Partisan Bias in Message Selection: Media Gatekeeping of Party Press Releases.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haselmayer M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5679709 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Partisan Bias in Message Selection: Media Gatekeeping of Party Press Releases.
Haselmayer Martin M Wagner Markus M Meyer Thomas M TM
Political communication 20170701 3
Parties try to shape media coverage in ways that are favorable to them, but what determines whether media outlets pick up and report on party messages? Based on content analyses of 1,496 party press releases and 6,512 media reports from the 2013 Austrian parliamentary election campaign, we show that media coverage of individual party messages is influenced not just by news factors, but also by partisan bias. The media are therefore more likely to report on messages from parties their readers fav ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:People are biased partisans: they tend to agree with policies from political parties they identify with, independent of policy content. Here, we investigate how physiological reactions to political parties shape bias. Using changes in galvanic skin conductance responses to the visual presentation of party logos, we obtained an implicit and physiological measure of the affective arousal associated with political parties. Subsequently, we exposed subjects to classical party cue experiments where the party sponsors of specific policies were experimentally varied. We found that partisan bias only obtains among those exhibiting a strong physiological reaction to the party source; being a self-reported party identifier is not sufficient on its own. This suggests that partisan bias is rooted in implicit, affective reactions.
| S-EPMC4444316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One of the ways to overcome the sheer devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic is to get vaccinated. However, vaccine hesitancy could be a significant barrier. The main purposes of the current study are to examine the impact of four types of theory-driven messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention and to understand the moderating role of partisan media use and vaccination attitudes. The study used a between-subject randomized online experiment with four conditions. The manipulation messages were presented as screenshots from the CDC's Facebook page. The total number of participants were 387 (female 43%, mean age 37 years). The participants were from the U.S. and older than 18 years. The findings show that loss vs. gain message frames did not have any impact on COVID-19 vaccine intention. The moderating effects of conservative media and attitudes show that in general, those who consumed lower conservative media and held positive attitudes were higher on vaccine intention, and individual vs. collective frames did not have a strong impact. However, among those participants who scored high on conservative media use, and held negative vaccination attitudes, the individual frame had a higher impact on vaccine intention. The current study experimentally tested the intertwined relationships among message frames, partisan media use, and attitudes on vaccine intention. These relationships are critical considering the political nature of the pandemic.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-02851-3.
| S-EPMC8813160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:What role do ideologically extreme media play in the polarization of society? Here we report results from a randomized longitudinal field experiment embedded in a nationally representative online panel survey (N = 1,037) in which participants were incentivized to change their browser default settings and social media following patterns, boosting the likelihood of encountering news with either a left-leaning (HuffPost) or right-leaning (Fox News) slant during the 2018 US midterm election campaign. Data on ≈ 19 million web visits by respondents indicate that resulting changes in news consumption persisted for at least 8 wk. Greater exposure to partisan news can cause immediate but short-lived increases in website visits and knowledge of recent events. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, however, we find little evidence of a direct impact on opinions or affect. Still, results from later survey waves suggest that both treatments produce a lasting and meaningful decrease in trust in the mainstream media up to 1 y later. Consistent with the minimal-effects tradition, direct consequences of online partisan media are limited, although our findings raise questions about the possibility of subtle, cumulative dynamics. The combination of experimentation and computational social science techniques illustrates a powerful approach for studying the long-term consequences of exposure to partisan news.
| S-EPMC8040813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Press releases are a popular vehicle to disseminate health information to the lay media. While the quality of press releases issued by scientific conferences and medical journals has been questioned, no efforts to assess pharmaceutical industry press releases have been made. Therefore, we sought to systematically examine pharmaceutical company press releases about original research for measures of quality. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Press releases issued by the ten top selling, international pharmaceutical companies in the year 2005 were selected for evaluation. A total of 1028 electronic press releases were issued and 235 were based on original research. More than half (59%) reported results presented at a scientific meeting. Twenty-one percent of releases were not explicit about the source of original data. While harms or adverse events were commonly cited (76%), study limitations were rarely noted (6%). Almost one-third (29%) of releases did not quantify study results. Studies presented in abstract form were subsequently published within at least 20 months in 53% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical company press releases frequently report basic study details. However, readers should be cautioned by the preliminary nature of the data and lack of identified limitations. Methods to improve the reporting and interpretation of drug company press releases are desirable to prevent misleading media coverage.
| S-EPMC2518517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublication of clinical research findings in prominent journals influences health beliefs and medical practice, in part by engendering news coverage. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be most influential in guiding clinical practice. We determined whether study design of clinical research published in high-impact journals influences media coverage.Methods and findingsWe compared the incidence and amount of media coverage of RCTs with that of observational studies published in the top 7 medical journals between 1 January 2013 and 31 March 2013. We specifically assessed media coverage of the most rigorous RCTs, those with >1000 participants that reported 'hard' outcomes. There was no difference between RCTs and observational studies in coverage by major newspapers or news agencies, or in total number of news stories generated (all P>0.63). Large RCTs reporting 'hard' outcomes did not generate more news coverage than small RCTs that reported surrogate outcomes and observational studies (all P>0.32). RCTs were more likely than observational studies to attract a journal editorial (70% vs 46%, P = 0.003), but less likely to be the subject of a journal press release (17% vs 50%, P<0.001). Large RCTs that reported 'hard' outcomes did not attract an editorial more frequently than other studies (61% vs 58%, P>0.99), nor were they more likely to be the subject of a journal press release (14% vs 38%, P = 0.14).ConclusionsThe design of clinical studies whose results are published in high-impact medical journals is not associated with the likelihood or amount of ensuing news coverage.
| S-EPMC4689375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExaggerated or simplistic news is often blamed for adversely influencing public health. However, recent findings suggested many exaggerations were already present in university press releases, which scientists approve. Surprisingly, these exaggerations were not associated with more news coverage. Here we test whether these two controversial results also arise in press releases from prominent science and medical journals. We then investigate the influence of mitigating caveats in press releases, to test assumptions that caveats harm news interest or are ignored.Methods and findingsUsing quantitative content analysis, we analyzed press releases (N = 534) on biomedical and health-related science issued by leading peer-reviewed journals. We similarly analysed the associated peer-reviewed papers (N = 534) and news stories (N = 582). Main outcome measures were advice to readers and causal statements drawn from correlational research. Exaggerations in press releases predicted exaggerations in news (odds ratios 2.4 and 10.9, 95% CIs 1.3 to 4.5 and 3.9 to 30.1) but were not associated with increased news coverage, consistent with previous findings. Combining datasets from universities and journals (996 press releases, 1250 news), we found that when caveats appeared in press releases there was no reduction in journalistic uptake, but there was a clear increase in caveats in news (odds ratios 9.6 and 9.5 for caveats for advice and causal claims, CIs 4.1 to 24.3 and 6.0 to 15.2). The main study limitation is its retrospective correlational nature.ConclusionsFor health and science news directly inspired by press releases, the main source of both exaggerations and caveats appears to be the press release itself. However we find no evidence that exaggerations increase, or caveats decrease, the likelihood of news coverage. These findings should be encouraging for press officers and scientists who wish to minimise exaggeration and include caveats in their press releases.
| S-EPMC5158314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Politics has in recent decades entered an era of intense polarization. Explanations have implicated digital media, with the so-called echo chamber remaining a dominant causal hypothesis despite growing challenge by empirical evidence. This paper suggests that this mounting evidence provides not only reason to reject the echo chamber hypothesis but also the foundation for an alternative causal mechanism. To propose such a mechanism, the paper draws on the literatures on affective polarization, digital media, and opinion dynamics. From the affective polarization literature, we follow the move from seeing polarization as diverging issue positions to rooted in sorting: an alignment of differences which is effectively dividing the electorate into two increasingly homogeneous megaparties. To explain the rise in sorting, the paper draws on opinion dynamics and digital media research to present a model which essentially turns the echo chamber on its head: it is not isolation from opposing views that drives polarization but precisely the fact that digital media bring us to interact outside our local bubble. When individuals interact locally, the outcome is a stable plural patchwork of cross-cutting conflicts. By encouraging nonlocal interaction, digital media drive an alignment of conflicts along partisan lines, thus effacing the counterbalancing effects of local heterogeneity. The result is polarization, even if individual interaction leads to convergence. The model thus suggests that digital media polarize through partisan sorting, creating a maelstrom in which more and more identities, beliefs, and cultural preferences become drawn into an all-encompassing societal division.
| S-EPMC9586282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vital scientific communications are frequently misinterpreted by the lay public as a result of motivated reasoning, where people misconstrue data to fit their political and psychological biases. In the case of climate change, some people have been found to systematically misinterpret climate data in ways that conflict with the intended message of climate scientists. While prior studies have attempted to reduce motivated reasoning through bipartisan communication networks, these networks have also been found to exacerbate bias. Popular theories hold that bipartisan networks amplify bias by exposing people to opposing beliefs. These theories are in tension with collective intelligence research, which shows that exchanging beliefs in social networks can facilitate social learning, thereby improving individual and group judgments. However, prior experiments in collective intelligence have relied almost exclusively on neutral questions that do not engage motivated reasoning. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, we conducted an online experiment to test how bipartisan social networks can influence subjects' interpretation of climate communications from NASA. Here, we show that exposure to opposing beliefs in structured bipartisan social networks substantially improved the accuracy of judgments among both conservatives and liberals, eliminating belief polarization. However, we also find that social learning can be reduced, and belief polarization maintained, as a result of partisan priming. We find that increasing the salience of partisanship during communication, both through exposure to the logos of political parties and through exposure to the political identities of network peers, can significantly reduce social learning.
| S-EPMC6166837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Exaggerations in health news were previously found to strongly associate with similar exaggerations in press releases. Moreover such exaggerations did not appear to attract more news. Here we assess whether press release practice changed after these reported findings; simply drawing attention to the issue may be insufficient for practical change, given the challenges of media environments. Methods: We assessed whether rates of causal over-statement in press releases based on correlational data were lower following a seminal paper on the topic, compared to an equivalent baseline period in the preceding year. Results: We found that over-statements in press releases reduced from 28% (95% confidence interval = 16% to 45%) in 2014 to 13% (95% confidence interval = 6% to 25%) in 2015. A corresponding numerical reduction in exaggerations in news was not significant. The association between over-statements in news and press releases remained strong. Conclusions: Press release over-statements were less frequent following publication of Sumner et al. (2014), indicating that press release practice is malleable. However, this is correlational evidence and the reduction may be due to other factors.
| S-EPMC7236584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies indicate that in published reports, trial results can be distorted by the use of "spin" (specific reporting strategies, intentional or unintentional, emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment). We aimed to (1) evaluate the presence of "spin" in press releases and associated media coverage; and (2) evaluate whether findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on press releases and media coverage are misinterpreted.Methods and findingsWe systematically searched for all press releases indexed in the EurekAlert! database between December 2009 and March 2010. Of the 498 press releases retrieved and screened, we included press releases for all two-arm, parallel-group RCTs (n?=?70). We obtained a copy of the scientific article to which the press release related and we systematically searched for related news items using Lexis Nexis. "Spin," defined as specific reporting strategies (intentional or unintentional) emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment, was identified in 28 (40%) scientific article abstract conclusions and in 33 (47%) press releases. From bivariate and multivariable analysis assessing the journal type, funding source, sample size, type of treatment (drug or other), results of the primary outcomes (all nonstatistically significant versus other), author of the press release, and the presence of "spin" in the abstract conclusion, the only factor associated, with "spin" in the press release was "spin" in the article abstract conclusions (relative risk [RR] 5.6, [95% CI 2.8-11.1], p < 0.001). Findings of RCTs based on press releases were overestimated for 19 (27%) reports. News items were identified for 41 RCTs; 21 (51%) were reported with "spin," mainly the same type of "spin" as those identified in the press release and article abstract conclusion. Findings of RCTs based on the news item was overestimated for ten (24%) reports.Conclusion"Spin" was identified in about half of press releases and media coverage. In multivariable analysis, the main factor associated with "spin" in press releases was the presence of "spin" in the article abstract conclusion.
| S-EPMC3439420 | biostudies-literature