Citizens’ levels of mistrust toward the media, as well as their perception of media bias, have increased in past years in most Western democracies. This study explores how these negative observations on journalism may influence their use of traditional, citizen, and social media for news. Drawing on two-wave U.S. panel data, results suggest that media trust and perceived bias relate to media consumption differently. Trust in social and citizen media positively predicts use of news via social media, but has no effect on traditional or citizen news use. By contrast, perceived media bias is associated with decreased news use overall.
American Association of Public Opinion Research. (2011). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Author.
2.
BabbieE. R.MoutonJ. (2001). The practice of social research. London, England: Oxford University Press.
3.
BachmannI.CorreaT.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2012). Profiling online political content creators: Advancing the paths to democracy. International Journal of E-Politics, 3(4), 1–19. doi:10.4018/jep.2012100101
4.
BeamM. A. (2014). Automating the news. How personalized news recommender system design choices impact news reception. Communication Research, 41, 1019–1041. doi:10.1177/0093650213497979
5.
BennettS. E.RhineS. L.FlickingerR. S.BennettL. L. (1999). “Video malaise” revisited: Public trust in the media and government. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 4(4), 8–23. doi:10.1177/1081180X9900400402
6.
BodeL.VragaE. K.BorahP.ShahD. V. (2014). A new space for political behavior: Political social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 414–429. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12048
7.
BosnjakM.DasM.LynnP. (2016). Symposium issue on methods for probability-based online and mixed-mode panels. Social Science Computer Review, 34, 1–5. doi:10.1177/0894439315579246
8.
BrownW. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 296–322.
9.
BrundidgeJ.GarretK.RojasH.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2014). Political participation and ideological news online: “Differential gains” and “differential losses” in a presidential election cycle. Mass Communication & Society, 17, 464–486. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.821492
10.
BucyE. P.HolbertR. L. (2014). Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
CappellaJ. N.JamiesonK. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
CarpenterS. (2010). A study of content diversity in online citizen journalism and online newspaper articles. New Media & Society, 12, 1064–1084.
13.
CarrD. J.BarnidgeM.LeeB. G.TsangS. J. (2014). Cynics and skeptics: Evaluating the credibility of mainstream and citizen journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 452–470. doi:10.1177/1077699014538828
14.
ChadhaM.AvilaA.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2012). Listening in: Building a profile of podcast users and analyzing their political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9, 388–401. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.717481
15.
D’AlessioD.AllenM. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50, 133–156. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x
16.
DavisK. C.NonnemakerJ.DukeJ.FarrellyM. C. (2013). Perceived effectiveness of cessation advertisements: the importance of audience reactions and practical implications for media campaign planning. Health Communication, 28, 461–472. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.696535
17.
DuttonW. H. (2009). The fifth estate emerging through the network of networks. Prometheus, 27(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/08109020802657453
18.
DuttonW. H.EynonR. (2009). Networked individuals and institutions: A cross-sector comparative perspective on patterns and strategies in government and research. The Information Society, 25, 198–207. doi:10.1080/01972240902848914
19.
DyckA.ZingalesL. (2002). The corporate governance role of the media. In IslamR. (Ed.), The right to tell: The role of mass media in economic development (pp. 101–137). Washington, DC: The World Bank Institute.
20.
EvelandW. P.ShahD. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101–117.
21.
FarnsworthS. J.LichterS. R. (2007). The nightly news nightmare: Television’s coverage of US presidential elections, 1988-2004. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
22.
FoxJ. R.ParkB. (2006). The “I” of embedded reporting: An analysis of CNN coverage of the “shock and awe” campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 36–51. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5001_3
23.
GarretK.BimberB.Gil de ZúñigaH.HeinderyckxF.KellyJ.SmithM. (2012). New ICTs and the study of political communication. International Journal of Communication, 6, 214–231.
24.
GazianoC. (1988). How credible is the credibility crisis?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 65, 267–278.
25.
GazianoC.McGrathK. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451–462.
26.
Gil de ZúñigaH. (2002). Internet inherentemente personal: Cómo su uso influencia nuestras vidas [The internet, inherently personal: How its use influences our lives]. Binaria, 3, 1–45.
27.
Gil de ZúñigaH. (2015). Toward a European public sphere? The promise and perils of modern democracy in the age of digital and social media. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3152–3160.
28.
Gil de ZúñigaH.HinsleyA. (2013). The press versus the public: What is “good journalism?”Journalism Studies, 14, 926–942. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2012.744551
29.
Gil de ZúñigaH.ValenzuelaS. (2010). Who uses Facebook and why. In WittkowerD. (Ed.), Facebook and philosophy: What’s on your mind? (pp. 21–31). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
30.
GitlinT. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
GoodeL. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society, 11, 1–19. doi:10.1177/1461444809341393
32.
GuntherA. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147–167. doi:10.1086/269308
33.
GuntherA. C.ChristenC. T. (2002). Projection or persuasive press? Contrary effects of personal opinion and perceived news coverage on estimates of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 177–195. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02538.x
34.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (RehgW., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
36.
HermanE.ChomskyN. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon.
37.
HermidaA.LewisS. C.ZamithR. (2014). Sourcing the Arab spring: A case study of Andy Carvin’s sources on Twitter during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 479–499. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12074
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39.
41.
JacobsonH. K. (1969). Mass media believability: A study of receiver judgments. Journalism Quarterly, 46, 20–28. doi:10.1177/107769906904600103
42.
JackobN. G. E. (2010). No alternatives? The relationship between perceived media dependency, use of alternative information sources, and general trust in mass media. International Journal of Communication, 4, 589–606.
43.
JamiesonK. H.CappellaJ. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
JonesD. A. (2004). Why Americans don’t trust the media. A preliminary analysis. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 9, 60–75. doi:10.1177/1081180X04263461
45.
JungN.KimY.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 407–430.
46.
KaufholdK.ValenzuelaS.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2010). Citizen journalism and democracy: How user-generated news use relates to political knowledge and participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87, 515–529.
47.
KaufmanL. (2014, January29). New owner of Patch lays off hundreds. The New York Times. Available from http://www.nytimes.com
48.
KenixL. J. (2008). Framing science: Climate change in the mainstream and alternative news of New Zealand. Political Science, 60, 117–132. doi:10.1177/003231870806000110.
49.
KenskiK.StroudN. J. (2006). Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 173–192. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1
50.
KesslerR. C.GreenbergD. F. (1981). Linear panel analysis: Models of quantitative change. New York, NY: Academic Press.
51.
KimJ.WyattR. O.KatzE. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361–385.
52.
KiousisS. (2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 381–403.
53.
KochN. S. (1994). Changing times? The effect of The New York Times on college students’ political information and behavior. Social Science Journal, 31, 29–38.
54.
KohringM.MatthesJ. (2007). Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34, 231–252. doi:10.1177/0093650206298071
LuhmannN. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
57.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
58.
McManusJ. (1995). A market-based model of news production. Communication Theory, 5, 301–338. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00113.x
59.
MetzgarE. T.KurpiusD. D.RowleyK. M. (2011). Defining hyperlocal media: Proposing a framework for discussion. New Media & Society, 13, 772–787. doi:10.1177/1461444810385095
60.
MeyrowitzJ. (1998). Multiple media literacies. Journal of Communication, 48, 96–108. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02740.x
61.
MillerJ. M.KrosnickJ. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 301–315. doi:10.2307/2669312
62.
MorrisJ. S. (2007). Slanted objectivity? Perceived media bias, cable news exposure, and political attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 707–728.
63.
MoyP.McCluskeyM. R.McCoyK.SprattM. A. (2004). Political correlates of local news media use. Journal of Communication, 54, 532–546. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02643.x
64.
MullainathanS.ShleiferA. (2005). The market for news. American Economic Review, 1031–1053. doi:10.1257/0002828054825619
65.
MüllerJ. (2013). Mechanisms of trust: News media in democratic and authoritarian regimes. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
66.
NahS.ChungD. S. (2012). When citizens meet both professional and citizen journalists: Social trust, media credibility, and perceived journalistic roles among online community news readers. Journalism, 13, 714–730. doi:10.1177/1464884911431381
67.
NewmanN.DuttonW. H.BlankG. (2012). Social media in the changing ecology of news: The fourth and fifth estates in Britain. International Journal of Internet Science, 7(1), 6–22.
68.
NipJ. (2006). Exploring the second phase of public journalism. Journalism Studies, 7, 212–236.
69.
NivenD. (2002). Tilt? The search for media bias. Westport, CT: Praeger
70.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2012). Political communications and methods survey. Available from http://www.people-press.org
71.
PfauM. J.HoustonB.SemmlerS. M. (2007). Mediating the vote: The changing media landscape in U.S. presidential campaigns. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
72.
SaldañaM.McGregorS.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2015). Social media as a public space for politics: Cross-national comparison of news consumption and participatory behaviors in the United States and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3304–3326. doi:1932-8036/20150005
73.
SchudsonM. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York, NY: Basic Books.
74.
SelfC. C. (1996). Credibility. In SalwenM. B.StacksD. W. (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 421–444). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75.
SerrinJ.SerrinW. (2002). Muckraking! The journalism that changed America. New York, NY: The New Press.
SondermanJ. (2012, July23). The hard truths of hyperlocal journalism reveal themselves in Journatic trouble. Poynter. Available from http://www.poynter.org
78.
SpearmanC. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271–295.
79.
ThurmanN. (2008). Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media & Society, 10(1), 139–157. doi:10.1177/1461444807085325
80.
TsfatiY. (2010). Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: Exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist, 54, 22–42. doi:10.1177/0002764210376309
81.
TsfatiY. (2003). Does audience skepticism of the media matter in agenda setting?Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 157–176. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4702_1
82.
TsfatiY.CappellaJ. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30, 504–529.
83.
TsfatiY.CappellaJ. 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.
84.
TsfatiY.CohenJ. (2005). Democratic consequences of hostile media perceptions: The case of Gaza settlers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 10, 28–51. doi:10.1177/1081180X05280776
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577.
87.
WantaW.HuY. W. (1994). The effects of credibility, reliance, and exposure on media agenda-setting: A path analysis model. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 71, 90–98. doi:10.1177/107769909407100109
88.
WattsM. D.DomkeD.ShahD. V.FanD. P. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research, 26, 144–175.
89.
WestleyB. H.SeverinW. J. (1964). Some correlates of media credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 41, 325–335. doi:10.1177/10776990640410030
