Influence of User Comments on Perceptions of Media Bias and Third-Person Effect in Online News

Electronic News

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 79-92

  Houston, J Brian ^a   Hansen, Glenn J ^a   Nisbett, Gwendelyn S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

internet; media bias; third person perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 85127062694     PISSN: 19312431     EISSN: 1931244X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1931243111407618     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Brader T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds. In How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2. Brisbane A. S. (2010, December 11). Readers with plenty to say. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
3. Cohen J. Mutz D. Price V. Gunther A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161–173.
4. Davison W. P. (1983). The third person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15.
5. Duck J. M. Terry D. J. Hogg M. A. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 305–325.
6. Eveland W. P. Jr. Shah D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101–117.
7. Gibbon P. Durkin K. (1995). The third-person effect: Social distance and perceived media bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 597–602.
8. Glaser M. (2008, January 16). Traditional media ready to elevate the conversation online—With moderation. Mediashift: Your Guide to the Digital Media Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/
9. Golan G. J. Day A. G. (2008). The first-person effect and its behavioral consequences: A new trend in the twenty-five year history of third-person effect research. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 539–556.doi: 10.1080/15205430802368621
10. Gunther A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355–372.
11. Gunther A. C. Schmitt K. (2004). Mapping the boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55–70.
12. Ingram M. (2010, June 16). Yes, comments can get noisy, but we like them anyway. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com
13. Lowry D. T. Shidler J. A. (1995). The sound bites, the biters, and the bitten: An analysis of network TV news bias in campaign’92. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 33–44.
14. Perez-Pena R. (2010, April 11). News sites rethink anonymous online comments. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.newyorktimes.com
15. Pew Research Center. (2010, September 12). Americans spending more time following the news. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/652.pdf
16. Pitts L. (2010, March 31). Anonymity brings out the worst instincts. The Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.www.miamiherald.com
17. Smith G. R. (2010). Politicians and the news media: How elite attacks influence perceptions of media bias. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15, 319–343.
18. Spitzberg B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 629–666. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
19. Sun Y. Pan Z. Shen L. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Using evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58, 280–300.
20. Swidey N. (2010, June 20). Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster. Boston Globe Sunday Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/
21. The New York Times. (2008, December 9). Election results 2008—Oklahoma. Retrieved from http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/oklahoma.html
22. Thorson K. Vraga E. Ekdale B. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 289–313.doi: 10.1080/15205430903225571
23. 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.
24. Walther J. B. Carr C. Choi S. DeAndrea D. Kim J. Tong S. T. Van Der Heide B. (2010). Interaction of interpersonal, peer, and media influence sources online: A research agenda for technology convergence. In Papacharissi Z. (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 17–38). New York, NY: Routledge.
25. Walther J. B. DeAndrea D. Kim J. Anthony J. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36, 469–492. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01384.x
26. Yzer M. C. Southwell B. G. (2008). New communication technologies, old questions. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 8–20. doi: 10.1177/0002764208321338