How Does Topical Diversity Affect Source Credibility? Fact-Checking Coverage of Politics,Science,and Popular Culture

Abstract

News sources that correct misinformation seek to foster an informed citizenry and promote democratic accountability. One such effort is being made by fact-checking sites across the globe. However, public trust in these outlets remains limited. Is their politics-focused coverage one factor behind the limited trust? Politics-focused coverage highlights partisan competition, which can harm credibility by activating identity-protective biases or resistance to persuasive intent. Prior research suggests depoliticized contexts can help mitigate defensive psychological tendencies in news source assessments. Thus, a potential approach to build broad-based trust could be to broaden the scope of coverage to include nonpolitical topics. Through a preregistered survey experiment in the United States, I test how the topical scope of coverage affects source credibility perceptions. Compared to politics-focused coverage, science-focused coverage improves credibility assessments. Focusing solely or partially on popular culture topics such as entertainment, sports, and lifestyle reduces source credibility. The effects of nonpolitical coverage on source credibility perceptions are similar across partisan groups. The results suggest the public shares the notion that serious public affairs coverage is central to reputable journalism. Overall, coverage of politics and science fares relatively well in building source credibility, whereas coverage of popular culture undermines credibility assessments. People find news sources that correct misinformation more credible when they cover a range of serious topics, but less credible when they cover lighter topics.

Keywords

depoliticization fact-checking media coverage misinformation source credibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adair

2012. “The Value of Fact-Checking in the 2012 Campaign.” PolitiFact, November 9. https://www.politifact.com/article/2012/nov/09/value-fact-checking-2012-campaign/

Amazeen

M. A.

2020. “Journalistic Interventions: The Structural Factors Affecting the Global Emergence of Fact-Checking.” Journalism 21(1):95–111.

Amazeen

M. A.

Thorson

Muddiman

Graves

2018. “Correcting Political and Consumer Misperceptions: The Effectiveness and Effects of Rating Scale Versus Contextual Correction Formats.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95(1):28–48.

Baum

M. A.

2007. “Soft News and Foreign Policy: How Expanding the Audience Changes the Policies.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 8(1):115–45.

Binder

Stubenvoll

Hirsch

Matthes

2022. “Why Am I Getting This Ad? How the Degree of Targeting Disclosures and Political Fit Affect Persuasion Knowledge, Party Evaluation, and Online Privacy Behaviors.” Journal of Advertising 51(2):206–22.

Bobo

Hutchings

V. L.

1996. “Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer’s Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context.” American Sociological Review 61(6):951–72.

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

2018. “Do Partisanship and Politicization Undermine the Impact of a Scientific Consensus Message About Climate Change?” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21(3):389–402.

Brandtzaeg

P. B.

Følstad

Chaparro Domínguez

M. Á.

2018. “How Journalists and Social Media Users Perceive Online Fact-Checking and Verification Services.” Journalism Practice 12(9):1109–29.

Budak

Goel

Rao

J. M.

2016. “Fair and Balanced? Quantifying Media Bias through Crowdsourced Content Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1):250–71.

10.

Chinn

Hart

P. S.

2023. “Climate Change Consensus Messages Cause Reactance.” Environmental Communication 17(1):51–9.

11.

Cooper

C. A.

Huffmon

S. H.

Knotts

H. G.

McKee

S. C.

2023. “Intraparty Republican Factionalism As Identity in the Modern American South.” American Politics Research 52(1):30–40.

12.

Dillard

J. P.

Shen

2005. “On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication.” Communication Monographs 72(2):144–68.

13.

Dobbs

2012. The Rise of Political Fact-checking How Reagan Inspired a Journalistic Movement: A Reporter’s Eye View. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.

14.

Druckman

J. N.

McGrath

M. C.

2019. “The Evidence for Motivated Reasoning in Climate Change Preference Formation.” Nature Climate Change 9(2):111–9.

15.

Druckman

J. N.

Peterson

Slothuus

2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107(1):57–79.

16.

FactCheck.org. n.d. “About Us.” FactCheck.Org. Retrieved August 15, 2022, from https://www.factcheck.org/spindetectors/about/

17.

Feldman

2011. “Partisan Differences in Opinionated News Perceptions: A Test of the Hostile Media Effect.” Political Behavior 33(3):407–32.

18.

Feldman

2017. “The Hostile Media Effect.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication, eds. Kenski

Jamieson

K. H.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

Ferracioli

Kniess

A. B.

Marques

F. P. J.

2022. “The Watchdog Role of Fact-Checkers in Different Media Systems.” Digital Journalism 10(5):717–37.

20.

Friestad

Wright

1994. “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts.” Journal of Consumer Research 21(1):1–31.

21.

Full Fact. n.d. “Who We Are.” Full Fact. Retrieved March 5, 2023, from https://fullfact.org/about/

22.

Garrett

R. K.

Nisbet

E. C.

Lynch

E. K.

2013. “Undermining the Corrective Effects of Media-Based Political Fact Checking? The Role of Contextual Cues and Naïve Theory.” Journal of Communication 63(4):617–37.

23.

Garrett

R. K.

Weeks

B. E.

2013. “The Promise and Peril of Real-Time Corrections to Political Misperceptions.” Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1047–1058. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441895.

24.

Gauchat

2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review 77(2):167–87.

25.

GhanaFact. n.d. GhanaFact. Retrieved March 5, 2023, from https://ghanafact.com/

26.

Graves

2016. Deciding What’s True The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

27.

Graves

Cherubini

2016. “The Rise of Fact-Checking Sites in Europe.” Digital News Project Report. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d55ef650-e351-4526-b942-6c9e00129ad7

28.

Graves

Konieczna

2015. “Sharing the News: Journalistic Collaboration as Field Repair.” International Journal of Communication 9(1):1966–84.

29.

Graves

Nyhan

Reifler

2016. “Understanding Innovations in Journalistic Practice: A Field Experiment Examining Motivations for Fact-Checking.” Journal of Communication 66(1):102–38.

30.

Groenendyk

Krupnikov

2021. “What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal-Dependent Political Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 65(1):180–96.

31.

Guess

A. M.

Nyhan

Reifler

2020. “Exposure to Untrustworthy Websites in the 2016 US Election.” Nature Human Behaviour 4(5):472–80.

32.

Gunther

A. C.

Schmitt

2004. “Mapping Boundaries of the Hostile Media Effect.” Journal of Communication 54(1):55–70.

33.

Hassan

Zhang

Arslan

Caraballo

Jimenez

Gawsane

Hasan

Joseph

Kulkarni

Nayak

A. K.

Sable

Tremayne

2017. “ClaimBuster: The First-Ever End-to-End Fact-Checking System.” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 10(12):1945–48.

34.

Holan

A. D.

2018. “The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter: PolitiFact’s Methodology for Independent Fact-Checking.” PolitiFact, February 12. https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/

35.

Hovland

C. I.

Janis

I. L.

Kelly

H. H.

1953. Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

36.

Jensen

J. D.

2008. “Scientific Uncertainty in News Coverage of Cancer Research: Effects of Hedging on Scientists’ and Journalists’ Credibility.” Human Communication Research 34(3):347–69.

37.

Jerit

Barabas

2012. “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment.” The Journal of Politics 74(3):672–684.

38.

JTBC Fact Check. n.d. “팩트체크: JTBC 뉴스.” Retrieved March 6, 2023, from https://news.jtbc.co.kr/factcheck/about/

39.

Kahan

D. M.

2015. “Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem.” Political Psychology 36(S1):1–43.

40.

Kahan

D. M.

Jenkins-Smith

Braman

2011. “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.” Journal of Risk Research 14(2):147–74.

41.

Kahan

D. M.

Peters

Dawson

E. C.

Slovic

2017. “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government.” Behavioural Public Policy 1(1):54–86.

42.

Kessler

2014. “The Global Boom in Political Fact Checking—The Washington Post.” Washington Post, June 13. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/13/the-global-boom-in-fact-checking/

43.

Kessler

2017. “About The Fact Checker—The Washington Post.” The Washington Post Fact Checker, January 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/

44.

Knobloch

Carpentier

F. D.

Zillmann

2003. “Effects of Salience Dimensions of Informational Utility on Selective Exposure to Online News.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80(1):91–108.

45.

Krause

N. M.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

Franke

2019. “Trends—Americans’ Trust in Science and Scientists.” Public Opinion Quarterly 83(4):817–36.

46.

Kunda

1990. “The Case For Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108(3):480–98.

47.

Ladd

J. M.

2012. Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

48.

LaMarre

H. L.

Landreville

K. D.

Young

Gilkerson

2014. “Humor Works in Funny Ways: Examining Satirical Tone as a Key Determinant in Political Humor Message Processing.” Mass Communication and Society 17(3):400–23.

49.

LeadStories. n.d. Lead Stories. Retrieved March 5, 2023, from https://leadstories.com/

50.

Liu

Wang

Metzger

M. J.

2023. “Checking the Fact-Checkers: The Role of Source Type, Perceived Credibility, and Individual Differences in Fact-Checking Effectiveness.” Communication Research, 00936502231206419.

51.

Lupa. n.d. Lupa Institucional. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://lupa.uol.com.br/institucional

52.

Lupia

2016. Uninformed: Why People Know So Little about Politics and what We Can Do about it. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

53.

Lupia

2023. “Political Endorsements Can Affect Scientific Credibility.” Nature 615(7953):590–91.

54.

Lupia

McCubbins

M. D.

1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Really Need to Know? New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

55.

Marietta

Barker

D. C.

2019. One Nation, Two Realities: Dueling Facts in American Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

56.

Meeks

2020. “Defining the Enemy: How Donald Trump Frames the News Media.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 97(1):211–34.

57.

Meyer

1988. “Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an Index.” Journalism Quarterly 65(3):567–74.

58.

20 Minutes. 2006. La charte de «20 Minutes», February 20. https://www.20minutes.fr/medias/8110-20060220-charte-20minutes

59.

Mummolo

2016. “News from the Other Side: How Topic Relevance Limits the Prevalence of Partisan Selective Exposure.” The Journal of Politics 78(3):763–73.

60.

Mutz

D. C.

2007. “Effects of ‘In-Your-Face’ Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition.” American Political Science Review 101(4):621–35.

61.

Nelson

M. R.

Ham

C. D.

Haley

2021. “What Do We Know about Political Advertising? Not Much! Political Persuasion Knowledge and Advertising Skepticism in the United States.” Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 42(4):329–53.

62.

Nyhan

Reifler

2010. When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior 32(2):303–30.

63.

Pagella Politica. n.d. Manifesto. Pagella Politica. Retrieved March 5, 2023, from https://pagellapolitica.it/manifesto

64.

Palan

Schitter

2018. Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17:22–7.

65.

Peacock

Masullo

G. M.

Stroud

N. J.

2022. The effect of news labels on perceived credibility. Journalism 23(2):301–19.

66.

Peer

Brandimarte

Samat

Acquisti

2017. Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 70, 153–63.

67.

Pennycook

Rand

D. G.

2019. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(7):2521–6.

68.

Petrocik

J. R.

2009. Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents. Electoral Studies 28(4):562–72.

69.

Pew Research Center. 2015. Americans, Politics and Science Issues. Pew Research Center Science & Society, July 1. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/

70.

Pingree

R. J.

Brossard

McLeod

D. M.

2014. Effects of Journalistic Adjudication on Factual Beliefs, News Evaluations, Information Seeking, and Epistemic Political Efficacy. Mass Communication and Society 17(5):615–38.

71.

Pingree

R. J.

Quenette

A. M.

Tchernev

J. M.

Dickinson

2013. Effects of Media Criticism on Gatekeeping Trust and Implications for Agenda Setting. Journal of Communication 63(2):351–72.

72.

Poynter. n.d. “Verified Signatories of the IFCN Code of Principles.” Poynter. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/signatories

73.

Reinemann

Stanyer

Scherr

Legnante

2012. “Hard and Soft News: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.” Journalism 13(2):221–39.

74.

Robinson

R. J.

Keltner

Ward

Ross

1995. “Actual Versus Assumed Differences in Construal: ‘Naive realism’ in Intergroup Perception and Conflict.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68:404–17.

75.

Settle

J. E.

Carlson

T. N.

2019. “Opting Out of Political Discussions.” Political Communication 36(3):476–96.

76.

Shepherd

2021. “After spreading false claims, Michigan Republican wants to register, fine fact-checkers: ‘You better be right.’” Washington Post, May 12. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/12/michigan-matt-maddock-fact-checkers/

77.

Shin

Thorson

2017. “Partisan Selective Sharing: The Biased Diffusion of Fact-Checking Messages on Social Media.” Journal of Communication 67(2):233–55.

78.

Snopes. n.d. “About Us.” Snopes. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from https://www.snopes.com/about/

79.

Taneja

Yaeger

2019. “Do People Consume the News they Trust?” Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–10.

80.

Thorson

2018. “Comparing Approaches to Journalistic Fact Checking.” In Misinformation and Mass Audiences, eds. Southwell

B. G.

Thorson

E. A.

Sheble

, 249–62. Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas Press.

81.

Thorson

2024. How News Coverage of Misinformation Shapes Perceptions and Trust. Elements in Politics and Communication. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

82.

Tsfati

2010. “Online News Exposure and Trust in the Mainstream Media: Exploring Possible Associations.” American Behavioral Scientist 54(1):22–42.

83.

Tuchman

1973. “Making News by Doing Work: Routinizing the Unexpected.” American Journal of Sociology 79(1):110–31.

84.

Vallone

R. P.

Ross

Lepper

M. 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(3): 577–85.

85.

von Hohenberg

B. C.

Guess

A. M.

2023. “When Do Sources Persuade? The Effect of Source Credibility on Opinion Change.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 10(3):328–42.

86.

VoxUkraine. n.d. “About VoxCheck.” Retrieved October 6, 2023, from https://voxcheck.voxukraine.org/en.html

87.

Wallace

L. E.

Wegener

D. T.

Petty

R. E.

2020, “When Sources Honestly Provide Their Biased Opinion: Bias as a Distinct Source Perception With Independent Effects on Credibility and Persuasion.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46(3):439–53.

88.

Walker

Gottfried

2019, “Republicans far more likely than Democrats to say fact-checkers tend to favor one side.” Pew Research Center, June 27. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/27/republicans-far-more-likely-than-democrats-to-say-fact-checkers-tend-to-favor-one-side/

89.

Wood

Porter

2019. “The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence.” Political Behavior 41(1):135–63.

90.

Yousuf

2023. “Mediating the Truth: Influences of Routines on Legacy News Media Fact-Checking.” Journalism Practice 1–21. Published online January. doi:10.1080/17512786.2023.2169187.

91.

YouTurn. 2023, July 26. “About Us.” You Turn. https://en.youturn.in/about-us-youturn

92.

R. P.

2016. “The Relationship Between Passive and Active Non-Political Social Media Use and Political Expression on Facebook and Twitter.” Computers in Human Behavior 58:413–20.

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

1.42 MB