Fake News as Discursive Integration: An Analysis of Sites That Publish False, Misleading, Hyperpartisan and Sensational Information

Mourão, Rachel R.; Robertson, Craig T.

doi:10.1080/1461670x.2019.1566871

Cited by 145 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies focused on investigating the effects of content characteristics. A content analysis of articles published in sites often considered as fake news sources during the 2016 presidential elections in the United States found that most articles published in these sites “employed moderate levels of sensationalism, clickbait, misleading content and partisan bias” and that partisan bias was the strongest predictor of social media engagement (Mourão & Robertson, , p. 14). Another study also noted that fake news articles tend to be more novel than real news, which can explain why they spread faster than real news (Vosoughi et al, ).…”

Section: Audiences and Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have identified cognitive processes that make individuals more prone to the influence of fake news, such as confirmation bias, selective exposure, and lack of analytical thinking (Lazer et al, ; Pennycook & Rand, ; Spohr, ). Fake news also derives its power from its appeal to partisanship, perceived novelty, and repeated exposure facilitated by both bots and human users that share them in the online sphere (Mourão & Robertson, ; Pennycook et al, ; Vosoughi et al, ). While fact checking has also risen in response to fake news, it appears that corrections to wrong information only work on some individuals, such as those with higher levels of cognitive ability (Bode & Vraga, ; De keersmaecker & Roets, ; Graves & Cherubini, ; Nyhan & Reifler, ).…”

Section: Moving Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The facts of fake news: A research review

Tandoc

2019

Sociology Compass

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a review of scholarly research on the phenomenon of fake news. Most studies have so far focused on three main themes: the definition and the scope of the problem; the potential causes; and the impact of proposed solutions. First, scholarly research has defined fake news as a form of falsehood intended to primarily deceive people by mimicking the look and feel of real news. While initial research has shown that only a small fraction of the online audience is exposed to fake news, for this small group of individuals, the impact of fake news can be quite substantial. Second, studies have identified cognitive processes that make individuals more prone to the influence of fake news, such as confirmation bias, selective exposure, and lack of analytical thinking. Fake news also derives its power from its appeal to partisanship, perceived novelty, and repeated exposure facilitated by both bots and human users that share them in the online sphere. Finally, while fact checking has also risen in response to fake news, studies have found that corrections to wrong information only work on some individuals.

show abstract

Section: Audiences and Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moving Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

The facts of fake news: A research review

Tandoc

2019

Sociology Compass

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While originally the term "fake news" was used to describe formats of political satire (e.g., Baym 2005), during the 2016 US presidential elections, scholars and journalists adapted it to characterize made-up news articles (e.g., Mourão and Robertson 2019;Silverman 2016), such as for the infamous "pizzagate" story. Since then, these stories have spiraled into a salient public debate, in which citizens, politicians, journalists, and scholars have shared their concerns about the possibly detrimental influence of fake news on political events.…”

Section: The Fake News Genrementioning

confidence: 99%

From Novelty to Normalization? How Journalists Use the Term “Fake News” in their Reporting

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During recent years, worries about fake news have been a salient aspect of mediated debates. However, the ubiquitous and fuzzy usage of the term in news reporting has led more and more scholars and other public actors to call for its abandonment in public discourse altogether. Given this status as a controversial but arguably effective buzzword in news coverage, we know surprisingly little about exactly how journalists use the term in their reporting. By means of a quantitative content analysis, this study offers empirical evidence on this question. Using the case of Austria, where discussions around fake news have been ubiquitous during recent years, we analyzed all news articles mentioning the term "fake news" in major daily newspapers between 2015 and 2018 (N = 2,967). We find that journalistic reporting on fake news shifts over time from mainly describing the threat of disinformation online, to a more normalized and broad usage of the term in relation to attacks on legacy news media. Furthermore, news reports increasingly use the term in contexts completely unrelated to disinformation or media attacks. In using the term this way, journalists arguably contribute not only to term salience but also to a questionable normalization process.

show abstract

“…For instance, the motivated account of reasoning holds that people may accept epistemically suspect beliefs such as fake news because these beliefs better suit their political preferences and priors (Kahan, 2017). Moreover, people might also share such false beliefs in order to signal their political identity or/and justify their pre-existing attitudes (Guess et al, 2019;Mourão & Robertson, 2019;Shin & Thorson, 2017).…”

Section: Content Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Happy Thoughts: The Role of Communion in Accepting and Sharing (Mis)Beliefs

Altay¹,

Majima²,

Mercier³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why are some epistemically suspect beliefs so popular? People high in communion, either because they want to make others happy, or because they want to display their niceness, might be particularly keen to share ‘happy thoughts,’ beliefs that might make others happy, even if they are epistemically suspect—for instance, that naturopathy works, or that heaven exists. Across six experiments (N = 1596) we found that: (i) people who self-describe as being high on communion (i.e., nice, kind) are more likely to believe and share happier epistemically suspect beliefs, by contrast with people who self-describes as being high on agency (i.e., competent, dominant); (ii) people prefer to share happier beliefs when wishing to appear nice and kind rather than competent and dominant; (iii) sharing happier beliefs does lead to being perceived as nicer and kinder; and (iv) sharing happier beliefs leads to being perceived as less dominant. We also found a consistent positive bias independent of participants’ personality, with happier beliefs being more likely to be shared and believed. Overall, these results suggest that some happy epistemically suspect beliefs could become culturally successful because they allow their sender to signal niceness and kindness.

show abstract

Fake News as Discursive Integration: An Analysis of Sites That Publish False, Misleading, Hyperpartisan and Sensational Information

Cited by 145 publications

References 30 publications

The facts of fake news: A research review

The facts of fake news: A research review

From Novelty to Normalization? How Journalists Use the Term “Fake News” in their Reporting

Happy Thoughts: The Role of Communion in Accepting and Sharing (Mis)Beliefs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About