That's Not the Way It Is: How User-Generated Comments on the News Affect Perceived Media Bias

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 32-45

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a  

^a Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Defensive processing; Ego involvement; Hostile media perception (HMP); User generated comments; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

DEFENSIVE PROCESSING; EGO INVOLVEMENTS; HOSTILE MEDIUM PERCEPTION; NEWS ARTICLES; NEWS REPORTS; PUBLIC IS; PUBLIC OPINIONS; USER-GENERATED; USER-GENERATED COMMENT; WEB 2.0;

SOCIAL ASPECTS;

EID: 84867424754     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10836101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
2. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
3. Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2005). Development and validation of value-, outcome-, and impression-relevant involvement scales. Communication Research, 32, 235-264. doi:10.1177/0093650204273764
4. Choi, J., Yang, M., & Chang, J. J. (2009). Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon: The roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate. Communication Research, 36, 54-75. doi:10.1177/0093650208326462
5. Eveland Jr, W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and "heterogeneity" of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205-224. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
6. Eveland Jr., W. P., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101-117. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00318
7. Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449-466. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00295.x
8. Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55-70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02613.x
9. Gunther, A. C., Christen, C. T., Liebhart, J. L., & Chia, S. C. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 295-320. doi:10.1086/322846
10. Gunther, A. C., Miller, N., & Liebhart, J. L. (2009). Assimilation and contrast in a test of the hostile media effect. Communication Research, 36, 747-764. doi:10.1177/0093650209346804
11. Kim, E.-M. & Sun, Y.-H. (2006). The effect of replies in Internet news on the audience. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 50, 33-64. Retrieved from http://uci.or.kr/G300-jX955374.vn54p33
12. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
13. Lee, E.-J. (2011). Perceived bias or biased perception? Effects of readers' comments, perceived public opinion and issue involvement on the perception of news slant. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 55(3), 179-198.
14. Lee, E.-J., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others' reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers' need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37, 825-846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189
15. Na, E. K., & Rhee, J. W. (2008). A study on readers' comments: Changes in the online news usage pattern and the implications for discursive public. Seoul, Korea: Korea Press Foundation.
16. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165. doi:10.1006/jesp.1993.1007
17. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
18. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316
19. Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31, 623-641. doi:10.1177/0093650204269390
20. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. W. (1961). Social judgments: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. 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, 577-585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
22. Zillmann, D. (2002). Exemplification theory of media influence. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 19-42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.