Effects of Journalistic Adjudication on Factual Beliefs, News Evaluations, Information Seeking, and Epistemic Political Efficacy

被引：37
|
作者：
Pingree, Raymond James [1 ]
Brossard, Dominique [2 ]
McLeod, Douglas M. [3 ]
机构：
[1] Louisiana State Univ, Manship Sch Mass Commun, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Life Sci Commun, Madison, WI 53706 USA
[3] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Journalism & Mass Commun, Madison, WI 53706 USA
来源：
MASS COMMUNICATION AND SOCIETY | 2014年 / 17卷 / 05期
关键词：
OBJECTIVITY; COVERAGE;
D O I：
10.1080/15205436.2013.821491
中图分类号：
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号：
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要：
A frequent critique of contemporary journalism is that journalists rarely adjudicate factual disputes when covering politics; however, very little research has been done on the effects of such passive journalismon audiences. This study tests effects of active adjudication versus "he said/she said'' journalism on a variety of outcomes, finding that adjudication can correct factual beliefs, increase perceived news quality, satisfy perceived informational needs, and increase the likelihood of future news use. However, for readers who were less interested in the issues under dispute, adjudication also reduced epistemic political efficacy, which is confidence in one's ability to find the truth in politics.
引用
收藏
页码：615 / 638
页数：24
相关论文
共 50 条
12345