Project Details – Cultivating Misinformation

Overview (Abstract)

Misinformation and disinformation fertilize distrust in the news¹²³, which allows democracy-damaging polarization to grow within the United States. This polarization takes root due to the erosion of reliable information brought on by confirmation bias that constructs filter bubbles and echo chambers⁴⁵⁶⁷.

In many cases, politically motivated individuals and media outlets plant these seeds of misinformation and disinformation, leaving members of society to graze on the subsequent sillage of content. If it lacks nutrients, this information constructs a skewed perception of society, weakening the social capital bonds that germinate a functioning democracy⁸⁹¹⁰. In order to prune misinformation and disinformation from the fields of democracy that are irrigated by journalism’s flow of truth, the pathways to news that individuals take and lead them to the invasive species of information must be considered.

This risk is particularly important as it relates to the news consumption habits of rural Americans, who largely live and work in agrarian communities and exist as an important voting block within democratic politics as was evident in the 2016 election of President Donald Trump and the controversy surrounding the outcome of the 2020 election. However, current research largely ignores this swath of the United States population.

As such, with the purpose of filling this gap in the literature, this study investigates the pathways to news for individuals living and working in rural areas of the country as a way to explore how individuals come to believe in and further spread misinformation and disinformation and conspiracy theories promulgated by partisan media outlets that include, but are not limited to, talk radio, cable television, and social media.

Through the implementation of an online survey and interview data approaches that collect data from these individuals, an understanding can be gained concerning how individuals access and use news in ways that stimulate political division and polarization to flourish¹¹¹²¹³¹⁴, leading to a bruised and battered democracy. Such a method of inquiry sprouts from the social constructionism perspective of reality. This positions the media effects theories of Cultivation Theory (CT) and Uses and Gratifications Theory (U&G) as the optimal lenses through which to look at the pervasive problem of misinformation and disinformation by seeking the root cause of this noxious information’s spread.

Components

Notes & References

1
Kalogeropoulos, A., Suiter, J., Udris, L., & Eisenegger, M. (2019). News Media Trust and News Consumption: Factors Related to Trust in News in 35 Countries. International Journal of Communication (19328036), 13, 3672-3693
2
Karlsen, R., & Aalberg, T. (2021). Social Media and Trust in News: An Experimental Study of the Effect of Facebook on News Story Credibility. Digital Journalism, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1945938
3
Swart, J., & Broersma, M. (2021). The Trust Gap: Young People’s Tactics for Assessing the Reliability of Political News. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211006696
4
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
5
Lee, J., Ott, T., & Deavours, D. (2021). Combating misinformation in risk: Emotional appeal in false beliefs. In R. Luttrell, L. Xiao, & J. Glass (Eds.), Democracy in the Disinformation Age: Influence and Activism in American Politics (pp. 165-181). Routledge.
6
Nechushtai, E., & Lewis, S. C. (2019). What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 298-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.043
7
Pearson, G. D. H., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2019). Is the Confirmation Bias Bubble Larger Online? Pre-Election Confirmation Bias in Selective Exposure to Online versus Print Political Information. Mass Communication & Society, 22(4), 466-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2019.1599956
8
Belair-Gagnon, V., Nelson, J. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2019). Audience Engagement, Reciprocity, and the Pursuit of Community Connectedness in Public Media Journalism. Journalism Practice, 13(5), 558-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1542975
9
Lewis, S. C., Holton, A. E., & Coddington, M. (2014). Reciprocal journalism: A concept of mutual exchange between journalists and audiences. Journalism Practice, 8(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.859840
10
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
11
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216-9221. https://doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115
12
Darr, J. P., Hitt, M. P., & Dunaway, J. L. (2021). Home Style Opinion: How Local Newspapers Can Slow Polarization. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108950930
13
Gaultney, I. B., Sherron, T., & Boden, C. (2022). Political polarization, misinformation, and media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 14(1), 59-81. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2022-14-1-5
14
Talisse, R. B. (2021). Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe to the Other Side. Oxford University Press.