Love the way you lie: Forewarning and rectification
in journalism, are they effective strategies?
Fenno van der Velden (10002998)
Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Political Communication and Journalism
Supervised by Linda Bos
29 January 2016
Abstract:
The “traditional journalist’s” role of reporting objective and accurate news is under threat from the increasing availability of free (online) news and reports from “citizen reporters”. To keep up with this competition, traditional journalists are tempted to report high-impact news stories that are copied from other newsrooms, which can lead to the reporting of incomplete or incorrect information.
This study examines whether persuasive theories such as “threat to freedom” and “forewarning” can be applied to incorrectly reported news stories (misinformation) accompanying iconic images in newspapers. A 2 x 2 online survey experiment showed that the rectification of news reports can lead to a less supportive attitude towards the reported issue but does not affect trust in news media. Forewarning causes participants to trust less in news media, but this negative effect does only occur when a person is not exposed to a rectification. The results of this study reveal that forewarning and rectification do not have the desired effects of maintaining trust in new media, which underscores the importance of correct and complete reports of journalists.
INTRODUCTION
The photo of Aylan Kurdi, a Syrian toddler who drowned and washed up on a Turkish beach, spread quickly and widely on social media and shocked people all over the world. Journalists were quick to start reporting the drowning of Aylan as the personification of all refugees who risk their lives to escape the war in Syria by illegally entering Europe in unsafe boats (Ramgobin, 2015). This news story had a strong impact on politicians and western citizens. The Guardian stated, with reference to the photo of Aylan, that: “The Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS), whose independently-run rescue boats in the Mediterranean have saved more than 10,000 lives, said it had seen a 15-fold increase in donations in 24 hours” (Henley, Grant, Elgot, McVeigh, & O’Carroll, 2015). Because of this impact, journalists and scholars started to relate this photo with the photo of the naked girl who tried to escape the napalm attacks, which became iconic for the Vietnam War (Takken, 2015).
This humanization of international news happens more often nowadays and is a news model that journalists are following to create consumable news for a broad audience. Following this model, journalists highlight more drama, cultural similarities and political sponsors in their reports (Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Harcup & O’Neill, 2001). News is frequently reported with a human-interest frame, which allows the public to empathize with the story (Aarøe, 2011; Valkenburg, Semetko, & Vreese, 1999). Images given this frame can become iconic for historical events, such as conflicts or international social issues. However, in addition to being framed in this way, an image needs to shock by portraying an innocent victim (Burman, 1994; Hariman & Lucaites, 2003; Kleppe & de Vries, 2013). The results of various experiments show that framing news in this way can affect people’s attitudes, emotions and ability to recall information contained in an article(Valkenburg et al., 1999).
But, was this story of Aylan the complete truth, or was part of the truth missing? Shortly after the photo was published, journalists gained more information about Aylan and his family. At the time he died, Aylan’s family had been living in Turkey for three years, but had been rejected for asylum in Canada. For this reason they risked their lives to illegally enter Europe (Powell & Weise, 2015). This highlighted another perspective on the refugee problem; refugees were not only entering Europe to escape war, there were also a lot of economic migrants who were trying to cross the borders.
Reporting balanced and accurate news is important (Brants & van Praag, 2006; Richardson & Barkho, 2009; Strömbäck, 2005), especially in the case of emotional news stories, which can have a strong impact (Brantner, Lobinger, & Wetzstein, 2011; Brantner et al., 2011;
Greenwood & Jenkins, 2015; Valkenburg et al., 1999). However, in a time in which journalists have to keep up with the high speed with which news is created and shared, there is less time to check sources (Luyendijk, 2006; Richardson & Barkho, 2009); a narrow range of sources will be interviewed (Esser, Reinemann, & Fan, 2000), which makes it harder to be objective (Reese, Gandy, & Grant, 2001).
When misinformation is spread, it can affect people’s thoughts and attitudes what can cause misperceptions. When misinformation is corrected, people can feel manipulated (Sagarin, Cialdini, Rice, & Serna, 2004), which can threaten the instinctive urge of people to have freedom to think and behave freely To restore this autonomy, boomerang effects can occur in forms of attitudes that are contrary to the ones that are intended or to distrust in the source (Knowles & Linn, 2004).. Effects that should all be avoided, as they can have an adverse impact on the credibility of journalists as watchdogs of democracy (Brants & van Praag, 2006).
Studies of persuasive communication indicate that strategies such as forewarning about persuasive intent (Wood & Quinn, 2003) and rapid corrections published by credible sources (Johnson & Seifert, 1994; Seifert, 2002) can reduce these boomerang effects. So far, these theories have been applied only to persuasive messages and not to misinformation in a journalistic context. Nevertheless, it occasionally happens that journalists warn their audience in advance that their information have not been validated yet. Therefore, this study will adopt theories of persuasive communication (i.e. forewarning and correction) in a journalistic context to see whether they are applicable in a broader context. This leads to the following research question: To what extent do news articles that contain images with iconic elements, rectifications and forewarning affect attitudes towards the discussed issue and trust in news media?
To answer this question, a 2 x 2 online survey was conducted, in which participants were asked to read to an article that contained misinformation relating to the background story of an image containing iconic elements. The image and article related to poor working conditions in factories located in less developed countries (see: appendix 1). Firstly, the effect of images containing iconic elements will be examined, followed by the effect of informing the participant that the background story to the image is incorrect. A distinction will be made between those participants who were forewarned that the background story of the image had not been validated and those who were not.
With this study, more knowledge will be gained about existing interdisciplinary theories such as forewarning (persuasive communication) (Janssen, Fennis, & Pruyn, 2010; Kiesler &
Kiesler, 1964; Sagarin et al., 2004; Wood & Quinn, 2003) and reactance (psychology) (Brehm & Brehm, 2013; Knowles & Lynn, 2004) by applying them in a new context (news articles). Thereby, this will be the first article that will examine whether the impact of photos with iconic elements will be different when they are not received in a journalistic context, which is important as news photos are more often received through other channels such as social media. These findings can help journalists understand what the impact of their misinformation and rectification can be and whether transparency through forewarning can help in keeping citizens trust.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Threats to objective journalism
The introduction and growth of the Internet, social media and smartphones, has had a great impact on the way news is reported and consumed all over the world, which had the biggest impact on newspaper journalism (Barthel, 2015). Newspapers that report news the next day to their paid subscribers, now have to compete with online news, which is faster, easier and mostly free to obtain. Even though newspapers compete by publishing news faster and more frequently on their own websites, this has not stopped the decrease in paid subscribers (Yang & Grabe, 2011).
In addition, not only can mass media reach a huge audience, but also citizens are able to quickly and easily share their experiences with the rest of the world. For instance, when citizens witness an incident, they can take a picture with their smartphone, add a descriptive message about the incident and share it with the rest of the world through social media. This development gives everyone the opportunity to become a reporter, but it raises the question whether these ‘citizen reporters’ (Reich, 2008) are a beneficial development or a threat to traditional journalism.
According to certain scholars (Reich, 2008; Zarzycka, Weber, & Schouten, 2015), there is a big difference between citizen reporters and traditional journalists. Citizen reporters try to be interesting and will mainly report on events they have witnessed themselves and from their own point of view; whereas traditional journalists differentiate themselves by obtaining information from official sources such as politicians, authorized institutions and press agencies (Brown, 2005). Moreover, traditional journalists aim for accuracy by following journalistic principles: an adversarial process, validating their sources and being objective (Reich, 2008).
For these reasons, Zarzycka (2015) underlines the importance of traditional journalists and says that they should use citizen reporters to their own advantage. By taking the reports of citizen reporters and checking their reliability, journalists can now write objective news stories from a wider range of perspectives. Thereby, news can be reported from locations where official journalists would not able or allowed to go. Instead of using only official reporters, newsrooms now have access to informants all over the world. An example of an event when this cooperation between newsrooms and citizens was able to provide a better source of news, was the terrorist attack that took place in Paris in November (“Paris attacks,” 2015). Footage from citizen reporters, who witnessed hostages being held by terrorists, dominated all the news bulletins, as at the time, traditional journalists could not reach the scene.
Although there are some examples of occasional cooperation between traditional journalists and citizen reporters, traditional journalists still do not make optimal use of the resource provided by citizen reporters (Zarzycka, 2015). Instead of distinguishing themselves from these new forms of journalism, they try to compete on the same level. This puts a lot of time pressure on traditional journalists, who have to create their own news items in a very short space of time (Luyendijk, 2006). A strategy for dealing with this time pressure is to use media routine channels, which means that traditional journalists attend press conferences, official proceedings and will interview sources that they have built long-term relationships with (Ryfe, 2009; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). On the one hand, this strategy performs a function, as it is a cheap and easy way of obtaining information, but on the other hand it is of symbolic value to traditional journalists, they feel privileged to make use of these sources of information and the use of these sources is viewed as “real journalism”. When these traditional sources cannot be informed or do not have the necessary information, it can be hard for traditional journalists to find other sources which can inform them on an issue. In such circumstances, newsrooms can resort to reporting information from the reports of other newsrooms or news agencies, without first validating this information. This can harm the scrutiny, objectivity and pluralism traditionally provided by traditional journalists (Kohring & Matthes, 2007).
Not only do journalists occasionally report information from other newsrooms and news agencies, but they also report on the same topics as each other (Breen & Matusitz, 2008; Frank, 2003). Studies have shown that because of this, most newsrooms often report on topics which exhibit attributes of: drama; elite nations; cultural resonance, and personalization (Harcup & O’Neill, 2001; Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). News reports that exhibit these elements
are “easy to consume” for a broad public, which attracts it to consume these news reports in preference to others. When news is reported about countries that do not belong to the elite nations, nations with different cultures and of a low economical class, journalists try to find cultural similarities so that the audience can identify themselves with the reported situation (Rowling, Jones, & Sheets, 2011). To keep the attention of their reader, traditional journalists try to add drama by focussing on the negativities of the issue and show the impact of the issue on individuals to make the audience emphasize more with the issue which is more likely to cause strong emotions.
By focussing on these elements, it is questionable whether journalists are still the watchdog of democracy or if they have now become mere producers of entertainment news (Brants & van Praag, 2006). Scholars are arguing that journalists need to alarm citizens about topics that are important for them to know about, to create an opinion and to act on these issues when necessary. To make citizens aware of these topics, journalists need raise awareness on these topics by creating awareness. Because of the high competition of other news channels, traditional journalists are tempted to become more “entertaining” (Boczkowski, Mitchelstein, & Walter, 2012). The question is, do alarming citizens and reporting objectively go hand in hand?
Iconic images
Nowadays, traditional journalists are looking for elements that will grab people’s attention in a highly competitive market. “Eye-tracking” experiments indicate that images attract more attention (Assefa, 2010; Reese et al., 2001), evoke stronger emotions (Fahmy & Kim, 2008; Wanta & Roark, 1993) and are more memorable than text. Because of this effect, images are an effective instrument for journalists to use to grab the attention of their audience. Therefore, the front-pages of most newspapers are often filled with impressive photos with big headlines (Lester, 1988; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000; Valkenburg et al., 1999).
However these photos used by journalists only shows a still of an issue, which gives only a simplified portrayal of a complex issue. This simplification of news is called “framing” experiments show that visual frames can affect emotions, attitudes and the recall of news articles (Hariman & Lucaites, 2003; Pfau et al., 2006). This effect can even be relevant to someone’s interpretation of an article. When someone reads an article, after they have seen a visual frame, the frame can cause them to be biased and interpret the article in congruency with the visual frame (Wanta & Roark, 1993).
Many scholars tried to profile different frames to see whether different frames cause different effects. Results of different experiments (Bennett, 2001; Neuman, 1992) show that, the “human interest” frame has significantly stronger attitudinal, emotional and recall effects than other frames. The human-interest frame highlights the impact of issues on individuals, which makes news more personal and creates drama, which in turn retains the audience’s interest. However, there are studies that have reported that frames do not always have these effects (Valentino, Beckmann, & Buhr, 2001). According to the studies, frames can only influence people before they have formed a strong opinion on an issue. Partisanship can lead to selective exposure where people will interpret the information in such a way that it will conform to their own thoughts, which will induce the framing effects (Gerber & Huber, 2010).
On rare occasions, an image with the characteristics of the human-interest frame, evokes such strong emotions that it becomes iconic for an issue (Kleppe & de Vries, 2013; Zarzycka & Kleppe, 2013). The most well known example of an image that became iconic for a conflict is the photo of the burned Vietnamese girl, pictured running to escape napalm bombs during the Vietnam war (Hariman & Lucaites, 2003). The image had an enormous impact on American citizens, as they had not expected the U.S. army to be so cruel to the Vietnamese population. Also, the photo of the lone protester in Bejing (Hubbert, 2014), the starving young girl in Sudan (Cowley, 2010), the Iraqis who brought down the statue of Saddam Huseyin (Major & Perlmutter, 2005), and most recently the photo of the drowned toddler (Aylan) are suggested as examples of iconic images. However, as there is no official definition with specific requirements for a photo to gain the status of icon, no official list of iconic images exists yet.
According to Hariman and Lucaites (2003) an image gains iconic status when “Those photographic images appearing in print, electronic, or digital media that are widely recognized and remembered, are understood to be representations of historically significant events, activate strong emotional identification or response, and are reproduced across a range of media, genres, or topics.” Other studies have attempted to discover the “secret formula” for these iconic images (Kleppe & de Vries, 2013; Zarzycka, 2012; Zarzycka & Kleppe, 2013). Although the code has not been cracked yet, some similarities were found in the existing images. Not only did they all fit in the human-interest frame, but they also depicted the innocent (Pallister-Wilkins et al., 2015). Gender studies have shown that it is deeply rooted in western culture that women and children are seen as defenceless innocents. Historically, men have had to work and defended their families from war, whereas women
have taken care of the children and the household. Because of this, western citizens automatically link images of children and women as victims with acts of injustice (Burman, 1994; Skjelsbaek, 2007).
Despite the similarities exhibited by iconic images, there are countless other images published that contain all of these features but nevertheless do not provoke (inter)national debate. Kleppe & de Vries (2013) states that good timing and a lot of media attention are essential for an image to gain iconic status. Merely, it is so that the fragmentation creates a cluttered process of spreading news content. People are exposed to news photos in total different contexts, as it can be spread through channels such as social media. Therefore, journalists have the task to inform citizens about these kinds of images, by bringing a balanced perspective where as many perspectives are highlighted as possible (Brants & van Praag, 2006; Zarzycka, 2015).
Looking back at history, there is evidence that iconic photos can provoke or steer big debate and create attitudes in support of depicted victims (Hariman & Lucaites, 2003; Zantingh, n.d.). However, it is not known if people will be more supportive towards depicted victims when they are exposed to images in a context other than in a journalistic report (Oeldorf-Hirsch & Sundar, 2015). Therefore, the following directional research question will be analysed.
RQ1: Do images with iconic characteristics create a more supportive attitude towards the
depicted victim when viewed in isolation than when viewed in combination with a news article?
Misinformation and rectifications
Because of the high-speed with which news is been reported nowadays, journalists now have less time to check their sources (Breen & Matusitz, 2008; Luyendijk, 2006). Although journalists try to avoid it, they frequently give incomplete information about events to keep up with other newsrooms. After the event, journalists frequently report new information, which puts a different perspective on a topic. This phenomenon is also relevant to iconic images, as the case of the iconic photo depicting Iraqis bringing down the statue of Saddam Huseyin demonstrates. Western citizens saw this image as a powerful depiction of the relief of the Iraqi people that they had been freed from dictatorship. However, after the event it was stated that the photo had been staged or framed in such a way as to make the photo look more impressive and obscure the truth (Major & Perlmutter, 2005). This misinformation led to
discussion that this photo had been used as propaganda, which could harm the credibility of journalists (Cohen, 1989).
Although it is expected that journalists will seek the truth and inform the public in a balanced way, the question is whether “corrections” or “rectifications” when there has been misinformation are beneficial or not (Wurff & Schönbach, 2012). Some experiments have reported that rectifications have little ability to correct misperceptions brought about by misinformation (Ecker, Lewandowsky, Chang, & Pillai, 2014; Rich & Zaragoza, 2015). Johnson & Seifert (1994) conducted an experiment where a group of participants were exposed to a message that stated that a fire started in a room where cans of oil paint and gas cylinders were stored. After this, a rectification was made to certain members of the group, that the cans of oil paint and gas cylinders were not in the room where the fire started. Both the group that did not receive the rectification and the group that did, inferred that the fire started because of the cans and the cylinders. Even though some the participants were aware of the misinformation, they still referred to the only possible cause of the fire which they were exposed to. (Johnson & Seifert, 1994) reported that when alternative causalities were presented, it can lead to inferential rectification of misperceptions. Seifert (2002) states that people’s inferences are based on the given causalities. When no alternative causalities are given, people will fall back on the misinformation. Another factor that can influence the effectiveness of rectifications is the time between the perceived misinformation and the rectification. Rectifications were found to be successful when the rectification was given shortly after the original message. However, this has not been supported by all the studies that have analysed this (Ecker et al., 2014; Ecker, Lewandowsky, & Tang, 2010). One explanation given for the different results is that the credibility of the source can affect the effectiveness of the rectification. When a source has been validated as highly credible it is more likely that this source can correct misperceptions (Nyhan & Reifler, 2012).
Nevertheless, these studies were mainly focussing on the effects on cognition. On an attitudinal level, studies in the United States have shown that people who watch FOX have a more negative attitude towards democratic politicians than those who watch MSNBC (DellaVigna & Kaplan, 2007). However, it is difficult to say if this is caused by the way FOX frames its political news, or that someone’s political preferences are the reason why they watch FOX.
As the effect of rectifications on attitudes has not been examined in a journalistic context, theories within persuasive communications and psychology need to be consulted. Research on the effects of persuasive communications revealed that when people were informed that
hidden advertising had been used in a television program they had watched, it created a negative attitude towards the advertised brand (Wood & Quinn, 2003). In other research, Knowles and Lynn (2004) state that these negative attitudes derive from an individual’s urge to be free in their thoughts and behaviour. When others threaten this autonomy, people will react in an attempt to restore their feeling of control. This reaction can have the opposite effects of that which the sender of a message intended such as counter attitudes and counter behaviour (otherwise known as the “boomerang effect”). Although this threat to freedom theory is well known within the study of persuasive communication, there are no studies that have tested whether this “boomerang effect” can occur as a result of misinformation. Testing the following hypothesis will give more clarity about this theory:
H1: People who are given a rectification stating that the article they just read contained
misinformation will have less supporting attitudes towards the victim depicted in the article than those who did not receive a rectification.
According to the Kohring & Matthes (2007), accuracy of information is one of four factors which contributes to people’s trust in news media. When news is found to be inaccurate, it can change people’s expectations of journalists which follows into distrust of news media. Meier and Reimer (2011) suggest that transparency and accountability of journalists are needed to maintain citizens’ trust in news media. They revealed that most newsrooms see their obligation to be accountable as an obligation to publish rectifications; therefore, most newspapers today have a special rectifications section (Wurff & Schönbach, 2012).
Although it is expected that journalists will be accountable the information, it is not to say that merely publishing rectifications will maintain trust. Although the effects of rectifications on trust in news media have not been checked before, Knowles & Lynn (2004) looked at trust of sources when contradictory information to a person’s believe had been given. They discovered that as people are not very willing to change their existing believes, they are likely to defend themselves from contradictory information. A common defend mechanism is that this person will question whether the source remains trustworthy and of any value to them and can lead to source derogation.
However, source derogation was only reported in cases where people were already strongly biased about an issue to which a rectification related. In cases where people were not already biased about an issue, their level of trust in the source was not always affected by receiving a rectification. Further, when a rectification was given by the same source as the
original message and reasonable arguments were given why the misinformation had occurred, this could reduce the loss of trust. Nevertheless, this strategy was only successful when people viewed the original source as highly reliable before they received the rectification. Even though Dutch (Wurff & Schönbach, 2012) and European surveys (Greenslade, 2010) show that journalists and news media are not distrusted, neither are they seen as very trustful and the implication is that the commercialization of news media is causing a decrease in trust in news media (Wurff & Schönbach, 2012). As the effect of rectifications on the level of trust in news media has not yet been analysed in an experiment, the following directional research question will be tested:
RQ2: Will people who read a rectification stating that an article they have just read
contained misinformation have less trust in news media than those who did not receive such a rectification?
Forewarning
In democracies, journalists are expected to question and be critical of the information that they are given and not be the lap dogs of politicians, spreading information without questioning its reliability. Today, journalists are expected to be the watchdog of society (Brants & van Praag, 2006; Strömbäck, 2005). As discussed above, journalists should be as transparent as possible in their reporting, so that they retain their credibility (Wurff & Schönbach, 2012). This means that, if a journalist wants to report on an issue on which they have been unable to obtain enough validated information, they should inform their audience of this fact. This would show citizens that journalists remain critical of the information they receive. Although this transparency is expected, no experiments have been conducted yet that can confirm whether warnings of invalid or incomplete information can affect people’s level of trust in news media. This study will attempt to provide more clarity on this matter:
RQ3: Do articles, which give warnings about possible misinformation, create more trust in
news media than articles that do not warn about this possible misinformation?
Forewarning is a strategy that is well known in persuasive communication and can be linked to the warnings given by journalists that their information is incomplete. Forewarning is used in situations where vulnerable groups in society (i.e. children) need to be protected from concealed manipulation (Janssen et al., 2010; Kiesler & Kiesler, 1964). Experiments have
shown that when people are warned before they watch a television program that it contains camouflaged advertising, their attitude towards the advertised brand becomes more negative. The reason for this “boomerang effect” is that forewarning activates people’s “persuasive knowledge”, which means that they are aware of any persuasive attempt (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1964). When someone is aware of this attempt, he/she will recognize it and reject the persuasive attempt to protect him/herself against this threat to freedom of thought. This could mean that when a journalist warns that some of his information has not yet been validated, the information may be perceived as a persuasive attempt and thus be rejected. To make this theory relevant to this study, it is hypothesized that if a journalist reports that the background story of a photo, which contains iconic elements, has not yet been validated, this could raise an awareness of possible misinformation and causes a person to reject perceived misinformation. Thus, a person may adopt a less supportive attitude towards a victim depicted in an iconic image due to perceived misinformation.
H2: When a person is forewarned that an article describing a photo depicting a victim
contains information that has not yet been validated, that person will adopt a less supportive attitude towards the victim depicted in the photo.
Although experiments indicate that forewarning can cause negative attitudes towards the message, Wood & Quinn (2003) have reported that camouflaged advertising in television programs caused less negative attitudes amongst people who were forewarned that they would be exposed to such advertising than those who were informed after they has been exposed to the advertising. Knowles & Linn (2004) hypothesises that a person’s perceived threat to his freedom is greater when he discovers that he had no control over the situation, as his persuasive knowledge was obtained after he was exposed to manipulation. Therefore, it is expected that forewarning a person could cause that person to adopt a less supportive attitude towards the content, which in this case is a less supportive attitude towards the portrayed victim. This will be tested with the following hypothesis:
H3a: When a person is forewarned that the original article may contain misinformation and
receive a rectification, they will have more supportive attitude towards the portrayed victim than those who received no forewarning and did receive a rectification.
Moreover, Seifert’s study (2002) on rectifications indicates that when invalidated information is expected, in case the information has been given by unreliable sources, this information will be distrusted. Because of this distrust, it will be harder for people to remember the information which have originally been given, which makes rectifications more successful in correcting misbelieves. This could also correct attitudes created by these misperceptions. Therefore it is likely that when a forewarning is provided in the original article and a person gets exposed to a rectification, the attitude will conform to the rectification. This means that a person that gets forewarned and receives a rectification will have a less supportive attitude than a person who does only read a rectification, forewarned or not. To support this idea, the following hypothesis will be tested:
H3b: When a person is forewarned that the original article may contain misinformation and
receive a rectification, they will have less supportive attitude towards the portrayed victim than those who did not receive a rectification.
As journalists promote their own transparency in a bid to maintain the trust of citizens, it is expected that forewarning will also induce the same negative effects as rectifications on a person’s level of trust in news media. As this theory cannot be supported by existing research, it will be tested in this experiment.
RQ4: Do people who are forewarned and receive a rectification have more trust in news
media than those who were not forewarned and received the same rectification?
By giving an answer on al these hypotheses and directional research questions, it is hoped to gain more knowledge on how iconic images can influence attitudes, whether influences on misperceptions can be corrected by rectification and forewarning and if these strategies lead to more or less trust in news media (see: figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual model with hypotheses
METHOD
An online survey experiment was conducted among a varied sample of Dutch citizens. In a between-subject 2 x 2 experimental design with a control group, participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups. Each group was exposed to the same image containing iconic elements. Groups 2 and 4 were told about the uncertain reliability of the story behind the image (factor 1: forewarning), whereas groups 1 and 3 were not. One forewarned group and one un-forewarned group (groups 3 and 4) were exposed to a second article, which explained that the story behind the image was indeed not true (factor 2: rectification).
Figure 2: Experimental design.
Group Pre-test Image Article 1 Article 2
(with rectification)
Post-test
Condition 1 (N = 62) Q1 Yes No forewarning No Q2
Condition 2 (N = 60) Q1 Forewarning No Q2
Condition 3 (N = 58) Q1 No forewarning Yes Q2
Condition 4 (N = 60) Q1 Forewarning Yes Q2
Control (N = 60) Q1 No Article No Q2
Q= Questionnaire
Participants
Participants were recruited by snowball sampling mainly via social network sites (“SNS”). The total sample consisted of 324 participants; 300 participants completed the experiment. The majority of the participants were female (57,5%), and 42.5% were male. The majority
(56.6%) were highly educated (HBO, university), whereas 37.5% (HAVO, VWO, MBO) had an intermediate level of education and 6% (primary school, VMBO, VMBO-T, MAVO, LBO) had a low level of educated. The participants ranged in age between 18 and 88 years old. The majority (51.8%) were between the age of 18 and 24, whereas 25.9% were between 25 and 39 years old, 20.6% were between 40 and 64 years old and 1.7% were 65 years or older.
Groups 2 and 4 and the control group had 60 participants. Group 3, with rectification but without forewarning had 58 participants and Group 1, with no forewarning and no rectification, had 62 participants. All participants were randomly assigned, as there was no significant difference found on education level (χ2 (28) = 20.32 p = 0,853), age (F(4, 299) =
.24, p =.91) and gender (χ2(8) = 8.43 p = 0,393)
Procedure
All participants were asked to complete a pre-test questionnaire, which was conducted to gain information about demographics, pre-existing attitudes towards social issues, pre-existing trust in organizations (the government, education, charities, media and journalism) and the participant’s level of news consumption (see: appendix B – pre-test). Participants were then randomly assigned to one of five groups, which would each be exposed to different conditions. All five groups were exposed to an image with iconic elements. The control group only received the image, with a short notification that the image was published in a Dutch newspaper in the summer of 2015. Two groups (groups 1 and 3) were exposed to a news article but were not forewarned and two groups (groups 2 and 4) were forewarned. In addition, groups 3 and 4 (one forewarned on one not forewarned) were also exposed to a second article, a rectification, which stated that the first article contained inaccurate information. Finally, participants completed a post-test questionnaire to assess their attitudes and behaviour towards the reported issue, and their trust in news media (see: appendix B – post-test). Due to the manipulative nature of the experiment, which presented articles to the participants containing false information, ethical permission for the experiment was requested from and granted by ASCor. To prevent the participants being permanently affected by the manipulation, a short debriefing took place immediately after the experiment (see: appendix B - debriefing).
Stimulus Material
The stimulus article used for this experiment related to sweatshops, which are workshops where employees work long hours under poor conditions for low wages. The article discussed the poor working conditions in factories located in Myanmar, which produces clothing for big fashion retailers such as H&M and Primark. This topic was used, as it has been discussed in mass media and by society (e.g. Collapse Rana Plaza, 2014; Primark customer reportedly finds letter from Chinese sweatshop worker, 2015). As a consequence, it is most likely that participants will have enough knowledge about the topic that they can have an opinion on the matter. However, this topic was not being widely reported on in the news at the time that the experiment was conducted, which ensured that the experiment was not greatly influenced by external stimuli. The stimulus image used for this experiment had to contain iconic elements, and be designated as such by existing studies (Pfau et al., 2006; Zarzycka, 2012): the portrayal of the innocent, the innocent as a victim, (cultural) recognition and shock. The image used was of a dead woman lying in the street, with as small child clinging to her lifeless body (see: image 1).
Forewarning. To differentiate between the articles that did and did not include forewarning, the titles of each stimulus were slightly different. The title of the article which was shown to the forewarned groups (groups 2 and 4) was: “DID POOR WORKING CONDITIONS IN SWEATSHOP CAUSE YOUNG MOTHER'S DEATH?” and the title of the article which was shown to the groups which were not forewarned (groups 1 and 3) was “YOUNG MOTHER DIES BECAUSE OF POOR WORKING CONDITIONS IN SWEATSHOP”. The title of the article with forewarning contained a subtle doubt about validity of the story, whereas the title of the article without forewarning was a certain statement. Also, in the article with forewarning a short paragraph was added that expressed doubt regarding the source. The additional paragraph stated that the author of the image had not yet been interviewed, and that because of this the story behind the image could not be validated. Another short paragraph was added at the end, which reported a statement from a spokesman of Primark, stating that it did not know about this case and that it is working very hard on improving working conditions (see: appendix A – original article).
Rectification. The two groups that were exposed to a rectification (groups 3 and 4) read a second article. To introduce this article, a short introduction was given to explain that the rectification was published two weeks after the first article. This article, which did not have an image, explained that the death of the women in the photo had nothing to do with poor working conditions. She was not even working in a factory. Instead, the picture was taken by
someone from a local newspaper and was used by a local charity to persuade people to boycott products made in sweatshops (see: appendix A – rectification).
Image 1. Used as stimulus Image 2. Not used as stimulus
Pilot
In order to choose a photo that might be perceived by the participants as iconic and therefore be a suitable stimulus for the experiment, a pilot study was conducted. 47 respondents were asked to give their opinion on two images (condition 1: N = 24, condition 2: N = 23). All of the respondents could speak English and were not Dutch.
It was important for the pilot images to be shocking, and appear to contain the elements of iconic images described in former studies (Pfau et al., 2006; Lovelace, 2010; Zarzycka, 2012). The images chosen depicted the body of a Rohingya Muslim murdered in Myanmar; however, in the experiment the participants were told that the images depicted the dead body of a worker from a sweatshop. Both images showed a dead Burmese mother with her child next to her. The first image (see: image 1) depicts a little child crying above the dead body of his mother surrounded by staring people. The second image (see: image 2) depicts a little child who is lying on his mother’s dead body, while trying to breastfeed. The participants had to say to what level they thought the image contained the seven iconic elements. This attendance level could be indicated with a 7-point bipolar scale (see: table 2).
According to Zarzycka (2015), the depiction of an innocent, for instance a victim in a conflict or of a social issue, is an essential element for an image to gain iconic status. It should evoke strong emotions and be considered as shocking. It is also important that the viewer of the image can identify with the victim, so as to evoke these emotions. In summary, the image
should be attention grabbing. With an independent sample t-tests, a significant difference was found between the emotional impact of the two images, t (45) = 1.90 p = .03 [-.0.4; 1.57]. Image 1 (M = 6.50 SD = .88) was found to provoke a greater emotional reaction than image 2 (M = 5.74 SD = 1.74). The other elements of iconic images were all found in equal measures in the two images, which meant that (emotional impact aside) either image could have been used for the experiment. It was therefore reasoned that image 1 should be chosen for the experiment, because it scored significantly higher on emotional impact than image 2 and the other elements were balanced between the images.
Table 2. Results pilot test on iconic elements
Elements Image 1 Image 2 Sign.
Not emotional / highly emotional M = 6.50 SD = .88 M = 5.74 SD = 1.74 p = .03 Calming / shocking M = 6.04 SD = 1.46 M = 5.57 SD = 1.41 No
Very happy / very sad M = 5.21 SD = 1.35
M = 4.78
SD = 1.68 No
Attracts no / a lot of attention M = 5.83 SD = 1.34
M = 5.22
SD = 2.00 No
Cannot / strongly empathize with M = 5.38 SD = 1.28
M = 4.65
SD = 2.04 No
Portrays perpetrator / victim M = 4.75 SD = 1.80
M = 4.91
SD = 1.53 No
Manipulation check
Following exposure to the stimuli, participants were asked to answer four questions that were used to check if the participants had received the correct stimuli for their group.
First, all the participants were asked if they had seen an image. Three replied that they had not and two failed to answer the question. The results of these five participants were excluded from the analysis that measured the impact of the image on the participant’s attitudes towards better working conditions in factories.
Second, the participants were asked how many articles they had read. There was a significant difference between the groups with and without rectification, F(1,238) = 405.86 p < .001. The group without rectification scored lower (M = 1.06, SD = .35) than the group with rectification (M = 1.94, SD = .33). In the group without rectification, four participants said they had not read an article and eleven participants said they read two articles. In the group with rectification, four participants said they read one article and one said that he read three articles. The analysis of the influence of rectification will be checked to see whether the results of these participants could influence the results.
Third, the participants were asked whether in the groups with and without forewarning differ significantly F(1, 111) = 7.76 p = .006. The group with forewarning scored higher on whether the article doubted the story behind the photo (M = 3.79, SD = 2.01) than those who were exposed to the article without forewarning (M = 2.76, SD = 1.89). However, only the groups were checked who read both articles. Because of a technical mistake in the survey, participants who read only the first article (with/without forewarning) did not answer this question.
The last question was asked on a 7-point Likert scale whether the rectification complies with the original article (1 = totally disagrees, 2 = totally agrees). Most participants said that the rectification disagreed with the first article (74.8%), 15% of the participants said the rectification partially agreed with the original article and only four participants said the rectification totally agreed with the first article.
Measures
Attitudes. Five statements were used to measure the dependent variable “supportive attitude towards better working conditions in factories located in less developed countries”, by asking the participants to rate each statement on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The five statements were:
1. All clothing should have a label which tells you under what kind of circumstances it was made;
2. Everyone has the right to work under good conditions; 3. All sweatshops should be closed;
4. Big companies who outsource their production to less developed countries, should invest in the development of the country;
5. Consumers should pay more for their clothing, if this means that working conditions in factories will improve.
The variable for supportive attitude is the mean value of the results for the five statements, with a value between 1 (not supporting attitude towards better working conditions) and 7 (very supportive attitude towards better working conditions), M =5.43, SD = .97, α = .75.
Trust. The dependent variable of “trust in news media” was measured by rating five statements on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The statements were based on the trust parameters developed by Kohring & Matthes (2007)
The five statements were asked as following (see: appendix B): 1. News media are credible
2. News media are independent
3. News media report objectively about domestic affairs 4. News media report objectively about international affairs 5. News media give enough information about international affairs
6. News media pay enough attention to the working conditions in sweatshops
The variable for trust is the mean of the results for the five statements (1 = no trust, 7 = very high trust), M = 3.48, SD = .97, α = .82.
RESULTS
Three directional research questions and three hypotheses will be tested. Firstly, it will be discussed whether an image containing iconic elements and depicting a victim will provoke a more supportive attitude towards the victim when presented on its own, than when presented in combination with a written article (RQ1). A supportive attitude in this context means a supportive attitude towards better working conditions in less developed countries.
Secondly, the effects of forewarning and rectification, on attitude will be discussed i.e. whether forewarning leads to less supportive attitudes (H2), and whether a rectification of misinformation will lead to less a less supportive attitude towards a depicted victim (H1). Thirdly, a comparison will be made between the two groups who were exposed to the rectification (H3a), followed by a comparison between the groups who were not exposed to the rectification (group 1 and 2) and the group who received the article with forewarning and the rectification (group 4) (H3b). Following the discussion on supporting attitudes, it will be discussed whether forewarning leads to more trust in news media (RQ3) and rectification
leads to less trust in news media (RQ2) and whether the negative affects of rectification can also result from forewarning (RQ4).
Effects on attitude
All participants (N = 300) rated the five statements, measuring the positivity of their attitudes towards better working conditions in factories located in less developed countries. The average score was slightly positive to quite positive (M = 5.43, SD = .97) and only 1.7% had a negative score.
By comparing the mean score on attitude for each group with a one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), a significant difference was found between the groups’ mean scores on attitude, F(4, 299) = 2.60 p = .04 η2 = .06. Respondents in the control group scored highest (M = 5.69, SD = .94) and respondents in group 4 (forewarning and rectification) scored lowest (M = 5.21, SD = .95). An LSD post-hoc test found a significant difference only between the control group and group 3 (without forewarning and with rectification) (Mdifference = .45 p =
.01); and group 4 (with forewarning and with rectification) (Mdifference = .48, p < .01).
Comparing the results of the control group with the results of condition groups 1 to 4 reveals a significant difference in means F(1, 293) = 4.41 p = 0.04, η2 = .02. There was a more supportive attitude towards better working conditions in the control group (in which participants saw only the image) (M = 5.67 SD = .93), than in condition groups 1 to 4 (in which participants saw the image in combination with a written article) (M = 5.37 SD = .98). η2 = .01. This lends support to RQ1: Viewing an image containing iconic elements on its own will lead to a more supportive attitude towards the portrayed victim than when the image is viewed in combination with a written article.
No significant difference was found between the control group and the groups that were not exposed to a rectification, group 1 (not forewarned and no rectification) and group 2 (forewarned and no rectification) (Mdifference = .04 p = .81). This means that H2 can be
rejected; forewarning does not lead to a less supportive attitude towards the portrayed victim. Comparing the results of group 3 and group 4 (who read the first article and the rectification article) with the results of group 1 and group 2 (who only read the first article) reveals a significant difference in means, F(1, 238) = 5.19 p = .03. The participants who did not read the rectification article (M = 5.50, SD = 1.00) had a more supportive attitude towards better working conditions than the groups who did read the rectification (M = 5.23, SD = .92). However, only a very small effect was measured (η2 = .03). H1 was supported; a rectification decreases the degree to which a supportive attitude will be provoked by an iconic image
depicting a victim, which in this context meant a less supportive attitude towards better working conditions.
Interaction between forewarning and rectification was analysed by using a two way ANOVA. However, no significant interaction was found, F(1, 240) = .003 p = .95. There is no evidence that forewarning can decrease the negative effect of a rectification on supportive attitudes towards better working conditions, which means that hypothesis H3a cannot be confirmed. Also no significant difference was found between the groups who did not receive rectification and the group who did receive rectification and was forewarned, F(1,181) = 3.51 p = .06. Therefore also H3b cannot be confirmed: forewarning does not lead to a less supportive attitude when a rectification has been given.
Table 3. Scores between groups on supportive attitude towards better working conditions and trust in news media.
Groups Attitude Trust
Control (Only image) M = 5.69 SD = .94 M = 3.46 SD = 1.02 Without forewarning / without
rectification
M = 5.53 SD = .96
M = 3.72 SD = .86 With forewarning / without
rectification
M = 5.48 SD = 1.06
M = 3.22 SD = 1.11 Without forewarning / with
rectification
M = 5.24 SD = .91
M = 3.51 SD = .84 With forewarning / with
rectification M = 5.21 SD = .95 M = 3.53 SD = .95 Total M = 5.43 SD = .97 M = 3.53 SD = .95 Effects on trust
All participants (N = 300) rated the seven statements, measuring the positivity of their attitudes towards better working conditions in factories located in less developed countries. The average score was neutral to slightly positive (M = 3.53, SD = .95).
The average trust of participants in news media was slightly negative to neutral (M = 3.49, SD = .97). group 1 (forewarned and no rectification) scored highest on trust in news media (M = 3.72, SD = .86) and group 3 (forewarned and no rectification) scored lowest on trust in news media (M = 3.22, SD = (1.11) (see: table 3).
No hypothesis was made about the difference between the control group and the condition groups. For this reason the control group was excluded from an ANOVA test to compare the means of the condition groups. A significant difference was found between the four condition groups, F (3, 239) = 2.88 p = .04, η2 = .04. A significant difference was found (Mdifference =
-.50 p = .004) between group 1 (not forewarned and no rectification) (M = 3.72, SD = .86) and group 2 (forewarned and no rectification article) (M = 3.22, SD = 1.11). An ANOVA between group 1 and group 2 reveals a small effect, F(1,121) = p = .006 , η2 = .06. This provides the answer to RQ3; forewarning does not lead to more, but less trust in news media.
An ANOVA between groups 1 and 2 (who read the rectification) and groups 3 and 4 (who did not read the rectification), revealed no significant difference, F(1, 239) = .15 , p = .70. This is contrary to what was expected and provided the answer to RQ2; a rectification does not lead to less trust in news media.
Figure 3. Interaction forewarning and rectification on trust
An interaction was also found between forewarning and rectification on trust in news media, F(1, 240) = 4.45 p = .04, η2 .02. When comparing the results of group 3 with group 4 (forewarned and not forewarned), both of which received the rectification, no significant difference was found, F(1, 117) = .01 p = .92. However, when comparing the results of group 1 with group 2 (forewarned and not forewarned), both of which did not receive the
2,9 3 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,7 3,8
Without rectification With rectification
Not forewarned Forewarned
rectification, a significant difference was found, F(1, 121) = 7.72 p = .006). Between the groups with and without forewarning no significant difference was found between those who were exposed to a rectification and those who did not. This means that rectification moderates the effect of forewarning in the first article. To answer RQ3; it is not that a forewarning induces negative effects caused by rectifications, but that a rectification induces negative effects of forewarning.
Figure 4. Conceptual model of measured effects.
DISCUSSION
This study was the first that measured the impact of strategies used by journalists to keep their credibility. In able to stay credible, journalists need to aim for transparency of- and accountability for their own news reports (Kohring & Matthes, 2007). By staying critical towards the information they have obtained and to correct misinformation, rectifications should be used to correct attitudes based on misbelieves and to keep the trust of the news media (Wurff & Schönbach, 2012).
Warnings given by journalists are necessary to be transparent towards their audience, in case incomplete information circulates that has not been validated (i.e. if no adversarial process has been followed). However, the results of this study show that these warnings can have negative effects on trust towards news media. An explanation for this decrease in trust in relation to forewarning can be that people expect journalists to be accurate at all time. When journalists doubt their own information this can be seen as an act of inaccuracy, which can make citizens lose trust in news media (Wurff & Schönbach, 2012).
The negative effect of forewarning based on theories within persuasive communication (Sagarin et al., 2004; Wood & Quinn, 2003), which entails that this strategy could lead to
negative attitudes towards the portrayed victim in an article, was not the case. Therefore, more knowledge is gained about the external validity of forewarning, as it is not applicable to every context. Forewarning in persuasive communication can have a negative effect on the content (i.e. a camouflaged brand advertisement) whereas in a journalistic context these negative effects do not occur (i.e. the portrayal of the innocent).
The second strategy that has been scrutinized is rectification, which has been used by journalists to stay accountable for any misinformation given earlier on. Although these rectifications are used out of accountability, it was expected that citizens could perceive the original information as deceptive or even manipulative, which could cause reactance in forms of counter attitudes and derogation of the source. Although the results of this study show a decrease in supportiveness to the portrayed victim when a person is exposed to rectification, no counter attitudes have been found in forms of a negative attitude towards the portrayed victim. This is in contradiction with the theory of Knowles and Lynn (2004) whom expected this negative effect. Therefore it is more likely that rectifications lead to a correction in attitudes that were based on misperceptions. When looking at research that has been done on corrections at a cognate level (Seifert, 2002), it is known that rectifications that are rapidly given after misinformation are more likely to be corrected. In this study the rectification was directly given after the misinformation, which made it possible to correct attitudes that were based on misperceptions. The resulting conclusion is that people are more likely to base their attitude on the rectification instead of the misinformation.
Thereby, it was expected that trust in news media would decrease because the rectification would be a recognition of misinformation in the original article. Based on the results of this study, it is now known that these rectifications do not significantly decrease trust in news media. This is a positive result, as it makes rectifications less of a threat to citizens’ trust in news media but does correct their attitude based on misperceptions.
An unexpected interaction was found between rectifications and forewarning. The results showed that the negative effect of forewarning on trust in news media could be induced by exposure to rectification, which means that when journalists warn for un-validated information, this information can best be false and rectified. This sounds like a strange assumption, as journalists should not deliberately give misinformation. However, there are some cases that journalists inform their audience about un-validated information. In example of the photo of Aylan, the photo got a lot of attention and because of its impact it was hard for journalists to ignore this photo. Therefore it was better to inform about the ambiguities concerning the validity of the background story than to ignore the photo and let the rumours
on the Internet dominate people’s perception of the truth. Nevertheless, these incomplete news stories can better be avoided and only be reported with forewarning in case journalists have strong expectations that the information to the issue needs to be added or corrected later on.
Lastly, this study also contributed to the academic debate about images with iconic elements. Although a lot of studies tried to crack the code on how an image could gain the status of iconic (Kleppe & de Vries, 2013; Zarzycka 2015), this study is the first that examined the impact of these images as separate objects. In this study it was discovered that these images could have a stronger effect when they were not placed in an article. This experiment measured a stronger supportive attitude towards the portrayed victim when it was placed out of context. This emphasizes the importance of news media to inform about high-impact photos. In a world where people can obtain news in very diverse ways such as from television, papers and social media, it is important to have knowledge about the impact of these photos in different contexts. Images that portray “the innocent victim”, could on its own create attitudes based on misperceptions. As mentioned earlier, journalists can significantly change this attitude by giving more information about the background context of the image. This highlights the reserved role for journalists to guide citizens through this tangle of un-validated information, which they are able to access nowadays.
Although this study made some contributions to the knowledge of communications, there are also some limitations that need to be mentioned, which can lead to advisements for future research. First of all, it is hard to say if the image that was used in the experiment for this study could really have all elements in order to become an iconic picture. Although it contained the elements that were determined by former studies, other external elements, like timing and media attention, can play a role in creating this iconic status. For this reason it is hard to predict which photo will gain this high status. Thereby, no comparison in this study was made between iconic images and images that do not have these elements. Also, no groups were included in this experiment that did not see the image but did read the article(s). This could have shown whether the image was making any difference on the effects that were analysed. People’s attitudes could be changed differently if they had not seen the image. Moreover it could possibly influence people’s trust in news media, as they could have expected that journalists would not publish content if they do not trust the nature of it. For these reasons, prudency is needed when making assumptions about iconic images. It could be that images without these elements can create the same effect.
Second, only one news item was used for this experiment. Future research should make clear if the same effects would occur when another news item about the same topic, or a news item about a different topic was used. When the same effects will be found there will be more assurance that the results of this study are valid.
Third, because the limited period of time in which the experiment had to be carried out, the participants were only asked once to fill in a questionnaire about their attitudes towards better working conditions and their trust in news media. For this reason it can only be said that short term effects were found (Boeije & Hart, 2009). However, to see whether rectification can still be effective in reducing the negative effects of forewarning or can still correct attitudes based on misperceptions, an experiment needs to be done over a longer period of time. To prevent that the internal validity would be harmed (i.e. learning effect)(Boeije & Hart, 2009), trust in news media and attitudes towards better working conditions in factories, were only measured in the questionnaire after the participants had been exposed to the stimulus. Hereby, no implications can be made on how existing attitudes and trust were affected by the image but also by the evidence of unreliability and forewarning.
Lastly, incorrect answers were found on the questions that were used for the manipulation check. Although most mistakes were corrected in the analyses, it was difficult to check with the manipulation check if people were conscious of the forewarning in the original article.
From this study, advice for future research will be given to gain more knowledge about the exposure of rectifications. Although interesting results have been found in this study, it needs to be sorted out how big the chance is that people will actually receive the rectification after they have been misled. Different factors such as prominence of the rectification and time between the misinformation and the rectification can have an effect on the chance that people will be exposed to rectifications.
In sum, with this study knowledge have been gained about journalists’ role in providing valid information about high-impact images. Journalists are able to decrease supportive attitudes towards the portrayed victim in case they provide information based on an adversarial process. Although journalists should not have too much influence on peoples attitudes, it is good that journalists make sure that the attitudes that people have are based on valid information. Therefore accurate news needs to be provided, as that is also most beneficial for people’s trust in news media. However, this was the first time an attempt was made to apply this theory on a different specialization within the field of communication science. Hopefully, this study will motivate others to examine whether journalistic expectations do really correspond to expectations based on ideologies (Brants & van Praag,
2006) , as this study has shown that this is not always the case. By obtaining more knowledge on these matters, these studies can function as guide for journalists in fulfilling their task as a watchdog of democracy and to keep the citizens trust in news media.
REFERENCES
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226. Doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.568041 Assefa, M. (2010). Literature review report. Current and future eye tracking experiments on
web and print document feature attractiveness.
Barthel, M. (2015, April 29). Newspapers: Fact sheet. Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/newspapers-fact-sheet/ Bennett, W. L. (2001). News : The politics of illusion / W. Lance Bennett (4th [upd. And exp.
Ed.] Ed.). New York etc: Addison Wesley Longman.
Boczkowski, P. J., Mitchelstein, E., & Walter, M. (2012). When Burglar Alarms Sound, Do Monitorial Citizens Pay Attention to Them? The Online News Choices of Journalists and Consumers During and After the 2008 U.S. Election Cycle. Political
Communication, 29(4), 347–366. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.722173
Boeije, H. ., & Hart, H. ’t. (2009). Onderzoeksmethoden. [Den Haag]: Boom Onderwijs. Brantner, C., Lobinger, K., & Wetzstein, I. (2011). Effects of visual framing on emotional
responses and evaluations of news stories about the Gaza conflict 2009. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(3), 523–540. Doi:10.1177/107769901108800304 Brants, K., & van Praag, P. (2006). Signs of media logic: Half a century of political
communication in the Netherlands. Javnost - The Public, 13(1). Retrieved from http://javnost-thepublic.org/article/2006/1/2/
Breen, G.-M., & Matusitz, J. (2008). Communicating the negative aspects of pack journalism to media reporters. Global Media Journal, 7. Retrieved from
