An article recently published in Communication Research shows people are less likely to trust a journalist correcting false claims than a journalist confirming inaccurate facts.
Co-authored by Cal Poly Pomona College of Business Administration Associate Professor of Marketing Randy Stein and CPP alumna Caroline Meyersohn (’22, psychology), "Whose Pants Are on Fire?" is receiving national attention for its findings from outlets like Yahoo! News and received a featured slot on Slate’s “Hear Me Out” Podcast.
Stein’s research highlights the challenges journalists face in maintaining credibility while performing their fact-checking role, suggesting journalists should be aware of the potential negative reactions the corrections can evoke.
As we enter election season, information will be coming from every side with media commentating on every development. We asked Stein for pointers on ways to decipher fact from fiction this November.
Is there a trusted source for journalist corrections and how often is it updated?
There’s not! “Trusted” is a hard word. There are websites like PolitiFact that do nothing but fact checks, but they can only be so trusted, people won’t really like sources like PolitiFact unless they are 100% on their side. It’s also hard to do fact-checking correctly. Read widely, get to know who is abiding by general rules of objective reality, and remember that as far as primary sources of news coverage go, one of the biggest red flags is claiming to be unbiased.
When is it valid to question a claim?
In a sense it’s always valid, but then again modern-day misinformation spreaders are experts at co-opting the language of critical thinking, as if “being open-minded” should include being open to anything. It’s not the questioning itself that’s an issue, but how you answer the question. A good strategy for avoiding misinformation is to start with something that you know is nonsense, like the conspiracy theory that the moon landing was faked, and get to know how (seemingly) nonsensical things can be presented as “critical thinking”.
What is negativity bias and how do we avoid it?
Negativity bias is a two-headed beast: negative information draws attention, but also questions about the motives of people providing it. It can lead to some false impressions, like thinking the danger of a particular event is higher than it actually is. You can’t avoid it but you can be aware of it – most language, including most media coverage, is actually positive rather than negative (even if it doesn’t seem like it), so keep your eyes open.
Confirmation vs correction – which do we trust less and why?
Given negativity bias, as our research showed people default to being more distrustful of corrections. That’s a problem, since it means some people will also dismiss corrections, chalking it up to the person providing the correction being a spoil-sport. So, be aware that you might be holding confirmations to different standards than corrections.