While there is a strong scholarly interest surrounding the content of political misinformation online, much of this research concerns misinformation in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) countries. Although such research has investigated the topical and stylistic characteristics of misinformation, its findings are frequently not interpreted systematically in relation to properties that journalists rely on to capture the attention of audiences, that is, in relation to news values. We close the gap on comparative studies of news values in misinformation with a perspective that emphasizes non-WEIRD countries. Relying on a dataset of URLs that were shared on Facebook in twenty-four countries and reported by users as containing false news, we compile a large corpus of online news items and use an array of computational tools to analyze its content with respect to a set of five news values (conflict, negativity, proximity, individualization, and informativeness). We find salient differences for almost all news values and regarding the WEIRD/non-WEIRD and flagged/unflagged distinction. Moreover, the prevalence of individual news values differs strongly for individual countries. However, while almost all differences are significant, the effects we encounter are mostly small.
AllcottH.GentzkowM.2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.”Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2):211–36. doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211.
2.
AllenJ.MobiusM.RothschildD. M.WattsD. J.2021. “Research Note: Examining Potential Bias in Large-Scale Censored Data.”Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-74
3.
AllernS.2002. “Journalistic and Commercial News Values.” Nordicom Review23(1–2):137–152. doi:10.1515/nor-2017-0327.
4.
BednarekM.CapleH.HuanC.2021. “Computer-Based Analysis of News Values: A Case Study on National Day Reporting.”Journalism Studies22(6):702–22. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2020.1807393.
5.
BennettW. L.LivingstonS.2018. “The Disinformation Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions.”European Journal of Communication33(2):122–39. doi:10.1177/0267323118760317.
6.
BodeL.VragaE. K.2018. “See Something, Say Something: Correction of Global Health Misinformation on Social Media.”Health Communication33(9):1131–40. doi:10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312.
7.
BoukesM.van de VeldeB.AraujoT.VliegenthartR.2020. “What’s the Tone? Easy Doesn’t Do It: Analyzing Performance and Agreement Between Off-the-Shelf Sentiment Analysis Tools.”Communication Methods and Measures14(2):83–104. doi:10.1080/19312458.2019.1671966.
8.
BrownC.SnodgrassT.KemperS. J.HermanR.CovingtonM. A.2008. “Automatic Measurement of Propositional Idea Density from Part-of-Speech Tagging.”Behavior Research Methods40(2):540–5. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.2.540.
9.
ChenX.PennycookG.RandD.2023. “What Makes News Sharable on Social Media?”Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media3. doi:10.51685/jqd.2023.007.
10.
ConneauA.KhandelwalK.GoyalN.ChaudharyV.WenzekG.GuzmánF.GraveE.OttM.ZettlemoyerL.StoyanovV.2020. “Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale.” In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, eds. JurafskyD.ChaiJ.SchluterN.TetreaultJ, 8440–51. Seattle, United States: Association for Computational Linguistics.
11.
Costa-jussàM. R.CrossJ.ÇelebiO.ElbayadM.HeafieldK.HeffernanK.KalbassiE.LamJ.LichtD.MaillardJ.SunA.WangS.WenzekG.YoungbloodA.AkulaB.BarraultL.GonzalezG. M.HansantiP.HoffmanJ.JarrettS.SadagopanK. R.RoweD.SpruitS.TranC.AndrewsP.Fazil AyanN.BhosaleS.EdunovS.FanA.GaoC.GoswamiV.GuzmánF.KoehnP.MourachkoA.RopersC.SaleemS.SchwenkH.WangJ.2022. No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translation (arXiv:2207.04672). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.04672
12.
CovingtonM. A. 2009. “Idea Density. A Potentially Informative Characteristic of Retrieved Documents.”IEEE Southeastcon2009:201–3. doi:10.1109/SECON.2009.5174076.
13.
DamstraA.BoomgaardenH. G.BrodaE.LindgrenE.StrömbäckJ.TsfatiY.VliegenthartR.2021. “What Does Fake Look Like? A Review of the Literature on Intentional Deception in the News and on Social Media.”Journalism Studies22(14):1947–63. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2021.1979423.
14.
DonsbachW.1997. “Media Thrust in the German Bundestag Election, 1994: News Values and Professional Norms in Political Communication.” Political Communication14(2):149–170. doi:10.1080/105846097199416.
15.
EildersC.2006. “News Factors and News Decisions. Theoretical and Methodological Advances in Germany.”Communications31(1):5–24. doi:10.1515/COMMUN.2006.002.
16.
EvansG.KingG.2023. “Statistically Valid Inferences from Differentially Private Data Releases, with Application to the Facebook URLs Dataset.”Political Analysis31(1):1–21. doi:10.1017/pan.2022.1.
17.
FentonN.2009. “Drowning or waving? New media, journalism and democracy.” In New media, old news: Journalism & democracy in the digital age, 3–16. Sage.
18.
GaltungJ.RugeM. H.1965. “The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers.”Journal of Peace Research2(1):64–90. doi:10.1177/002234336500200104.
19.
GigliettoF.RossiL.RighettiN.2022. “Unexpected Consequences of a Simple Threshold: The Effect of the 100 Public Shares on Meta’s URL Shares Dataset.”OSF. doi:10.31235/osf.io/2p7ws.
20.
GrinbergN.JosephK.FriedlandL.Swire-ThompsonB.LazerD.2019. “Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.”Science3636425:374–8. doi:10.1126/science.aau2706.
GuessA. M.NyhanB.ReiflerJ.2020. “Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election.”Nature Human Behaviour4(5):Article 5. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0833-x.
23.
HallinD. C.ManciniP.2011. Comparing Media Systems Beyond the Western World. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HameleersM.HumprechtE.MöllerJ.LühringJ.2021. “Degrees of deception: The effects of different types of COVID-19 misinformation and the effectiveness of corrective information in crisis times.”Information, Communication & Society0(0):1–17. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2021.2021270.
25.
HanitzschT.2019. “Journalism studies still needs to fix Western bias.” Journalism20(1): 214–217. doi:10.1177/1464884918807353.
26.
HarcupT.O’NeillD.2001. “What Is News? Galtung and Ruge Revisited.”Journalism Studies2(2):261–80. doi:10.1080/14616700118449.
27.
HarcupT.O’NeillD.2017. “What is News?” Journalism Studies18(12):1470–1488. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193.
28.
HarrisonJ.WesselsB.2005. “A New Public Service Communication Environment? Public Service Broadcasting Values in the Reconfiguring Media.”New Media & Society7(6):834–53. doi:10.1177/1461444805058172.
29.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA.2010. “Most people are not WEIRD.”Nature4667302:29.
30.
HorneB.AdaliS.2017. “This Just In: Fake News Packs A Lot In Title, Uses Simpler, Repetitive Content in Text Body, More Similar To Satire Than Real News.”Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media11(1):Article 1. doi10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14976.
31.
HuY.HosseiniM.Skorupa ParolinE.OsorioJ.KhanL.BrandtP.D’OrazioV.2022. “ConfliBERT: A Pre-trained Language Model for Political Conflict and Violence.” In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, eds. CarpuatM.de MarneffeM.-C.Meza RuizI. V., 5469–82. Seattle, United States: Association for Computational Linguistics.
32.
HumprechtE.2019. “Where ‘Fake News’ Flourishes: A Comparison Across Four Western Democracies.”Information, Communication & Society22(13):1973–88. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1474241.
33.
KepplingerH. M.2008. News Values. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
34.
LangeJ. C.1984. “National Development and News Values: The Press in the Third World and the West.”Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands)33(2):69–86. doi:10.1177/001654928403300201.
35.
LewandowskyS.van der LindenS.2021. “Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking.”European Review of Social Psychology32(2):348–84. doi:10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983.
McGregorJ.2006. Restating news values: Contemporary criteria for selecting the news. In Proceedings of the ANZCA 2002 Conference, Coolangatta. Communication: Reconstructed for the 21st Century, 1–17.
MourãoR. R.RobertsonC. T.2019. “Fake News as Discursive Integration: An Analysis of Sites That Publish False, Misleading, Hyperpartisan and Sensational Information.”Journalism Studies20(14):2077–95. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2019.1566871.
40.
MuthukrishnaM.BellA. V.HenrichJ.CurtinC. M.GedranovichA.McInerneyJ.ThueB.2020. “Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance.”Psychological Science31(6):678–701. doi:10.1177/0956797620916782.
41.
NennoS.2024. “Bootstrapping Public Entities. Domain-Specific NER for Public Speakers.”Communication Methods and Measures, 1–26. Publishe online August 13. doi:10.1080/19312458.2024.2388098.
42.
NeudertL.-M.HowardP.KollanyiB.2019. “Sourcing and Automation of Political News and Information During Three European Elections.”Social Media + Society5(3):2056305119863147. doi:10.1177/2056305119863147.
43.
NyhanB.PorterE.ReiflerJ.WoodT. J.2020. “Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability.”Political Behavior42(3):939–60. doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x.
44.
O’NeillD.HarcupT.2019. “News Values and News Selection.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies. 2nd Edition. New York, United States: Routledge.
45.
ParkC. S.KayeB. K.2023. “Applying News Values Theory to Liking, Commenting and Sharing Mainstream News Articles on Facebook.”Journalism24(3):633–53. doi:10.1177/14648849211019895.
46.
ParksP.2019. “Textbook News Values: Stable Concepts, Changing Choices.”Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly96(3):784–810. doi:10.1177/1077699018805212.
47.
PaulS.SosaleS.2023. “Cultures of Restraint and Towards an Appraisal of Non-Western News Values.”Journalism Studies, 1–17. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2023.2183063.
48.
PiotrkowiczA.DimitrovaV.MarkertK.2017. “Automatic Extraction of News Values from Headline Text.” In Proceedings of the Student Research Workshop at the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Valencia, Spain, 64–74.
49.
SchickT.SchützeH.2021. “Exploiting Cloze-Questions for Few-Shot Text Classification and Natural Language Inference.” In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, 255–69.
50.
SchmidtJ.-H.MertenL.MünchF. V.2023. DBoeS-data [Dataset].” Open Science Framework. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/SK6T5.
51.
SchulzW. F.1982. “News Structure and People’s Awareness of Political Events.” Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands) 30(3):139–153. doi:10.1177/001654928203000301.
52.
SchultzI.2007. “The Journalistic Gut Feeling.”Journalism Practice1(2):190–207. doi:10.1080/17512780701275507.
53.
StaenderA.HumprechtE.EsserF.MorosoliS.Van AelstP.2022. “Is Sensationalist Disinformation More Effective? Three Facilitating Factors at the National, Individual, and Situational Level.”Digital Journalism10(6):976–96. doi:10.1080/21670811.2021.1966315.
54.
TandocE. C.KimH. K.2023. “Avoiding Real News, Believing in Fake News? Investigating Pathways from Information Overload to Misbelief.”Journalism24(6):1174–92. doi:10.1177/14648849221090744.
55.
TandocE. C.ThomasR. J.BishopL.2021. “What Is (Fake) News? Analyzing News Values (and More) in Fake Stories.”Media and Communication9(1):110–9.
56.
TouvronH.MartinL.StoneK.2023. Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models, arXiv:2307.09288.
57.
TrillingD.KulshresthaJ.de VreeseC.HalagieraD.JakubowskiJ.MöllerJ.PuschmannC.StępińskaA.StierS.VaccariC.2022. “Is Sharing Just a Function of Viewing? The Sharing of Political and Non-Political News on Facebook.”Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media2. doi:10.51685/jqd.2022.016.
58.
TrillingD.TolochkoP.BurscherB.2017. “From Newsworthiness to Shareworthiness: How to Predict News Sharing Based on Article Characteristics.”Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94:38–60. doi:10.1177/1077699016654682.
59.
TsfatiY.BoomgaardenH. G.StrömbäckJ.VliegenthartR.DamstraA.LindgrenE.2020. “Causes and Consequences of Mainstream Media Dissemination of Fake News: Literature Review and Synthesis.”Annals of the International Communication Association44(2):157–73. doi:10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443.
60.
ValenzuelaS.HalpernD.KatzJ. E.MirandaJ. P.2019. “The Paradox of Participation Versus Misinformation: Social Media, Political Engagement, and the Spread of Misinformation.”Digital Journalism7(6):802–23. doi:10.1080/21670811.2019.1623701.
61.
Van AelstP.SheaferT.StanyerJ.2012. “The Personalization of Mediated Political Communication: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.”Journalism13(2):203–20. doi:10.1177/1464884911427802.
62.
WagnerM. C.BoczkowskiP. J.2019. “The Reception of Fake News: The Interpretations and Practices That Shape the Consumption of Perceived Misinformation.”Digital Journalism7(7):870–85. doi:10.1080/21670811.2019.1653208.
63.
WaisbordS.2018. “Truth is What Happens to News.”Journalism Studies19(13):1866–78. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2018.1492881.
WilkinsonJ. S.GrantA. E.ZhuY.GuerrazziD. (2021). News Values and Topics: A 15-Nation News Consumer Perspective. In News Values from an Audience Perspective, eds. TemmermanM.MastJ., 57–77. Springer International Publishing.
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.
