Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Readers trust journalists less when they debunk rather than confirm claims

Woman looking off into the distance while holding her mobile phone

Seeing a lie or error corrected can make some people more skeptical of the fact-checker.

FG Trade/Getty Inages

Stein is an associate professor of marketing at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Meyersohn is pursuing an Ed.S. in school psychology California State University, Long Beach.

Pointing out that someone else is wrong is a part of life. And journalists need to do this all the time – their job includes helping sort what’s true from what’s not. But what if people just don’t like hearing corrections?

Our new research, published in the journal Communication Research, suggests that’s the case. In two studies, we found that people generally trust journalists when they confirm claims to be true but are more distrusting when journalists correct false claims.


Some linguistics and social science theories suggest that people intuitively understand social expectations not to be negative. Being disagreeable, like when pointing out someone else’s lie or error, carries with it a risk of backlash.

We reasoned that it follows that corrections are held to a different, more critical standard than confirmations. Attempts to debunk can trigger doubts about journalists’ honesty and motives. In other words, if you’re providing a correction, you’re being a bit of a spoilsport, and that could negatively affect how you are viewed.

How we did our work

Using real articles, we investigated how people feel about journalists who provide “fact checks.”

In our first study, participants read a detailed fact check that either corrected or confirmed some claim related to politics or economics. For instance, one focused on the statement, “Congressional salaries have gone up 231% in the past 30 years,” which is false. We then asked participants about how they were evaluating the fact check and the journalist who wrote it.

Although people were fairly trusting of the journalists in general, more people expressed suspicions toward journalists providing corrections than those providing confirmations. People were less likely to be skeptical of confirmatory fact checks than they were of debunking articles, with the percentage of respondents expressing strong distrust doubling from about 10% to about 22%.

People also said they needed more information to know whether journalists debunking statements were telling the truth, compared with their assessment of journalists who were confirming claims.

In a second study, we presented marketing claims that ultimately proved to be true or false. For example, some participants read an article about a brand that said its cooking hacks would save time, but they didn’t actually work. Others read an article about a brand providing cooking hacks that turned about to be genuine.

Again, across several types of products, people thought they needed more evidence in order to believe articles pointing out falsehoods, and they reported distrusting correcting journalists more.

Why it matters

Correcting misinformation is notoriously difficult, as researchers and journalists have found out. The United States is also experiencing a decadeslong decline of trust in journalism. Fact-checking tries to help combat misinformation and disinformation, but our research suggests that there are limits to how much it helps. Providing a debunking might make journalists seem like they’re just being negative.

Our second study also explains a slice of pop culture: the backlash on someone who reveals the misdeeds of another. For example, if you read an article pointing out that a band lied about their origin story, you might notice it seems to create a sub-controversy in the comments of people angry that anyone was called out at all, even correctly. This scenario is exactly what we’d expect if corrections are automatically scrutinized and distrusted by some people.

What’s next

Future work can explore how journalists can be transparent without undermining trust. It’s reasonable to assume that people will trust a journalist more if they explain how they came to a particular conclusion. However, according to our results, that’s not quite the case. Rather, trust is contingent on what the conclusion is.

People in our studies were quite trusting of journalists when they provided confirmations. And, certainly, people are sometimes fine with corrections, as when outlandish misinformation they already disbelieve is debunked. The challenge for journalists may be figuring out how to provide debunkings without seeming like a debunker.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The Misinformation We’re Missing: Why Real Videos Can Be More Dangerous Than Fake Ones

Many assume misinformation requires special effects or technical sophistication. In reality, much of it requires only timing, intent, and a caption.

Getty Images, d3sign

The Misinformation We’re Missing: Why Real Videos Can Be More Dangerous Than Fake Ones

Recently, videos circulated online that appeared to show Los Angeles engulfed in chaos: Marines clashing with protesters, cars ablaze, pallets of bricks staged for violence. The implication was clear, the city had been overtaken by insurrectionists.

The reality was far more contained. Much of the footage was either old, unrelated, or entirely misrepresented. A photo from a Malaysian construction site became “evidence” of a Soros-backed plot. Even a years-old video of burning police cars resurfaced with a new, false label.

Keep ReadingShow less
Activism in Free Press
The vital link between a healthy press and our republic
Getty Images

Activism in Free Press

“Media and technology are essential to our democracy” is the first statement that appears on Free Press’ website, a suitable introduction to an organization dedicated to reshaping the media landscape. Founded in 2003, Free Press was established to empower people to have a voice in the powerful decisions that shape how media and technology operate in society. Over the years, the media industry has undergone dramatic shifts, with corporate consolidation swallowing up local TV stations, radio outlets, and newspapers. This has led to a decline in independent journalism, resulting in the loss of numerous jobs for reporters, editors, and producers across the country.

Due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a piece of legislation that allows anyone to enter the communications business, it was up to Free Press to closely monitor decisions shaping the media landscape when people’s right to connect and communicate is in danger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Administration Reverses Course: Nvidia Cleared to Export AI Chips to China

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters from the Resolute Desk after signing an executive order to appoint the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the Oval Office at the White House on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Trump Administration Reverses Course: Nvidia Cleared to Export AI Chips to China

Nvidia, now the largest corporation in the world, just received the green light from the Trump administration to resume sales of its H20 AI chips to China—marking a dramatic reversal from April’s export restrictions.

The H20 Chip and Its Limits

Keep ReadingShow less
Ten Things the Future Will Say We Got Wrong About AI

A team of

Getty Images, Dragos Condrea

Ten Things the Future Will Say We Got Wrong About AI

As we look back on 1776 after this July 4th holiday, it's a good opportunity to skip forward and predict what our forebears will think of us. When our descendants assess our policies, ideas, and culture, what will they see? What errors, born of myopia, inertia, or misplaced priorities, will they lay at our feet regarding today's revolutionary technology—artificial intelligence? From their vantage point, with AI's potential and perils laid bare, their evaluation will likely determine that we got at least ten things wrong.

One glaring failure will be our delay in embracing obviously superior AI-driven technologies like autonomous vehicles (AVs). Despite the clear safety benefits—tens of thousands of lives saved annually, reduced congestion, enhanced accessibility—we allowed a patchwork of outdated regulations, public apprehension, and corporate squabbling to keep these life-saving machines largely off our roads. The future will see our hesitation as a moral and economic misstep, favoring human error over demonstrated algorithmic superiority.

Keep ReadingShow less