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
