The Ethics of Transparency: A Review of Corrections Language in International Journalistic Codes of Ethics

Appelman, Alyssa; Hettinga, Kirstie

doi:10.1080/23736992.2021.1899826

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If corrective mechanisms are applied to limit the dissemination of content that the public perceives as misinformation (e.g., opinion presented as fact), then for journalism, this means reintroducing and enforcing pre-digital media ethics, with less partisanship. Corrective measures simply mean publishing corrections with explanations (Appelman and Hettinga 2021;Osman et al 2023). If the motivation is to engage audiences to serve the public good, then activists and citizen journalists should also follow suit, with the aim of raising the bar regarding the quality and sourcing of support for claims and facts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Evaluations of Misinformation and Motives for Sharing It

Osman

2024

Journalism and Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns around the definition of misinformation hamper ways of addressing purported problems associated with it, along with the fact that public understanding of the concept is often ignored. To this end, the present pilot survey study examines three broad issues, as follows: (1) contexts where the concept most applies to (i.e., face-to-face interactions, social media, news media, or all three contexts), (2) criteria people use to identify misinformation, and (3) motivations for sharing it. A total of 1897 participants (approximately 300 per country) from six different countries (Chile, Germany, Greece, Mexico, the UK, the USA) were asked questions on all three, along with an option to provide free text responses for two of them. The quantitative and qualitative findings reveal a nuanced understanding of the concept, with the common defining characteristics being claims presented as fact when they are opinion (71%), claims challenged by experts (66%), and claims that are unqualified by evidence (64%). Moreover, of the 28% (n = 538) of participants providing free text responses further qualifying criteria for misinformation, 31% of them mentioned critical details from communication (e.g., concealing relevant details or lacking evidence to support claims), and 41% mentioned additions in communication that reveal distortions (e.g., sensationalist language, exaggerating claims). Rather than being exclusive to social media, misinformation was seen by the full sample (n = 1897) as present in all communication contexts (59%) and is shared for amusement (50%) or inadvertently (56%).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%