The Corrections Dilemma: Media Retractions Increase Belief Accuracy But Decrease Trust

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2023-03-17 DOI:10.1017/xps.2023.4

Joshua Freitag, Madeline Gochee, Mitchell Ransden, B. Nyhan, Kristy Roschke, D. Gillmor

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Why are prominent news media retractions so rare? Using data from a survey experiment in which respondents view simulated Twitter newsfeeds, we demonstrate the dilemma facing news organizations that have published false information. Encouragingly, media retractions are effective at informing the public – they increase the accuracy of news consumers’ beliefs about the retracted reporting more than information from third parties questioning the original reporting or even the combination of the two. However, trust in the news outlet declines after a retraction, though this effect is small both substantively and in standardized terms relative to the increase in belief accuracy. This reputational damage persists even if the outlet issues a retraction before a third party questions the story. In a social media environment that frequently subjects reporting to intense scrutiny, the journalistic mission of news organizations to inform the public will increasingly conflict with organizational incentives to avoid admitting error.

查看原文本刊更多论文

矫正困境：媒体退缩提高了信仰准确性但降低了信任

为什么知名新闻媒体极少撤回报道?利用调查实验中的数据，受访者查看模拟Twitter新闻源，我们展示了发布虚假信息的新闻机构面临的困境。令人鼓舞的是，媒体撤稿在告知公众方面是有效的——它们比第三方质疑原始报道甚至两者结合的信息更能提高新闻消费者对撤稿报道的看法的准确性。然而，在撤稿后，人们对新闻媒体的信任会下降，尽管这种影响在实质上和标准化方面相对于信念准确性的提高都很小。即使在第三方质疑这篇报道之前，该媒体发表了撤回声明，这种声誉损害也会持续下去。在一个经常使报道受到严格审查的社交媒体环境中，新闻机构告知公众的新闻使命将越来越多地与避免承认错误的组织动机相冲突。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.