The Social Responsibility Theory of the Press.” In Four Theories of the Press, ed. SiebertFred S.PetersonTheodoreSchrammWilbur, 73–103. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
31.
PettyRichard E.WegenerDuane T.FabrigarLeandre R.1997. “Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Annual Review of Psychology48 (1): 609–47.
32.
PlaisancePatrick Lee. 2000. “The Concept of Media Accountability Reconsidered.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics15 (4): 257–68.
33.
PriceVincentZallerJohn. 1993. “Who Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly57 (2): 133–64.
34.
PriorMarkus. 2009. “The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure.” Public Opinion Quarterly73 (1): 130–43.
35.
PritchardDavid. 2000. “The Process of Media Accountability.” In Holding the Media Accountable: Citizens, Ethics, and the Law, ed. PritchardDavid, 1–10. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Roskos-EwoldsenDavid R.Roskos-EwoldsenBeverly. 2009. “Current Research in Media Priming.” In The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, ed. NabiRobin L.OliverMary Beth, 177–92. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
38.
SchwartzShalom H.1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25, ed. ZannaMark P., 1–65. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Academic Press.
39.
SiebertFred S.PetersonTheodoreSchrammWilbur. 1956. Four Theories of the Press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
40.
TaitRichard. 2012. “Never Waste a Good Crisis: The British Phone Hacking Scandal and Its Implications for Politics and the Press.” In The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication, ed. SemetkoHolli A.ScammelMargaret, 518–26. London: Sage.
TsfatiYarivCohenJonathan. 2013. “Perceptions of Media and Media Effects: The Third-Person Effect, Trust in Media, and Hostile Media Perceptions.” In International Encyclopedia of Media Studies: Media Effects/Media Psychology. Vol. 5, ed. ValdiviaAngharad N.ScharrerErica, 128-46. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/978 1444361506.wbiems995.
44.
ValenzuelaSebastián. 2009. “Variations in Media Priming: The Moderating Role of Knowledge, Interest, News Attention, and Discussion.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly86 (4): 756–74.
45.
Van NattaD.Jr.BeckerJoBowleyGraham. 2010. “Hack Attack! Tabloid Hack on Royals, and Beyond.” New York Times Magazine, September1, MM30.
