Predictors of credibility of online media in the Spanish polarized media system
Article Sidebar
170)
Main Article Content
Authors
Abstract
231
Keywords
References
Anderson, C. W., Bell, E. & Shirky, C. (2012). Post-industrial Journalism: Adapting to the Present: a Report. New York: Tow Center for Digital Journalism. Retrieved from http:// towcenter.org/research/post-industrial-journalism-adapting-to-the-present-2/.
Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M. & Murphy, C. (2012) Polarized Political Communication, Oppositional Media Hostility, and Selective Exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74(1): 174– 186.
Benson, R., Blach-Ørsten, M., Powers, M., Willig, I. & Zambrano, S. V. (2012). Media systems online and off: Comparing the form of news in the United States, Denmark, and France. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 21-38.
Boulianne, S. (2016). Online news, civic awareness, and engagement in civic and political life. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1840-1856. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616222.
Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production (Vol. 26). New York: Peter Lang.
Burbules, N. (2001). Paradoxes of the Web: The ethical dimensions of credibility. Library Trends, 49(3), 441-453. Retrieved from http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/ 2142/8356/librarytrendsv49i3_opt.pdf?sequence=3#page=58.
Cappella, J. N. & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carr, D. J., Barnidge, M., Lee, B. G. & Tsang, S. J. (2014). Cynics and Skeptics : Evaluating the Credibility of Mainstream and Citizen Journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(3), 452-470. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1077699014538828.
Choi, W. & Stvilia, B. (2015). Web credibility assessment: conceptualization, operationalization, variability and models. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(12), 2399-2414.
Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deuze, M. (2006). Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principal Components of a Digital Culture. The Information Society, 22(2), 63-75. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/ 01972240600567170.
Fengler, S. (2015) How effective is media self-regulation? Results from a comparative survey of European journalists. European Journal of Communication, 30(3), 249-266.
Flanagin, A. J. & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319-342. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444807075015.
Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J. & Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences (pp. 1-15). New York: ACM Press.
Freidson, E. (2001) Professionalism, the third logic: on the practice of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gaziano, C. & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism quarterly, 63(3), 451-462.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N. & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319-336.
Guallar, J., Suau, J., Ruiz-Caballero, C., Sáez, A. & Masip, P. (2016). Re-dissemination of news and public debate on social networks. El Profesional de la Información, 25(3), 358-366. https://www.doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.may.05.
Hallin, D. & Mancini, P. (2004). Communication, Society and Politics : Comparing Media Systems : Three Models of Media and Politics. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparing_Media_Systems.
Harbers, F. & Broersma, M. (2014). Between engagement and ironic ambiguity: Mediating subjectivity in narrative journalism. Journalism, 15(5), 639-654. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1464884914523236.
Hilligoss, B. & Rieh, S. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing & Management, 44(4), 1467-1484. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001.
Hovland, C., Janis, I. L. & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (2016). Some like it lots: The influence of interactivity and reliance on credibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 136-145. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.012.
Llamero, L. (2017). The Social Determinants in the Process of Credibility Assessment and the Influence of Topic Areas. In S. Apostel & M. Folk (Eds.), Establishing and Evaluating Digital Ethos and Online Credibility (pp. 121–141). Hersey: IGI Global. https://www.doi.org/ 10.4018/978-1-5225-1072-7.
Llamero, L. L. (2011). Hipertextualitat, context i temps són factors clau de construcció de credibilitat i autoritat cognitiva a Internet. Comunicació: Revista de Recerca i d’Anàlisi, 28(1), 105-125. https://www.doi.org/10.2436/20.3008.01.80.
Melican, D. B. & Dixon, T. L. (2008). News on the Net: Credibility, Selective Exposure, and Racial Prejudice. Communication Research, 35(2), 151-168. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/ 0093650207313157.
Metzger, M. J., Hartsell, E. H. & Flanagin, A. J. (2015). Cognitive Dissonance or Credibility?: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Explanations for Selective Exposure to Partisan News. Communication Research, online first, 1-26. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613136.
Metzger, M. & Flanagin, A. (2015). Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online. The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, 445-466. New York: Wiley. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/9781118426456.ch20.
Metzger, M. J. & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(0), 210-220. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J. & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439. https:// www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x.
Metzger, M. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078-2091. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/asi.
Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an Index. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, (65)3, 567-588. Retrieved from http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/65/3/567.full.pdf+html.
Newman, N., Levy, D. A. L. & Nielsen, R. K. (2015). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2015. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1(2), 286-287. https://www.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2619576.
Peters, C. & Witschge, T. (2014). From Grand Narratives of Democracy to Small Expectations of Participation. Journalism Practice, (March), 1-16. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/ 17512786.2014.928455.
Roses, S. (2012). Análisis de indicadores de la confianza de los ciudadanos españoles en los medios en 2010. In aeic2012tarragona.org. Tarragona. Retrieved from http://www.aeic2012tarragona.org/comunicacions_cd/ok/343.pdf.
Roses, S. & Farías-Batlle, P. (2012). Credibilidad de los medios: un análisis bivariado de las opiniones de los españoles. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 3(1), 79-104. Retrieved from http://www.rmedcom.org/2012/1206/1206Roses.htm.
Roses, S. & Gómez-Calderón, B. (2015). Credibilidad de los medios en España : divergencias de percepción y caracterización de los escépticos. El profesional de la información, 24(4), 432-439.
Ryfe, D. M. (2013) Can journalism survive: An inside look at American newsrooms. New York: Wiley.
Sartori, G. (1998). Homo videns. La sociedad teledirigida, 9. Barcelona: Taurus.
Singer, J. B. (2007). Contested Autonomy. Journalism Studies, 8(1), 79-95. https://www.doi.org/ 10.1080/14616700601056866.
Stanford, J., Tauber, E. R., Fogg, B. J. & Marable, L. (2002). Experts vs. online consumers: A comparative credibility study of health and finance Websites. Retrieved from http://www.eguiden.no/getfile.php/31086.69/Fogg+-+Experts+view+on+Website+Credibility.pdf.
Sundar, S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology. effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73-100). Cambridge, USA: MIT Press. https://www.doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.073.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
Tseng, S. & Fogg, B. (1999). Credibility and Computing Technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44.
Tsfati, Y. & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Why do people watch news they do not trust? The need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychology, 7, 251-271. https://www.doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_2.
Waisbord, S. (2013). Reinventing professionalism: Journalism and news in global perspective. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Metrics
|
|
Details
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
RIGHTS TRANSFER
By submitting the article for evaluation and subsequent publication in Communication & Society, the AUTHOR exclusively assigns the rights of public communication, reproduction, distribution and sale for commercial exploitation to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, for the maximum legal term in force -the entire life of the author and seventy years after his death or declaration of death-, in any country, and in any of the current and future edition modalities, both in print and electronic versions.
In the event that the article is not accepted for publication , this transfer of rights lapses with the communication of the refusal to the AUTHOR.
The AUTHOR affirms that the article is unpublished, that it has not been sent simultaneously to another publication medium and that the rights have not been transferred exclusively previously. He is responsible to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service for the authorship and originality of his work, as well as for all pecuniary charges that may arise for the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, in favor of third parties due to actions, claims or conflicts arising from the breach of obligations by the AUTHOR.
