Nav: Home

Journalists can prevent biased views by 'adjudicating' facts, experiment shows

September 13, 2017

Journalists can help their readers form accurate views by "adjudicating" between opposing political claims in their articles, a new study shows.

Refereeing political disputes by clearly highlighting which facts are accurate can help to give the public a more coherent version of current events. This "assertive" reporting could help to reduce misperceptions among the public as they attend to coverage of political disputes in the media.

An experiment run by Dr Benjamin Lyons from the University of Exeter shows that journalists can do more to signal to readers which information should be treated most seriously because it is true. This research shows this does not lead to readers treating the journalist as biased for favouring one version of events, the research shows.

Fact-checking organisations have become influential in recent years with people keen to check the accuracy of what they are told by public figures, and some news outlets have their own fact-checking sections. But people can use these services selectively, and they might not have access to fact checking for every news story they encounter. By adjudicating disputes within standard news stories, journalists can reach readers in a natural setting, and could reduce chances that misperceptions take hold and later require debunking.

Dr Lyons' study showed that journalists can provide one-sided evidence - information from experts supporting a particular view - that has a bigger impact over people's factual beliefs than their partisan or ideological attachments.

Dr Lyons said: "American journalists are often criticised for the passive way they report disputes in politics. He said-she said stories are common because they are easier to produce and the norm of objectivity often pushes journalists toward false balance. Previous research has found some readers dislike formats that are not strictly neutral. At the same time, though, critics call for more forceful weight-of-evidence reporting.

"I wanted to test scenarios in which journalists could successfully influence readers' beliefs even if their conclusions favoured the opposing political party. The danger is that adjudication may backfire - reinforcing people's belief in the claims forwarded by their party, even if they are told they are wrong.

"The study found readers believed the journalist over their party, and one-sided adjudication did not increase perceived bias. Readers also reported greater satisfaction of their informational needs. But of course there are some issues in the news where it will be more difficult to adjudicate. I think the more specific the issue, location or event in question, the more influential adjudication would be. Journalists may find targeting narrow claims a fruitful approach to inject a small amount of factual understanding into even contentious debates."

A total of 523 American participants were recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform to take part in the study. People were asked to read an article that covered a dispute between state legislators over the economic cost-benefit of a proposed nuclear power project. This issue was chosen because most Americans hold weak opinions about nuclear power, and sizeable proportions of both major parties support its use. In the article, opponents of the project claimed the project carried a high risk of default and would hurt taxpayers, while proponents voiced counter-claims. The political party supporting or opposing the proposal was altered during the experiment. Half of the participants saw a section that vetted these claims, using quotes from expert sources to support one side or the other in the dispute.

Dr Lyons said: "This study should give journalists encouragement as they think about how to present facts in the current climate. It adds to growing body of work that shows fact checking can be successful, particularly when targeting claims less central to individuals' identity. This suggests they can take a more assertive approach to adjudicating the facts."

-end-

The study "When Readers Believe Journalists: Effects of Adjudication in Varied Dispute Contexts" is published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research.

University of Exeter

Related Nuclear Power Articles:

US nuclear regulators greatly underestimate potential for nuclear disaster
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission relied on faulty analysis to justify its refusal to adopt a critical measure for protecting Americans from nuclear-waste fires at dozens of reactor sites around the country, according to an article in the May 26 issue of Science magazine.
Visualizing nuclear radiation
Extraordinary decontamination efforts are underway in areas affected by the 2011 nuclear accidents in Japan.
System automatically detects cracks in nuclear power plants
A new automated system detects cracks in the steel components of nuclear power plants and has been shown to be more accurate than other automated systems.
'Diamond-age' of power generation as nuclear batteries developed
New technology has been developed that uses nuclear waste to generate electricity in a nuclear-powered battery.
Nuclear CSI: Noninvasive procedure could identify criminal nuclear activity
Determining if an individual has handled nuclear materials is a challenge national defense agencies currently face.
'Pee power' turns urine into sustainable power source for electronic devices
Researchers at the University of Bath have developed an innovative miniature fuel cell that can generate electricity from urine, creating an affordable, renewable and carbon-neutral way of generating power.
OUP publishes free article collection about Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster
March 11, 2016, marks five years since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster.
Nuclear Science Advisory Committee issues plan for US nuclear physics research
The Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, or NSAC, has publicly released 'Reaching for the Horizon, The 2015 Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science.' The new plan was unanimously accepted by NSAC, a committee composed of eminent scientists who have been tasked by DOE and the National Science Foundation to provide recommendations on future research in the field.
What happened at the Fukushima nuclear power plant?
Michio Ishikawa, an expert in the field of nuclear power, has written a book for those who would like to know more about the nuclear disaster which occurred in Japan in March 2011.
Probing what happens to plutonium in a nuclear explosion
For years, research on nuclear weapons has relied on old data, limited experiments and computer modeling.

Best Science Podcasts 2017

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2017. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: Radiolab

Oliver Sipple
One morning, Oliver Sipple went out for a walk. A couple hours later, to his own surprise, he saved the life of the President of the United States. But in the days that followed, Sipple's split-second act of heroism turned into a rationale for making his personal life into political opportunity. What happens next makes us wonder what a moment, or a movement, or a whole society can demand of one person. And how much is too much?  Through newly unearthed archival tape, we hear Sipple himself grapple with some of the most vexing topics of his day and ours - privacy, identity, the freedom of the press - not to mention the bonds of family and friendship.  Reported by Latif Nasser and Tracie Hunte. Produced by Matt Kielty, Annie McEwen, Latif Nasser and Tracie Hunte. Special thanks to Jerry Pritikin, Michael Yamashita, Stan Smith, Duffy Jennings; Ann Dolan, Megan Filly and Ginale Harris at the Superior Court of San Francisco; Leah Gracik, Karyn Hunt, Jesse Hamlin, The San Francisco Bay Area Television Archive, Mike Amico, Jennifer Vanasco and Joey Plaster. Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Future Consequences
From data collection to gene editing to AI, what we once considered science fiction is now becoming reality. This hour, TED speakers explore the future consequences of our present actions. Guests include designer Anab Jain, futurist Juan Enriquez, biologist Paul Knoepfler, and neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris.