LECTURE 17: ‘BEYOND BIAS: HOSTILE MEDIA EFFECT WHEN CONSUMING NEWS’ Flashcards
Hostile media
Under certain conditions we treat neutral information as being unfair and not neutral.
Examples of functions of mass media
- Informative
- Educational
- Entertain
Harold Laswell: Three different functions in society
- Surveillance
- Transmission of social heritage =important to share culture, were we come from as a society, transmit social ideas and give meaning to people)
- Correlational function = Aligning different positions by not only portraying the diversity of opinions but also diminishing these differences to a certain extent’
→ social function of mass media. We can learn how other people think and behave; this will help us bring together. Keep society together with the correlational function.
o If journalists share both of the sides from the article, do people perceive it that way.
Hostile media effect (definition)
= People’s tendency to perceive neutral news coverage as one-sided and unfair in favor of their opposing side (HME)
Hostile media effect
Not about bad journalism
- Flawed investigative work.
- Poor writing
- Even high qualitative information is being perceived as unfair.
Not about bad media choices
- Reading/ watching / listening to media that oppose with your personal opinions.
findings by Vallone, Ross & Lepper
- Found it during an experiment in asking people ‘how do you think news coverage about that item was?’
They found:
- Pro-israel = said this news coverage was anti-Israel
- Pro-arab = said this news coverage was pro-Israel
Both perceived it different way → hostile media effect.
The perception of media bias affects two fundamental features
o The public’s trust.
o The media’s influence
hostile media effect in groups
- When we talk about people then we usually refer to partisans that believe in a particular idea or cause
- As this happens in a groups involved in the conflict:
->Distrust in media on both sides
->Threatened by the media.
What about the assimilation bias / conformation bias
o When perceptions of new evidence are interpreted in such a way as to be assimilated into pre-existing assumptions and expectations.
o The tendency to find information supportive rather than opposed to ones owns on position
but also to dismiss unfavorable content as unreliable.
- Is this the opposite effect that could be expected from literature on conformation bias? They do not fully understand yet.
potential causes hostile media effect
- Selective attention / recall = Not supported
- Different standards mechanism → because opposing arguments seem less legitimate, their presentation in news reports is seen as proof of biased reporting. = Not supported
- Arguments are evaluated as positive or negative based on own position → strong supporters of a position tend to see mildly favorable or neutral arguments as hostile to their position simply because they are not supportive enough.
o Example: someone thinks it might be neutral, but they think there shouldn’t be any arguments in favor at all.
o Mixed support
Studies found that the phenomenon hostile media effect, often happens in mass media.
Study: Gunther, A. C. & Liebhart
hey had a neutral article that was fabricated by themselves, it was about pros and cons genetically modifying wild rice. Natives (Americans where con), Dutch people were in favor.
Resulaten:
- De perceived bias was hoger wanneer dit het bereik mainstream bereik had ipv essay op schoolniveau
- De perceived bias was hoger wanneer de source een journalist was ipv een student
Als het wel significant is → conformation bias
Why would reach matter?
- Perceived media influence
- Third person perception: people attribute greater power to the media when they are asked about its effect on other than when they are asked about media influence on themselves. –> individuals tend to perceive that media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves
- Possible conclusion: large audience → large effect on many ‘others’
o Can be a treat.
Minimal group paradigm (henry Tajfel, 1970) conclusions
- Group assigned based on preference for painting
- Without any rational reason, people prefered giving their own groups benefits instead of the other group
This means: - Categorization alone is enough to create discrimination and disadvantage.
- Categorization can be based on minimal (and trivial) criteria:
- No history,
- no interaction between groups
- no obvious reason why one group should be better than another group
- obvious self-interest etc..
social identity theory (SIT) explanations for the minimal group paradigm
- People think about themselves and others in terms of their membership of certain groups.
- Want to preserve positive self-image and use the group to do so.
- But how do they do it? Which groups are important?
- That’s why: Self Categorization Theory
self-categorization theory (John Turner, 1980) (key points)
- Every person is a member of (an infinite number?) different social groups.
- Social identities are not all present in the foreground at the same time (salient)
- If a certain category is activated, the accompanying social identity only becomes salient.
- Specific social context that defines which of my social identities becomes salient or emphasized.
- bijv: voetbalfans
assumptions SIT & SCT
- We classify people according to social categories.
- How do we classify these groups?
–> Depends on the context, and on the ease with which the transition to the higher order categorization is made. - Separation between ‘we’ and ‘them accentuation effect: o We overestimate.
▪ The similarities of members within the group
▪ And the differences between members between the groups - Differences between groups can be;
o Minimal/arbitrary
o But also, more deeply ‘rooted’ and fundamental.
Third person perception (Davidson, 1983)
People attribute greater power to the media when they are asked about its effect on others than when they are asked about media influence on themselves
Hostile media effect definition (Vallone, Ross & Lepper, 1985)
“The tendency of partisans to rate identical mass media coverage of a controversial issue as being biased against their side”
False consensus
- Something that is linked to SIT/SCT
- Overestimating the similarities within a group
- (overestimating the differences between groups)
- Especially when the group is under threat
- We must be right, our feelings must be correct
- With false consensus perceptions, one can be ‘reassured’ of the normality and appropriateness of one’s positions (Hoorens, 1993)
