Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rdij20
Download by: [ECU Libraries] Date: 20 July 2017, At: 07:08
Digital Journalism
ISSN: 2167-0811 (Print) 2167-082X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdij20
The Impact of Trust in the News Media on Online
News Consumption and Participation
Richard Fletcher & Sora Park
To cite this article: Richard Fletcher & Sora Park (2017): The Impact of Trust in the
News Media on Online News Consumption and Participation, Digital Journalism, DOI:
10.1080/21670811.2017.1279979
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1279979
Published online: 02 Feb 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 364
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
THE IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS
MEDIA ON ONLINE NEWS
CONSUMPTION AND PARTICIPATION
Richard Fletcher and Sora Park
Trust has long been considered an important factor that influences people’s relationship with
news. However, the increase in the volume of information available online, together with the
emergence of new tools and services that act as intermediaries and enable interactivity around
the news, may have changed this relationship. Using Reuters Institute Digital News Report survey
data (N = 21,524), this study explores the impact of individual trust in the news media on
source preferences and online news participation behaviour, in particular sharing and commenting,
across 11 countries. The results show that those with low levels of trust tend to prefer
non-mainstream news sources like social media, blogs, and digital-born providers, and are
more likely to engage in various forms of online news participation. These associations tend to
be strongest in northern European countries, but are weaker elsewhere. Seeking alternative
views and attempting to validate the credibility of news may be among the motivations
behind these associations.
KEYWORDS commenting; comparative research; intermediaries; online news; participation;
sharing; social media; trust
Introduction
The news media offer a lens through which people view society and the world.
Past studies have shown that trust in the news media influences how people access
the news, with a high degree of trust linked to the use of traditional news sources
(Tsfati and Cappella 2003). At the same time, the influence of trust has also been
shown to be quite weak, and people regularly consume news from sources they say
they do not trust (Tsfati and Cappella 2005).
There are several reasons to look again at the impact of trust following the recent
changes brought about by the growth of online news consumption (see Newman,
Levy, and Nielsen 2015). People now have unprecedented access and exposure to a
much wider variety of news sources. This gives news consumers more choice, but also
creates a more pressing need to filter credible information. News consumers are still
able to go directly to the sources they trust. However, in the digital age they also have
the option of turning to intermediaries that offer news aggregation to make source
selection quicker and easier (Bell 2014), as well as seeking (or informing) the opinions
of fellow news consumers via social media and other platforms (Lee and Ma 2012).
Digital Journalism, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1279979
Ó 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
The increased popularity of interactive online environments has also enabled a
new set of news consumption practices, given that they allow people to more easily
(and more publicly) share and rate news. On top of this, people are also able to make
their own contributions to news coverage, by uploading media, providing eyewitness
accounts, and commenting on news websites and social media, thus adding an extra
dimension to the news as a whole (Morrison 2017). For some, the result is that news
consumption is now woven into their general online activity, with the younger people
particularly likely to mix news consumption with social networking, problem solving,
social action, and entertainment (Media Insight Project 2015). There is already some evidence
to suggest that validating, and reducing the uncertainty of information, influences
how news consumers behave online (Stroud, Van Duyn, and Peacock 2016).
However, little attention has been paid to how trust in the news media might influence
participatory behaviour, where participation is broadly defined as online social interactions
directly connected to news production, consumption, and interpretation. Furthermore,
there have been almost no attempts to examine the impact of trust on both
news source preference and online news participation across multiple countries.
Using 2015 Reuters Institute Digital News Report data from 11 countries, this study
explores how different levels of trust in news might affect the participatory behaviour
of news consumers. Before doing this, we also examine the related issue of how trust
affects the preference for mainstream or non-mainstream news sources. We contrast
“mainstream news” sources—such as the BBC or the New York Times—that had (and
still have) an offline presence in the form of print or broadcasting prior to also making
their services available online, and “non-mainstream news” sources—such as The Huffington
Post, Google News, or Twitter—that are digital-born platforms which started out
by providing online-only news. In short, we find that—with some national variation—
those with low trust in the news media are more likely to prefer non-mainstream news
sources, and are more likely to engage in online news participation.
Literature Review
Trust in News
News informs citizens and enables civic engagement within democratic societies.
Due to the long-established link between news and democracy, there has been much
research on both the credibility and trustworthiness of news. Over time, this has created
a web of often-overlapping definitions and concepts that is difficult to untangle.
Trust and credibility have been used interchangeably, or with one seen as a component
of the other (Kiousis 2001). If the focus is on credibility—as it is in much of the literature
(Kohring and Matthes 2007)—trust can be seen as a central element, along with
accuracy, fairness, telling the whole story, being unbiased, and balance (Thorson, Vraga,
and Ekdale 2010; West 1994). In early studies, credibility of source was mainly studied
within the context of persuasive media messages, with credibility largely determined by
the trustworthiness of the individual who created the message (Hovland and Weiss
1951). Later the credibility of the medium was incorporated (Coleman, Morrison, and
Anthony 2012; Gaziano and McGrath 1986). Today, the reputation of the news organisation
is also considered important in determining the perceived credibility of the news.
2 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
Although trust in the news has been declining in many countries for some time, the
increase in the amount of news available online has reignited concerns about declining
credibility and news quality, and the potential harm to democracy that this might cause
(e.g. Silverman 2015).
There are a number of ways of thinking about trust in the news. Trust in the
news can be further reduced to trust in their processes of journalistic selection (e.g.
Kohring and Matthes 2007). Since it is impossible to convey all the facts, news consumers
entrust news organisations to select the most relevant information. Coleman,
Morrison, and Anthony (2012, 38) emphasised that “to trust news is not only to believe
that journalistic narrators are being honest and accurate about what can be witnessed
in the present, but that they possess reputations for past veracity and can be expected
to stay with the story wherever it might lead”. However, trust in the news can also
been studied as a more general state shaped by largely external factors. Recently, Tsfati
and Ariely’s (2014) analysis of World Values Survey data from 44 countries indicated
that trust in the news media is positively correlated with political interest, interpersonal
trust, and exposure to television news and newspapers. Education level and online
news exposure were negatively correlated.
Trust has also been studied extensively in many other disciplines. However, the
main construct has commonalities. The definition used by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman
(1995) within the context of management studies can be applied broadly. Here, trust
consists of ability (the trustor’s perception of trustee’s competencies and knowledge
salient to the expected behaviour), integrity (the trustor’s perception that the trustee
will adhere to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable), and benevolence
(the extent to which the trustee is believed to intend doing good to the trustor,
beyond their own profit motive). If applied to news, consumers of information can trust
the source if they have both the ability and intention to deliver quality information. Put
differently, “trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability
based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another”
(Rousseau et al. 1998, 395).
Trust, then, is a product of behaviours, but it can also produce behaviours. For
this reason, trust has also been studied as an independent variable. In the context of
organisations, trust often leads to co-operation in social dilemmas, enabling negotiation
and conflict resolution (Elangovan and Shapiro 1998; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman
1995). Trust in online transactions usually leads to positive outcomes, attitudes, intentions,
and behaviours (He 2011). Additionally, trust has been found to influence the participatory
level of a citizen, given that people generally act on their expectations of
how others will respond. If someone has a high level of social trust, they believe that
people will not react in negative ways when faced with dissent, whereas if they have a
low level of trust, they are inclined to believe that others will respond negatively.
Matthes’ (2013) study confirmed that low-trust individuals tend not to participate and
voice themselves when confronted with a hostile opinion environment. However, this
was only in cases when individuals had low levels of general social trust, and may not
be applicable when considering trust in specific institutions. For example, in the context
of political participation, those who have lower levels of trust tend to participate
actively in the political discourse (Levi and Stoker 2000).
Finally, trust and distrust are not antonyms, but rather two different concepts.
According to Lewicki, McAllister, and Bies (1998, 439), trust can be thought of as
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 3
“confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct”, and distrust as
“confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct”. Therefore, low trust
does simply equate to distrust. In other words, a high level of trust results in less uncertainty
or risk associated with the trustee or the trusted information, and a low level of
trust is associated with greater uncertainty.
News Sources
The internet has changed the way people source news. Most noticeably, it has
significantly increased the amount of available information, and lowered the “costs”
required to access it. Almost all traditional print and broadcast news providers now
maintain online platforms, and have been joined by a range of online-only “digitalborn”
news providers (Newman, Levy, and Nielsen 2015). Additionally, consumers can
now find news through online news aggregators, social media, and blogs (Bell 2014).
This, together with a lack of professional gatekeepers compared to traditional media
(Metzger et al. 2003), has made news organisations appear less distinct, with a wider
range of actors now able to contribute to the news production process. The internet
provides a platform where news consumers can find their own information, independent
of institutions or news companies, compiling facts from various sources. This is
complemented by social media, where users can also distribute news and form a public
discourse (Dutton 2009).
In an important early study, Tsfati and Cappella (2003) made a distinction
between mainstream and non-mainstream news sources, and found that media scepticism
was associated with non-mainstream news exposure. Their distinction between
mainstream and non-mainstream sources was essentially based on the difference
between traditional and non-traditional methods of access, but also differences in content,
presentation, and audience engagement. Mainstream news sources therefore
included national and local television stations and printed newspapers, whereas nonmainstream
news sources included talk radio and online news. With the growth of the
internet, many mainstream news brands have developed their online platforms, and
much of their content is now accessible online. As such, online news is no longer
straightforwardly non-mainstream.
Following the development of Web 2.0, studies aimed to identify factors that
shape credibility perceptions of online news content. Chung, Nam, and Stefanone
(2012) found that traditional dimensions of credibility remain influential in all types of
news, but for news offered by aggregator services, the presence of hypertext links and
ranking information increased credibility. The rapid growth of social media has made
assessing credibility harder because, in addition to providing access to news content, it
can also act as a primary news source (Vis 2013). As a result of these changes, methods
of obtaining credible and accurate news are becoming more important, with trust likely
to shape the methods individuals opt to use. In terms of how trust might shape how
users navigate this environment, Ladd (2011) argued that those who distrust the news
media tend to seek additional information from partisan sources, leading to a polarisation
of public opinion that can be harmful to society. However, there has been little
empirical research into the impact of trust on news source selection.
4 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
Online News Participation
The relationship between news and democracy has not changed in the digital
era. News media allow citizens to be informed, participate in civic activities, and feel
connected to their local communities. Some suggest that the decline in newspaper
readership and/or television news viewership is reflective of the decline in civic engagement.
Others suggest that the internet has opened up opportunities to encourage civic
engagement by offering more information at lower costs and also by providing the
platform for users to connect with each other. So far, conflicting results have been
reported by scholars (for a review, see Boulianne 2009).
One aspect of civic engagement is participation in public discourse. Not all interactions
around news make a contribution to public discourse (Ksiazek, Peer, and Zivic
2015), but at least some participatory behaviour online comprises an important element
of civic engagement in modern democratic societies. Many attempts have been made
to explain why people engage in such behaviour (e.g. Bobkowski 2015; Kang et al.
2013; Lee and Ma 2012; Ziegele, Breiner, and Quiring 2014). Among the stages of
access, production, and interpretation of news, online consumers are mainly involved in
the interpretation stage by sharing and commenting on the news (Hermida 2011). In
terms of motivations for commenting on online news, Nagar (2011) identified a desire
to voice opinions on matters of public concern, exchange information, vent, interact
socially, enjoy a discussion, empower themselves as citizens, and influence others. A
more recent study focusing on news commenting in the United States found that the
underlying motivations are diverse, but included expressing an emotion or opinion, taking
part in the debate, educating others, fact-checking, and balancing discussions
(Stroud, Van Duyn, and Peacock 2016).
Individual traits have also been linked to online participation around news. Bobkowski
(2015) found that news with informational utility is shared more, but what he
called “opinion leaders” shared news regardless of the informational utility, and shared
more news overall. Opinion leaders share more news because they find more news
with informational utility, but also because they are more willing to share. Kang et al.
(2013) suggested that online news consumers are motivated to enhance their social status
by showing off through news-sharing behaviours on social media. Making others
aware that they are knowledgeable is an important motivation for participatory news
behaviour online. Similarly, Lee and Ma’s (2012) study indicated that those who share
news on social media are information seekers who want to socialise and seek status
through sharing behaviour. Prior experience with social media also increased news-sharing
behaviour among news consumers.
Online news participation may also be a response to the sheer volume of information
available online. Pentina and Tarafdar (2014) suggest that social media helps
deal with information overload, thus allowing news consumers to make sense of large
amounts of information. The sense-making process prompts news consumers to
engage in coping strategies by screening and interpreting news. Social media plays an
important role in both activities. Similarly, interviews with commenters and content
analysis of comments have shown that news that is discussed more actively has elements
of uncertainty, controversy, comprehensibility, negativity, and personalisation
(Ziegele, Breiner, and Quiring 2014). More broadly, uncertainty has been identified as
one of the motivations for participation in virtual communities (Chao, Chang, and
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 5
Chang 2014). Tenenboim and Cohen (2015) found that certain types of news generated
more user comments than others, and that this was not necessarily related to popularity.
Sensational topics were among the most highly clicked, whereas political, social,
and controversial news were commented on more. People viewed news that aroused
their curiosity, but commented on news that created controversy. People participated
more around news of social or political conflicts, social cleavages, or provocative messages.
Furthermore, they voiced themselves when they wished to influence or criticise
others.
Most of these insights are derived from single-country studies. Yet, at the national
level, data collected as part of the Reuters Institute Digital News Report project have
revealed that participation surrounding online news varies considerably from country to
country. In general, aggregate levels of participation are higher in southern European
countries such as Spain and Italy, and lower in northern European countries and Japan.
Recent analysis of the 2014 data by Hoelig (2016) showed that differences at the
national level can be explained in terms of the performance of media and communications
institutions, with countries with low internet penetration, but also low confidence
in television, radio, and the press, home to populations that participate more. However,
there has thus far been little research into what individual attributes might be linked to
online news participation across multiple countries.
Research Questions
In this study, our aim is to understand how the level of trust in news media
affects news consumers’ source preferences and news participation behaviour across 11
countries. The volume of information that is available online has enabled access to a
wide range of mainstream and non-mainstream news sources, giving consumers more
choice when it comes to source selection. At the same time, this raises questions about
credibility and the processes used to filter credible news, given that participatory behaviour
may be useful is this regard. The following research questions were therefore for-
mulated.
RQ1: What is the relationship between individual trust in the news media and the preference
for non-mainstream news sources?
RQ2: What is the relationship between individual trust in the news media and online
news participation?
Data
The data used to address these research questions come from a survey of news
consumption carried out as part of the 2015 Reuters Institute Digital News Report project
(Newman, Levy, and Nielsen 2015). YouGov conducted the survey in partnership with
the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford during late
January and early February 2015. Both authors were involved in the latter stages of the
project. An online questionnaire was used to survey over 20,000 respondents across a
total of 12 countries. The 12 countries surveyed were: Australia, Brazil, Denmark,
6 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United
States. Respondents were drawn from YouGov’s panel, with the sample in each
country representative of the online population, and weighted according to accepted
targets based on age, gender, and region. As the survey was concerned with news use,
respondents who said that they used the news less than once a month were filtered
out. This averaged around 4 per cent in each country. Sample sizes of around 2000
respondents were used in every country other than Ireland and Finland, where sample
sizes of around 1500 were used (see Table 1).1
As those who have made use of data from the Reuters Institute Digital News
Report project have previously noted (e.g. Nielsen and Schrøder 2014), there are several
advantages and disadvantages associated with using this particular data-set. The principal
advantage is that the same core questions were asked in each country, and were
asked during the same short period of time. As a result, the data from each country are
consistent and may be pooled and analysed as a single data-set, allowing for conclusions
that to some extent transcend specific national contexts. The main disadvantage
is that, as a direct consequence of the use of an online questionnaire, the data will
under-represent the news consumption habits and views of those who are offline. Most
of the countries included in the survey have high internet penetration rates, minimising
the effect of this bias. However, given the comparatively low internet penetration rate
in Brazil, the data can be said to be representative of an “urban” sample. For consistency,
data from Brazil were not included in the analysis at the heart of this study. The
total size of the sub-sample used in this study was 21,524.
The 11 countries analysed are both similar to, and different from, one another.
They are, for example, all members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). As such, they are committed to both democracy and the market
economy, and in global terms can be considered both affluent and developed. On the
other hand, the 11 countries are drawn from four continents, and as such, diverge
culturally, economically, and politically. More specifically, they also support a variety of
TABLE 1
List of countries
Country
Starting
sample
Non-news users
(%)
Final sample
size
Total
population
Internet
penetration (%)
United
Kingdom
2313 7 2149 63,742,977 90
Germany 2035 3 1969 80,996,685 89
Spain 2127 5 2026 47,737,941 75
Italy 2059 3 2006 61,680,122 59
France 2131 7 1991 66,259,012 83
Ireland 1575 5 1501 4,832,765 79
Denmark 2097 4 2019 5,569,077 97
Finland 1527 1 1509 5,268,799 97
United
States
2588 11 2295 318,892,103 87
Japan 2141 6 2017 127,103,388 86
Australia 2164 6 2042 22,507,617 94
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 7
different media systems, varying in terms of media market structure, political
parallelism, professionalisation, and the role of the state (Hallin and Mancini 2004).
Measures
Dependent Variables
Based on previous work (Tsfati and Cappella 2003), we use our own simplified
categories of news source. We take mainstream news sources to be those sources—
such as the BBC and the New York Times—that have a print (magazines or newspapers)
or broadcasting (television or radio) legacy. Whether these sources are accessed online
(via websites or apps) or offline (via print, television, or radio) does not make a difference
under this scheme. We take non-mainstream news sources to be the opposite of
mainstream news sources, in that they do not have a print or broadcast legacy, and in
this sense are “online-only” or “digital-born”. As such, the non-mainstream category
includes dedicated digital news platforms such as The Huffington Post and BuzzFeed,
who frequently position themselves as alternatives to mainstream news sources. It also
includes news aggregators such as Google News and Yahoo News, who aggregate
news content from a variety of mainstream and non-mainstream sources, thus offering
a convenient way to access multiple sources. Finally, it includes social media platforms
such as Facebook and Twitter, which offer both a form of news aggregation as well as
primary news content. Though this categorisation is undoubtedly imperfect, it is able
to account for the fact that mainstream content can be accessed online, and that
aggregators and social media can be both used as news sources in their own
right whilst also acting as gateways offering non-traditional ways of filtering news
content.
To record a preference for non-mainstream news sources, respondents were
asked “Which would you say is your main source of news?” Respondents could select
one from (1) television news bulletins or programmes, (2) 24-hour news television channels,
(3) radio news programmes or bulletins, (4) printed newspapers, (5) printed
magazines, (6) websites/apps of newspapers, (7) websites/apps of news magazines, (8)
websites/apps of television and radio companies, (9) websites/apps of other news outlets,
(10) social media, (11) blogs, and (12) other. Appropriate country-specific examples
of news brands were appended to the end of each option to aid understanding.
Respondents that selected either websites/apps of other news outlets, social media, or
blogs as their main source of news were recoded into a binary variable: “preference for
non-mainstream a news source”, 0 = no and 1 = yes. The very small proportion that
selected other were recoded as 0 = no. Importantly, because respondents were asked
to select their one main source of news, as opposed to all of those that they might
have used within a specific time period, the data can be interpreted as news source
preference.
To record online news participation, respondents were asked “During an average
week in which, if any, of the following ways do you share or participate in news coverage?”
Respondents were able to select all that applied from (1) share a news story via a
social network, (2) share a news story via email, (3) rate, like or favourite a news story,
(4) comment on a news story on a social network, (5) comment on a news story on
8 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
a news website, (6) write a blog on a news or political issue, (7) post or send a newsrelated
picture or video to a social network site, (8) post or send a picture or video to a
news website/news organisation, (9) vote in an online poll via a news site or social network,
and (10) take part in a campaign or group based around a news subject. Those
that either shared a news story via a social network, shared a news story via email, rated/liked/favourited
a news story, or voted in an online poll were coded as 1 = yes in a
new variable called “sharing (and other forms of reactive feedback/dissemination)”.
Those that selected either comment on a news story on a social network, comment on
a news story on a news website, write a blog on a news or political issue, post or send
a news-related picture, or video to a social network site, post or send a picture or video
to a news website/news organisation, or take part in a campaign or group around a
news subject were coded as 1 = yes in a second new variable called “commenting (and
other forms of proactive contribution)”. We decided to categorise different types of participation
in this way because we felt that a potentially useful distinction could be
made between interactions that primarily serve to disseminate news content (or feed
into automated systems of dissemination or promotion), and interactions that primarily
serve to add content or context to a news story. Put differently, sharing-type interactions
aim to disseminate news content as it currently exists, whereas commenting-type
interactions aim to contribute something more to its wider interpretation.
Independent Variables
Based on the available data, we have used a broad definition of “trust in news
media”, which left the concept open to the interpretation of the respondents. We
acknowledge that media credibility is more complex and can be measured with multiple
constructs (Meyer 1988). However, for the purposes of exploring how trust in news
influences news consumers’ behaviour, a unidimensional measure of trust perception
was used in this study. To measure the level of trust in the news media, respondents
were asked “Thinking about news in general, do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?”: “I think you can trust most news most of the time”. Responses were
provided on a five-point scale, and included (1) strongly disagree, (2) tend to disagree,
(3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) tend to agree, and (5) strongly agree. Responses were
recoded into a categorical variable, with respondents who indicated agreement with
this statement classed as having high or very high trust in the news media, and respondents
who indicated disagreement classed as having low or very low trust. Those who
indicated neither agree nor disagree were classed as having a moderate level of trust
in the news.
In addition to trust in the news, a number of other variables from the survey
were included in the analysis to act as controls. These were age, gender, education,
level of interest in the news, and country. For the purposes of the analysis, age and
interest in the news were treated as continuous variables, whereas all others were treated
as categorical. All who answered “Don’t know” to any of the questions listed in this
section were removed from the analysis.
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 9
Results
Before specifically addressing our research questions, it is useful to present some
descriptive statistics. Table 2 shows the proportion within each country with each level
of trust in the news media. Trust in the news varies significantly from country to country,
and is generally highest in Finland (68.1 per cent high or very high) and Germany
(60.2 per cent), but lowest in Spain (34.2 per cent) and the United States (32.2 per
cent). Across all 11 countries, just under half of all respondents (44.5 per cent) said they
had either high or very high levels of trust in the news.
Table 3 shows the proportion of respondents in each country who expressed a
preference for a non-mainstream news source. Overall, the majority of news consumers
prefer mainstream news sources (83.8 per cent). A preference for a non-mainstream
news source is most common in the United States (30.6 per cent), Japan (26.2 per
cent), and Australia (22.4 per cent). A preference for a non-mainstream news source is
least common in Denmark (7.2 per cent), Germany (9.4 per cent), and the United Kingdom
(9.7 per cent). The fact that a relatively small proportion in each country indicated
a preference for non-mainstream news sources to some extent justifies the use of the
non-mainstream label.
Table 3 also shows the data for the different categories of online news participation.
Overall, just over half (51.7 per cent) of news consumers across the 11 countries
are passive consumers in the sense that they do not participate in any way.2
Forty per
cent share (or engage in reactive feedback around news) and 29.3 per cent comment
(or make a proactive contribution). Passive consumption is most common in Japan
(76.7 per cent), but also relatively common in Germany (60.1 per cent) and the United
Kingdom (62.6 per cent). Conversely, both sharing and commenting around news is relatively
widespread in Spain (61.1 and 47.8 per cent), Italy (49.9 and 40.1 per cent), and
the United States (47.2 and 33.4 per cent). In every country, sharing-type participation
is more common than commenting, perhaps because it is typically less demanding.
In order to examine the association between trust in the news media and the
preference for non-mainstream news sources, and the association between trust and
online news participation, we used a series of binary logistic regression models. This
TABLE 2
Trust in the news media (%)
Country Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Finland 2.8 13.3 15.8 60.5 7.6
Germany 4.0 11.2 24.6 50.5 9.7
Denmark 2.6 12.3 28.1 51.1 5.9
United Kingdom 3.6 19.1 26.0 47.8 3.6
Japan 1.4 9.5 43.5 44.3 1.3
Ireland 5.6 23.6 24.4 42.4 4.1
Australia 7.7 23.1 30.0 36.9 2.4
France 6.2 20.8 34.7 36.0 2.3
Italy 4.5 22.6 37.4 32.9 2.5
Spain 6.0 27.2 32.6 31.1 3.1
United States 9.5 24.7 33.6 27.7 4.5
Overall 5.0 19.0 30.6 41.3 4.2
10 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
allowed us to test for an association between a categorical independent variable and a
dependent variable with two categories, whilst simultaneously controlling for a number
of other variables. Employing binary logistic regression models allowed us to test for
correlations within a pooled data-set whilst also controlling for country by introducing
it as a series of dummy variables, and later examining country differences by introducing
interaction terms. Cluster-robust standard errors were also computed due to use of
complex sampling during the data collection and the subsequent potential for clustering
to occur within countries.
RQ1 asked whether there is a link between trust in the news media and a preference
for non-mainstream news sources. Table 4 shows the results of two binary logistic
regression models that were constructed to examine this relationship. The results for
Model 1 reveal that trust is indeed linked to news source preferences (when moderate
trust is treated as the reference category). The results for Model 2 show that this relationship
holds when controlling for age, gender, education, interest in the news, and
country. More specifically, very low trust is significantly associated with a preference for
non-mainstream news sources (Exp(β) = 1.51, SE = 0.09). Conversely, those with very
high (Exp(β) = 0.76, SE = 0.12) trust in the news are significantly less likely to have a
preference for non-mainstream news sources. Age was also a significant variable in the
model (Exp(β) = 0.96, SE < 0.01). Younger people are more likely to have a preference
for non-mainstream news sources than older people. Similarly, those with lower levels
of interest in the news are more likely than those with a higher level of interest to
express a preference for non-mainstream news sources (Exp(β) = 0.76, SE = 0.03).
We can also introduce interaction terms into Model 2 to examine how the
strength of the relationship between trust and news source preference varies from
country to country. The full output is too long to include here, but using moderate
trust and United Kingdom as the reference categories, we find that the association
TABLE 3
Preference for non-mainstream news source and online news participation (%)
Country
News source preference Online news participation
Mainstream
Non-
mainstream
Passive
consumption
Sharing (or
other reactive
feedback or
dissemination)
Commenting
(or other
proactive
contribution)
United States 69.4 30.6 44.4 47.2 33.4
Japan 73.8 26.2 76.7 17.5 12.5
Australia 77.6 22.4 49.6 42.9 30.6
Ireland 81.1 18.9 46.8 41.6 32.7
Italy 84.0 16.0 38.8 49.9 40.1
Spain 86.6 13.4 30.4 60.1 47.8
France 87.9 12.1 47.2 44.3 29.7
Finland 89.7 10.3 58.3 33.7 26.0
United Kingdom 90.3 9.7 62.6 30.6 22.0
Germany 90.6 9.4 60.1 32.2 22.4
Denmark 92.8 7.2 54.7 39.1 24.6
Overall 83.8 16.2 51.7 40.0 29.3
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 11
between very low trust and non-mainstream preference is strongest in the United Kingdom,
but significantly weaker (p < 0.05) in the United States (Exp(β) = 0.45, SE = 0.36),
Italy (Exp(β) = 0.21, SE = 0.68), Finland (Exp(β) = 0.36, SE = 0.41), and Australia (Exp(β) =
0.28, SE = 0.39). With the exception of Finland, each of these countries has relatively
popular non-mainstream news brands, such as Yahoo News in the United States and
Japan, or digital-born/legacy partnerships, such as Yahoo7 and (formerly) Ninemsn in
Australia (Newman, Levy, and Nielsen 2015). In Finland, overall trust in the news is high,
so we might also expect the impact of low trust to be less salient. There was no significant
difference between the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Ireland,
and Japan.
Turning to RQ2, this research question asked whether there is a link between
trust in the news media and online news participation. To look at this in more depth,
we examine two different modes of online news participation. Table 5 shows the
results of four separate binary logistic regression models that were used to test for
these associations. Again, moderate trust was treated as the reference category. Columns
headed Model 1 and Model 2 contain the results when the dependent variable
was sharing (and other forms of reactive feedback or dissemination), and columns
headed Model 3 and Model 4 contain the results for commenting (and other forms of
TABLE 4
Regression results I (dependent variable: preference for non-mainstream news media)
Exp(β) (SE)
Model 1 Model 2
Trust (ref.: moderate)
Very low 1.37 (0.08)*** 1.51 (0.09)***
Low 1.07 (0.05) 1.14 (0.06)*
High 0.57 (0.04)*** 0.74 (0.05)***
Very high 0.57 (0.11)*** 0.76 (0.12)*
Age 0.96 (0.00)***
Gender (ref.: male) 0.96 (0.04)
Interest in news 0.76 (0.03)***
Education (ref.: in education)
School 1.00 (0.09)
University/professional 1.00 (0.09)
Country (ref.: United Kingdom)
United States 4.52 (0.09)***
France 1.12 (0.11)
Germany 0.98 (0.11)
Denmark 0.66 (0.12)***
Italy 1.03 (0.12)
Spain 1.85 (0.10)***
Finland 1.38 (0.10)**
Japan 3.77 (0.10)***
Australia 2.51 (0.10)***
Ireland 1.92 (0.10)***
Constant 0.23 (0.03)*** 1.50 (0.14)**
N 21,127 21,106
Nagelkerke R2
0.02 0.17
*
P < 0.05; **
P < 0.01; ***
P < 0.001.
12 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
proactive contribution). Because both forms of participation require each respondent to
be online, and in light of a possible association with trust implied by earlier results, we
also added an extra control variable for online news use.
The results for all models are strikingly similar for both sharing and commenting.
Trust in the news media is a significant variable and is associated with both forms of
participation. Those with a low and very low level of trust in the news are significantly
more likely to engage in online news participation than those with moderate trust.
Those with very high trust are also more likely to engage in both forms of participation.
However, when controls are introduced, the association between very high trust and
both categories of participation is no longer significant, meaning that only those with
low (Exp(β) = 1.26, SE = 0.04 and Exp(β) = 1.17, SE = 0.05) and very low trust (Exp(β) =
1.42, SE = 0.07 and Exp(β) = 1.53, SE = 0.07) in the news are more likely to engage in
either. Interest was also a significant variable for both forms of participation, with those
with a high level of interest more likely to participate (Exp(β) = 1.46, SE = 0.02 and Exp
(β) = 1.48, SE = 0.02).
Again, we can add interaction terms to examine how these relationships vary
from country to country (not shown). When we do this, we see that the association
between news sharing and very low trust is significantly weaker in Italy (Exp(β) = 0.36,
SE = 0.45), Finland (Exp(β) = 0.50, SE = 0.31), Australia (Exp(β) = 0.42, SE = 0.30), and Ireland
(Exp(β) = 0.39, SE = 0.34) than in the United Kingdom. Compared to the United
TABLE 5
Regression results II (dependent variable: type of online news participation)
Exp(β) (SE)
Sharing (and other forms of
reactive feedback or
dissemination)
Commenting (and other forms
of proactive contribution)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Trust (ref.: moderate)
Very low 1.76 (0.07)*** 1.42 (0.07)*** 1.82 (0.07)*** 1.53 (0.07)***
Low 1.48 (0.04)*** 1.26 (0.04)*** 1.37 (0.04)*** 1.17 (0.05)***
High 1.04 (0.03) 1.03 (0.04) 0.97 (0.04) 0.96 (0.04)
Very high 1.24 (0.07)** 1.07 (0.08) 1.23 (0.08)** 1.05 (0.08)
Age 1.00 (0.00) 0.99 (0.00)***
Gender (ref.: male) 1.01 (0.03) 0.97 (0.03)
Interest in news 1.46 (0.02)*** 1.48 (0.02)***
Education (ref.: in education)
School 0.87 (0.08) 1.14 (0.08)
University/professional 0.97 (0.08) 1.15 (0.08)
Online news use (ref.: no) 3.55 (0.04)*** 3.40 (0.05)***
Country (ref.: United Kingdom)
United States 2.34 (0.07)*** 1.72 (0.07)***
France 2.09 (0.07)*** 1.64 (0.08)***
Germany 1.25 (0.07)** 1.09 (0.08)
Denmark 1.40 (0.07)*** 1.07 (0.08)
Italy 1.08 (0.07) 1.13 (0.08)
Spain 2.16 (0.07)*** 2.08 (0.07)***
Finland 2.92 (0.07)*** 2.60 (0.07)***
Japan 0.49 (0.08)*** 0.50 (0.09)***
Australia 1.51 (0.07)*** 1.29 (0.07)***
Ireland 1.46 (0.07)*** 1.45 (0.08)***
Constant 0.59 (0.03)*** 0.05 (0.12)*** 0.38 (0.03)*** 0.05 (0.13)***
N 21,524 21,486 21,524 21,486
Nagelkerke R2
0.01 0.17 0.01 0.15
**
P < 0.01; ***
P < 0.001.
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 13
Kingdom, the association between very low trust and commenting is significantly
weaker in the United States (Exp(β) = 0.53, SE = 0.29), France (Exp(β) = 0.39, SE = 0.34),
Denmark (Exp(β) = 0.37, SE = 0.43), Italy (Exp(β) = 0.34, SE = 0.32), and Australia (Exp(β)
= 0.36, SE = 0.32). The association between very low trust and both forms of participation
was strongest in the United Kingdom. In either case there was no significant difference
between the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and Japan.
Discussion
In an environment where there are multiple news sources to choose from, and
various ways to share views, the issue of trust has become more complex. Our analysis
of the data provided by 21,524 survey respondents across 11 countries has revealed
that—with some significant national variation—those with low trust in the news media
are more likely to prefer non-mainstream news sources, and are more likely to engage
in online news participation.
More specifically, those with low trust in the news are more likely to say that
their main source of news is either social media, blogs, or news outlets that do not
have either a print or broadcast legacy. This finding chimes with that of an earlier study
that revealed that media scepticism is positively associated with non-mainstream news
exposure (Tsfati and Cappella 2003). Tsfati and Cappella argued that, if it is assumed
that news audiences make rational choices, it follows that those who have low trust in
the news media will prefer to consume news from sources that represent alternative
views, use informal styles of delivery, and are often critical of media practices and institutions.
The same explanation can also be applied to the findings presented here, providing
we update our ideas about what counts as non-mainstream. For Tsfati and
Cappella, non-mainstream news sources included talk radio and all online news, and
mainstream referred to printed newspapers and television. However, during the intervening
period many mainstream news publishers have successfully transitioned online,
with much online content now mirroring offline content. This, combined with the emergence
of new online-only sources of news that position themselves as alternatives to
the mainstream, suggests that we should now categorise some news sources
differently.
On top of this, some non-mainstream news platforms—particularly social media
and online news aggregators—fulfil multiple roles in terms of news consumption.
Though they are used as primary news sources, they can also be thought of as digital
intermediaries that act as gateways to other sources of news. In light of this, it is likely
that some of those with low trust in the news media—in addition to those who prefer
non-mainstream sources because they offer an alternative view—prefer to use non-mainstream
sources precisely because they provide quick access to a range of different (mainstream
or non-mainstream) news sources, and thus a range of views and perspectives. In
this sense, non-mainstream news sources can also be thought of as filtering tools.
It is, however, appropriate to be cautious about the direction of causality concerning
low trust in the news media and the preference for non-mainstream news
sources. Whilst it is plausible that those who have low trust in the news have a preference
for non-mainstream sources because they are actively seeking out either a wider
range of views or a non-mainstream perspective, it is also possible that those who have
14 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
a preference for non-mainstream sources for other reasons have therefore developed a
low trust as a consequence. It also possible that those who say they prefer social media
as a source of news do so because they find it to be a convenient way of staying
informed while doing other things. This may explain why those who prefer non-mainstream
news sources also tend to say they are less interested in the news. However,
self-reported low interest in the news could be due to a lack of interest in what are
normally thought of as mainstream news topics. The perception of what constitutes
news may be changing in the digital environment.
Our analysis has also revealed a negative association between trust in the news
media and online news participation. More specifically, those with low trust in the news
are more likely than those with moderate or high trust to engage in either sharing- or
commenting-type behaviour. One way of interpreting this would be to simply conclude
that those with low trust are more likely to want to express their disapproval of news
coverage. An alternative view is that news consumers with low levels of trust seek to
verify news content, or offer it to others, by engaging in online participation. In this
respect, participation can be seen as an additional news-filtering strategy. Low trust in
the news may also prompt some consumers to more directly contribute to news production
by creating or uploading their own news content, particularly in light of the
positive association between interest in the news and online news participation. It
should be acknowledged that individual motivations for online news participation are
complex and varied, which explains why the effect of trust on participation is significant
but small. Nonetheless, the idea that low trust may be driving participation around
online news should give pause to those who see such behaviour as inherently positive.
Participatory behaviour is often regarded as civic engagement. However, we should
caution against making a uniform conclusion. For example, for journalists and news
organisations, using “number of shares” as a metric for judging the “success” of an article
may be misleading if a significant proportion of shares are motivated by low trust
and surrounded by negative sentiment. Participation may partly reflect distrust or
disapproval.
We acknowledge that these findings are perhaps in contrast to an existing body
of literature in which high levels of societal or interpersonal trust are seen as enabling
active participation in public discourse. If an individual has low trust levels towards
others, then it is more likely that they will anticipate a negative response and therefore
would be reluctant to participate in the discussion. However, as earlier research has
alluded to (e.g. Zamith and Lewis 2014), it is questionable whether this understanding
is applicable to participation around online news. A link between low trust in the news
and participation—and a particularly strong association in the United Kingdom—seems
more plausible when we remember that moderating comment sections on news websites
like The Guardian are thought to be home to strident cynicism, negativity, and
abuse (Burrows 2016). It is for reasons like this that co-ordinated efforts—like the Coral
Project—exist to produce “better” commenting around news.
Finally, it should be remembered that this study was based on secondary analysis
of an international data-set. Secondary analysis can be a powerful technique, but the
variables used may not fully reflect the concepts described. However, using large sample
data, we were able to link the relationship between trust, news source preference,
and how news consumers respond to and participate in an online news environment
across multiple countries.
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all those who worked on the 2015 Reuters Institute
Digital News Report project for their input.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
FUNDING
The authors disclose receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report
2015 was supported by Google, BBC, Ofcom, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland
(BIA), France Te´le´visions, L’Espresso Group Italy, the Media Industry Research Foundation
of Finland, Edelman UK, as well as by academic sponsors and partners at Roskilde
University, the Hans Bredow Institute, the University of Navarra, the Tow Center at
Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, and the University of Canberra.
NOTES
1. For more details about the methodology used for the 2015 Reuters Institute Digital
News Report project, see http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2015/survey-
methodology-2015.
2. The figures we report here for passive consumption are higher than those implied
by Newman, Levy, and Nielsen (2015). This is because their net figures for news
participation include talking about the news online and talking about the news
face-to-face. In the case of talking about news face-to-face, we did not include
this in our measure because it does not take place online, and in the case of talking
about news online, we felt that this was too diffuse an activity to be used in
the analysis.
REFERENCES
Bell, Emily. 2014. “Silicon Valley and Journalism: Make up or Break up?” Reuters Memorial
Lecture. University of Oxford. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/silicon-valley-
and-journalism-make-or-break
Bobkowski, Piotr S. 2015. “Sharing the News: Effects of Informational Utility and Opinion
Leadership on Online News Sharing.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
92 (2): 320–345.
Boulianne, Shelley. 2009. “Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of
Research.” Political Communication 26 (2): 193–211.
16 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
Burrows, Marc. 2016. “They Called It the ‘Worst Job in the World’—My Life as a Guardian
Moderator.” The Guardian, April 18. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/
18/welcome-to-the-worst-job-in-the-world-my-life-as-a-guardian-moderator
Chao, Ruey-Ming, Chen-Chi Chang, and Wen-Yu Chang. 2014. “Exploring the Antecedents of
Trust from the Perspectives of Uncertainty and Media Richness in Virtual Community.”
International Journal of Web Based Communities 10 (2): 176–187.
Chung, Chung Joo, Yoonjae Nam, and Michael A. Stefanone. 2012. “Exploring Online News
Credibility: The Relative Influence of Traditional and Technological Factors.” Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 17 (2): 171–186.
Coleman, Stephen, David E. Morrison, and Scott Anthony. 2012. “A Constructivist Study of
Trust in the News.” Journalism Studies 13 (1): 37–53.
Dutton, William H. 2009. “The Fifth Estate Emerging through the Network of Networks.”
Prometheus 27 (1): 1–15.
Elangovan, A. R., and Debra L. Shapiro. 1998. “Betrayal of Trust in Organizations.” Academy
of Management Review 23 (3): 547–566.
Gaziano, Cecilie, and Kristin McGrath. 1986. “Measuring the Concept of Credibility.” Journalism
Quarterly 63 (3): 451–462.
Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media
and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
He, Jun. 2011. “Understanding the Sources and Impacts of Trust in E-Commerce: A MetaAnalysis.”
AMCIS 2011 Proceedings, 142.
Hermida, Alfred. 2011. “Mechanisms of Participation: How Audience Options Shape the Conversations.”
In Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers, edited
by Jane B. Singer, Alfred Hermida, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen,
Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich, and Marina Vujnovic, 13–32. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hoelig, Sascha. 2016. “Social Participation in Online News Usage in Europe and Its Underlying
Causes: Individual versus Structural Factors.” European Journal of Communication,
31 (4): 393–410.
Hovland, Carl I., and Walter Weiss. 1951. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication
Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (4): 635–650.
Kang, Hyunjin, Jeong Kyu Lee, Kyung Han You, and Seoyean Lee. 2013. “Does Online News
Reading and Sharing Shape Perceptions of the Internet as a Place for Public Deliberations?”
Mass Communication and Society 16 (4): 533–556.
Kiousis, Spiro. 2001. “Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the
Information Age.” Mass Communication and Society 4 (4): 381–403.
Kohring, Matthias, and Jo¨rg Matthes. 2007. “Trust in News Media: Development and
Validation of a Multidimensional Scale.” Communication Research 34 (2): 231–252.
Ksiazek, Thomas B., Limor Peer, and Andrew Zivic. 2015. “Discussing the News: Civility and
Hostility in User Comments.” Digital Journalism 3 (6): 850–870.
Ladd, Jonathan M. 2011. Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Lee, Chei Sian, and Long Ma. 2012. “News Sharing in Social Media: The Effect of Gratifications
and Prior Experience.” Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2): 331–339.
Levi, Margaret, and Laura Stoker. 2000. “Political Trust and Trustworthiness.” Annual Review
of Political Science 3 (1): 475–507.
Lewicki, Roy J., Daniel J. McAllister, and Robert J. Bies. 1998. “Trust and Distrust: New Relationships
and Realities.” Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 438–458.
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 17
Matthes, Jo¨rg. 2013. “Do Hostile Opinion Environments Harm Political Participation? The
Moderating Role of Generalized Social Trust.” International Journal of Public Opinion
Research 25 (1): 23–42.
Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. “An Integrative Model of
Organizational Trust.” Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734.
Media Insight Project. 2015. How Millennials Get News: Inside the Habits of America’s First
Digital Generation. Arlington, VA: American Press Institute.
Metzger, Miriam J., Andrew J. Flanagin, Keren Eyal, Daisy R. Lemus, and Robert M. McCann.
2003. “Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message,
and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment.” Annals of the International
Communication Association 27: 293–335.
Meyer, Philip. 1988. “Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an
Index.” Journalism Quarterly 65 (3): 567–588.
Morrison, James. 2017. “Finishing the ‘Unfinished’ Story: Online Newspaper DiscussionThreads
as Journalistic Texts.” Digital Journalism 5 (2): 213–232.
Nagar, Na’ama. 2011. The Loud Public: The Case of User Comments in Online News Media.
Doctoral Thesis, Albany, New York: SUNY.
Newman, Nic, David A. L. Levy, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2015. Reuters Institute Digital News
Report 2015: Tracking the Future of News. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Oxford: University of Oxford.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis, and Kim Christian Schrøder. 2014. “The Relative Importance of Social
Media for Accessing, Finding, and Engaging with the News: An Eight-Country CrossMedia
Comparison.” Digital Journalism 2 (4): 472–489.
Pentina, Iryna, and Monideepa Tarafdar. 2014. “From ‘Information’ to ‘Knowing’: Exploring
the Role of Social Media in Contemporary News Consumption.” Computers in Human
Behavior 35: 211–223.
Rousseau, Denise M., Sim B. Sitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer. 1998. “Not So Different
after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust.” Academy of Management Review 23 (3):
393–404.
Silverman, Craig. 2015. Lies, Damn Lies, and Viral Content: How News Websites Spread (and
Debunk) Online Rumors, Unverified Claims, and Misinformation. Tow Centre for Digital
Journalism, Columbia University.
Stroud, Natalie Jomini, Emily Van Duyn, and Cynthia Peacock. 2016. News Commenters and
News Comment Readers. New York, NY: Engaging News Project. http://engag
ingnewsproject.org/research/survey-of-commenters-and-comment-readers/
Tenenboim, Ori, and Akiba A. Cohen. 2015. “What Prompts Users to Click and Comment: A
Longitudinal Study of Online News.” Journalism 16 (2): 198–217.
Thorson, Kjerstin, Emily Vraga, and Brian Ekdale. 2010. “Credibility in Context: How Uncivil
Online Commentary Affects News Credibility.” Mass Communication and Society 13 (3):
289–313.
Tsfati, Yariv, and Gal Ariely. 2014. “Individual and Contextual Correlates of Trust in Media
across 44 Countries.” Communication Research 41 (6): 760–782.
Tsfati, Yariv, and Joseph N. Cappella. 2003. “Do People Watch What They Do Not Trust?
Exploring the Association between News Media Skepticism and Exposure.” Communication
Research 30 (5): 504–529.
18 RICHARD FLETCHER AND SORA PARK
Tsfati, Yariv, and Joseph N. Cappella. 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 (3): 251–271.
Vis, Farida. 2013. “Twitter as a Reporting Tool for Breaking News: Journalists Tweeting the
2011 UK Riots.” Digital Journalism 1 (1): 27–47.
West, Mark D. 1994. “Validating a Scale for the Measurement of Credibility: A Covariance
Structure Modeling Approach.” Journalism Quarterly 71 (1): 159–168.
Zamith, Rodrigo, and Seth C. Lewis. 2014. “From Public Spaces to Public Sphere: Rethinking
Systems for Reader Comments on Online News Sites.” Digital Journalism 2 (4):
558–574.
Ziegele, Marc, Timo Breiner, and Oliver Quiring. 2014. “What Creates Interactivity in Online
News Discussions? An Exploratory Analysis of Discussion Factors in User Comments on
News Items.” Journal of Communication 64 (6): 1111–1138.
Richard Fletcher, (author to whom correspondence should be addressed), Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics and International
Relations, University of Oxford, UK. E-mail: richard.fletcher@politics.ox.ac.uk
Sora Park, Faculty of Arts & Design, University of Canberra, Australia. E-mail:
sora.park@canberra.edu.au ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3082-314X
IMPACT OF TRUST IN THE NEWS MEDIA 19