老而弥坚?比较 "新 "和 "旧 "信息中介的可信度和公信力

Lisa Weidmüller, Sven Engesser
{"title":"老而弥坚?比较 \"新 \"和 \"旧 \"信息中介的可信度和公信力","authors":"Lisa Weidmüller, Sven Engesser","doi":"10.1515/commun-2023-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"People increasingly access news through ‘new’, algorithmic intermediaries such as search engines or aggregators rather than the ‘old’ (i. e., traditional), journalistic intermediaries. As algorithmic intermediaries do not adhere to journalistic standards, their trustworthiness comes into question. With this study, we (1) summarize the differences between journalistic and algorithmic intermediaries as found in previous literature; (2) conduct a cross-media comparison of information credibility and intermediary trustworthiness; and (3) examine how key predictors (such as modality, reputation, source attribution, and prior experience) affect the trustworthiness and credibility assessments. Results from a quasi-experimental online survey (n = 485) confirm that recipients assess journalistic intermediaries more positively than algorithmic intermediaries and audio more positively than text intermediaries. Furthermore, we found reputation and information credibility to be the most important predictors of intermediary trustworthiness, while general media trust is the most important predictor of information credibility. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":501361,"journal":{"name":"Communications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oldies but goldies? Comparing the trustworthiness and credibility of ‘new’ and ‘old’ information intermediaries\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Weidmüller, Sven Engesser\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/commun-2023-0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"People increasingly access news through ‘new’, algorithmic intermediaries such as search engines or aggregators rather than the ‘old’ (i. e., traditional), journalistic intermediaries. As algorithmic intermediaries do not adhere to journalistic standards, their trustworthiness comes into question. With this study, we (1) summarize the differences between journalistic and algorithmic intermediaries as found in previous literature; (2) conduct a cross-media comparison of information credibility and intermediary trustworthiness; and (3) examine how key predictors (such as modality, reputation, source attribution, and prior experience) affect the trustworthiness and credibility assessments. Results from a quasi-experimental online survey (n = 485) confirm that recipients assess journalistic intermediaries more positively than algorithmic intermediaries and audio more positively than text intermediaries. Furthermore, we found reputation and information credibility to be the most important predictors of intermediary trustworthiness, while general media trust is the most important predictor of information credibility. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communications\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2023-0020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2023-0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们越来越多地通过 "新 "的算法中介,如搜索引擎或聚合器,而不是 "旧 "的(即传统的)新闻中介来获取新闻。由于算法中介不遵守新闻标准,其可信度受到质疑。通过这项研究,我们(1)总结了以往文献中发现的新闻中介和算法中介之间的差异;(2)对信息可信度和中介可信度进行了跨媒体比较;(3)研究了关键预测因素(如模式、声誉、来源归属和先前经验)对可信度和可信度评估的影响。一项准实验性在线调查(n = 485)的结果证实,接受者对新闻中介的评价比对算法中介的评价更积极,对音频中介的评价比对文本中介的评价更积极。此外,我们发现声誉和信息可信度是中介可信度最重要的预测因素,而一般媒体信任是信息可信度最重要的预测因素。本文讨论了未来研究的意义和方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Oldies but goldies? Comparing the trustworthiness and credibility of ‘new’ and ‘old’ information intermediaries
People increasingly access news through ‘new’, algorithmic intermediaries such as search engines or aggregators rather than the ‘old’ (i. e., traditional), journalistic intermediaries. As algorithmic intermediaries do not adhere to journalistic standards, their trustworthiness comes into question. With this study, we (1) summarize the differences between journalistic and algorithmic intermediaries as found in previous literature; (2) conduct a cross-media comparison of information credibility and intermediary trustworthiness; and (3) examine how key predictors (such as modality, reputation, source attribution, and prior experience) affect the trustworthiness and credibility assessments. Results from a quasi-experimental online survey (n = 485) confirm that recipients assess journalistic intermediaries more positively than algorithmic intermediaries and audio more positively than text intermediaries. Furthermore, we found reputation and information credibility to be the most important predictors of intermediary trustworthiness, while general media trust is the most important predictor of information credibility. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信