AEJMC Archives

AEJMC Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave AEJMC
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: AEJ 05 ZengL CTM The Impact of Source Types on Perceived Bias of Online News Sources
From: Elliott Parker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:AEJMC Conference Papers <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:57:23 -0500
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (822 lines)


This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
         If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, 
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================

The Impact of Source Types on Perceived Bias of Online News Sources
Li Zeng
College of Communications
  Arkansas State University
Mailing Address: 5372 Knollwood Dr, #8, Parma, OH 44129
Telephone: (870) 972-3625
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
and
Walter B. Jaehnig
School of Journalism
Southern Illinois University Carbondale


(Paper submitted to the Communication Theory and Methodology Division 
for consideration for presentation at the AEJMC annual convention, 
August 2005, San Antonio, TX)
Abstract
This study examines whether different types of sources quoted within 
online news stories affect individuals' perception of source bias. 
One hundred and five college students participated in an experimental 
setting. The findings provide evidence for the applicability of the 
Elaboration Likelihood Model in an online news environment. When 
exposed to stories arousing a high level of motivation, participants 
reported that official sources were more biased than individuals 
affiliated with non-government organizations.

The Impact of Source Types on Perceived Bias of Online News Sources
Introduction
Two in three American adults who are online now seek news on the 
Internet (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2005). As a response 
to this increasing online news demand, Internet news Web sites have 
sprung up like mushrooms. Internet Service Providers (ISP) such as 
America Online (AOL) offer news on their Web sites, along with many 
other online-only news organizations. Newspapers, television, radio, 
and other traditional news media also joined the digital mix, partly 
for fear of losing audiences if they fail to have an online presence. 
The explosion of online news brings about tremendous diversity in 
both the content and form of news. However, it has become apparent 
that online news is sometimes highly biased or occasionally even 
simply cyber-gossip. Some media scholars and professionals address 
the problem by advocating quality journalism on the Internet. The 
Online News Association, for example, specifies in its mission that 
"[o]nline journalists should uphold traditional high principles" of 
journalistic practice (Online News Association, 2001). Traditional 
news media have few reservations about implementing strict editorial 
rules on their Web sites, as they use in their traditional delivery. 
However, many online-only news Web sites do not have vigorous 
editorial policies. The multimedia features of the Internet have 
invited people skillful in multi-media interaction but lacking 
journalism training to become news disseminators. The ease with which 
everyone can be transformed into a potential online journalist also 
spurred amateur journalists to practice on the Internet. A case in 
point is Matt Drudge's gossip site (http://www.drudgereport.com), 
where he shows to the online audience what can happen to news absent 
the limitation of traditional journalistic rules. There is not yet 
broad agreement as to whether traditional journalistic principles and 
practices should be applied to the delivery of online news.
In traditional news reporting, for example, journalists have long 
been told that an integral component of good journalistic practice is 
quoting from credible sources (Gans, 1979; Izard, Culbertson, & 
Lambert, 1977; Jones, 1976). Editors frequently require that 
reporters contact legitimate sources and incorporate quotations in 
their stories so as to increase credibility and vividness of stories. 
Sourcing is so essential to news reporting that a news story, however 
newsworthy and truthful it is, would rarely be published without 
being properly attributed to a credible source (Sundar, 1998). 
However, for almost every news story there are numerous potential 
sources. These sources contribute their own interpretations and may 
influence audiences' assessment of the events being covered.
This study examines whether certain types of sources quoted within 
online news reports affect individuals' evaluation of source bias. 
Based upon previous content analyses of traditional news reports, the 
study intends to answer whether the type of sources quoted within an 
online news report affects perceived source bias.
Review of the Literature
Source Type in Media Coverage
For decades researchers have been interested in the selection of news 
sources in media coverage, particularly in the framework of the 
framing theory. According to Goffman (1974), a news frame is a 
"schemata of interpretation" (p. 21). It allows the audience to 
understand an event or an issue presented in the media by including 
(versus excluding) and emphasizing (versus deemphasizing) certain 
aspects. The framing of news sources is mostly concerned with the 
selection of or granting more space to certain sources in preference to others.
Sources are important to news for several reasons. As Shoemaker and 
Reese (1991) noted, news sources "have a tremendous effect on mass 
media content, because journalists can't include in their news 
reports what they don't know" (p. 150). More importantly, some types 
of sources are so powerful that they "may also influence the news in 
subtle ways by providing the context within which all other 
information is evaluated…and by monopolizing the journalists' time so 
that they don't have an opportunity to seek out sources with 
alternative views" (p. 150).
Nonetheless, source type has been a vague variable in the literature. 
Few previous studies, if any, have provided a clear and unambiguous 
measure of the variable. The most relevant measure is perhaps the 
scale used for affiliation, which has been frequently adopted over 
the years in analysis of traditional news content. Initially employed 
in the 1979 ABC News-Harris Survey (Harris, 1979), the variable of 
affiliation contained eight categories: U.S. government, state 
government, local government, foreign government, affiliated U.S. 
citizen, unaffiliated U.S. citizen, foreign citizen, and other. Using 
this measure, Brown and associates (1987) found that source patterns 
in newspaper stories featured diversity, but it was limited diversity 
in the sense that sources were mostly in the range of "government." 
Berkowitz (1987) reported the same pattern in television newscasts. 
However, these eight categories were created not by using a single 
standard of classification, thus violating a fundamental rule of 
measurement. In the scale, the standard of affiliation was 
contaminated by such other standards as the level of government and 
locations. For instance, the first three categories were created by 
the level of government organizations in the United States, but the 
fourth category, foreign government, was far from being another level 
of government in the United States. Similarly, the distinction 
between affiliated U.S. citizens and unaffiliated U.S. citizens was 
their connection or non-connection to non-governmental organizations. 
But foreign citizens differed from the previous two categories by 
their citizenship. In this study the ABC News-Harris scale were 
modified so that its weaknesses were overcome.
A closer look at the ABC News-Harris scale helps determine the source 
types in this study. As Brown et al. (1987) pointed out, the first 
four categories of sources were all government officials. In studies 
of news content and credibility (Armstrong & Nelson, 2003; Paletz, 
Fozzard, & Ayanian, 1982; Soloski, 1989; Zoch & Turk, 1998), 
government officials have been included in a broader source type 
called officials, which also included legal personnel in the United 
States or abroad. Therefore, the first type of source in this study 
were officials, most of whom were government officials.
The remaining four categories used in the ABC News-Harris study also 
can be reclassified. Foreign citizens can be affiliated or 
unaffiliated to different non-governmental organizations, just as 
their U.S. counterparts are. The news media tend not to consider as 
legitimate news sources average citizens absent authority status 
unless such individuals have direct experience (e.g., as a victim, 
beneficiary, or witness), possess unique knowledge as a result of 
their affiliation (e.g., a professor at University of California 
Berkeley talking about environment protection), or represent a 
special group (e.g., a spokesperson of the union). They can be 
divided into two types. One type, called involved parties, includes 
individuals who become news sources due to their first-hand 
experience in a news issue being covered. The other type, called 
affiliated individuals, refers to individuals who become news sources 
due to their connections with non-governmental organizations. Rarely 
are individuals lacking the credentials of these three types sought 
as news sources. Therefore, this study examined three types of 
sources: officials, involved parties, and affiliated individuals.
Numerous studies have been designed to examine the pattern of source 
types that contribute to the images painted by journalists and to 
public understanding of social events. With few exceptions, findings 
showed a heavy dominance by officials in news stories, regardless of 
the type and level of news media through which they are delivered.
Officials. One of the earliest comprehensive studies of source 
diversity was Sigal's (1973) longitudinal content analysis of major 
U.S. newspapers, wherein he discovered a limited diversity in source 
types, with most sources falling under an official label. Brown and 
associates (1987) replicated Sigal's study in a content analysis of 
front-page stories published in the New York Times, the Washington 
Post, and four local/state newspapers in North Carolina. They found 
that among the 5,248 sources identified in the stories, the most 
dominant were government sources, of which approximately one-third 
(31%) were affiliated with the U.S. federal government, and another 
quarter (24.4%) affiliated with other levels of U.S. government or 
foreign governments. These data supported what Brown et al. (1987) 
proposed as the distinction between diversity and range: diversity 
from an elite pluralistic perspective is a constrained concept and 
can best be "a great deal of variety within a relatively narrow range 
of sources through the presentation of trivial differences among them" (p. 45).
The tendency to rely heavily upon official sources is more pronounced 
when political violence, especially that against the United States or 
its citizens, is concerned. Paletz, Fozzard, and Ayanian (1982) 
reported that in the New York Times and television network news 
coverage of three terrorist groups, the news media depended upon 
official sources and denied legitimacy of terrorists and justness of 
terrorist causes. In a content analysis of magazine news stories and 
network newscasts on two U.S. terrorist incidents, Gallimore (1991) 
found that authority sources (most of whom were officials) accounted 
for more than 40 percent of the total number of sources. In the more 
recent case of the "9/11" attack, numerous studies have revealed the 
media's excessive dependency on officials (e.g., Zeng, 2002; Zeng, 
2003; Zeng & Xiao, 2003).
Involved parties. Despite the many journalist-preferred features 
possessed by official sources, different types of non-official 
sources are allowed occasional appearance under various situations. 
In news coverage of a major accident, for example, primary sources 
such as victims, witnesses, and even perpetrators are provided with 
space, although usually limited compared with the room granted to 
official sources. Atwater (1987) analyzed the 1985 TWA hijacking and 
hostage taking and found that 53 percent of the sources were victims 
and their families. In a study of political violence coverage in the 
New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, 
Picard and Adams (1991) found that 2.2 percent of the total 
characterization words about attacks of political violence and their 
perpetrators were from the mouths of witnesses to the events. 
Although comprising only 2.2 percent, this figure is not negligible 
because Picard and Adams included in the total a category called 
media source, which is generally not considered a type of news source 
but accounted for over 90 percent of the total in their 1991 study. A 
content analysis (Gallimore, 1991) of magazine news stories and 
network newscasts on two U.S. terrorist incidents identified 6 
percent of the sources in the coverage as perpetrators. In another 
study of the coverage of the "9/11" attack in the three U.S. elite 
newspapers, Zeng (2003) noted that witnesses contributed to 1.6 
percent of the total characterizations of the "9/11" attack and 
people who perpetrated it.[1]
Empirical data also revealed that quotations from primary sources, 
despite their non-official status and their consequential lack of 
suitability as news sources for journalists, are influential on the 
audience's perception of news. Personal exemplifications from 
individuals involved in an issue under coverage, such as victims and 
witnesses, for example, are well documented to affect individuals' 
understanding of the issue.
Gibson and Zillman (1993) found that exemplification from victims and 
witnesses considerably affected people's understanding of issues 
reported in news stories. They asked college students to read a print 
news report about the problem of inadequate safety in amusement 
parks. Some students read a version featuring personal testimony from 
individuals who had been involved in or witnessed amusement park 
accidents, some read a version with the testimony paraphrased by the 
journalist, and others read a version containing merely factual 
information about the injuries suffered by several victims, with a 
summary of the arguments from both sides of the safety issue. The 
results showed that those who read the version with personal 
testimony believed that safety in amusement parks was less adequate 
than those who were not exposed to personal testimony by primary sources.
Affiliated individuals. Janowitz (1991) proposed that one of the 
three-fold roles of the mass media was to prevent one side of an 
issue from monopolizing or excessively overshadowing other sides. 
This is mostly achieved through granting news space to affiliated 
individuals, whom journalists also consider legitimate and credible 
(Thurwanger, 2003). Among this type of sources are individuals 
affiliated with non-governmental institutions, such as business 
organizations and special interest groups. In a content analysis of 
community newspaper coverage of prison site selection, affiliated 
individuals were cited in nearly 20 percent of the coverage, with 
business sources representing 11.8 percent and organizations with 
opposing opinions about the issue accounting for 7.1 percent 
(Thurwanger, 2003).
However, the way affiliated individuals are covered in the news media 
renders them more vulnerable to accusation of bias than officials. 
Although viewed as legitimate by journalists, affiliated individuals 
possess a social position that is never equivalent in power and 
prominence to that occupied by officials. As revealed in previous 
studies, affiliated individuals are merely supplementary to the 
already established official power structure as reflected in media 
frames. Their chances of being quoted are even smaller when they 
represent viewpoints conflicting with those of the U.S. government, 
for instance, when an individual is affiliated with an "unfriendly" 
organization. When indeed cited, these sources face a greater threat 
of being viewed as biased.
News Sources and Perception of News Stories
Media researchers have examined at least three types of sources, 
story bylines, news media, and sources quoted in news stories. This 
study is interested in sources for quotation in a news story, which 
are what journalists usually refer to as news sources. Essentially, 
this line of research overlaps with the research on quotations, where 
primary attention was paid to whether sources are directly quoted, 
paraphrased, or not mentioned at all in a news story. The findings 
about the effects of quotations on audiences' perceptions are 
ambiguous, some even conflicting with each other.
Largely overlooked is the influence that source selection, especially 
the type of sources selected, might have upon individuals' 
perceptions of news credibility and understanding of the issue 
concerned. Over the years of credibility research, only a few 
scholars have noted that journalists' reliance on limited types of 
sources might prevent them from obtaining a complete view of the 
event they cover (Ericson, Baranek, & Chan, 1987), which in turn 
affects their audience's assessment of news credibility. For example, 
Rouner, Slater and Buddenbaum (1999) proposed that the pattern of 
sources typically used may constrain and bias news coverage, although 
empirical data suggested that journalists and the general public have 
different understanding of bias.
Armstrong and Nelson (2003) used official and non-official source 
cues to test people's perception of credibility. College students 
were asked to read identical stories about a missing hiker quoted 
from a gender-neutral name but with either an official or 
non-official title. It was found that the subjects considered the 
official source (a park ranger) more credible than the non-official 
source (a fellow hiker), despite the same name and identical 
information they conveyed. The authors further argued that the source 
might be used by individuals as a heuristic cue, such that the 
credibility of the source will be transferred to the information 
content. When people are exposed to a news report that quotes an 
authority source, they believe the source is less biased and more 
credible, and tend to process the information based on such 
heuristics. As a consequence, they will assign more credibility to 
the message as a whole, even though the report contains the same 
information as the one quoting a non-official source. More 
importantly, the non-official source was manipulated as "a friend who 
had been camping with the missing hiker" (p. 13). As a witness he/she 
knew more about the condition under which the incident occurred and 
was able to provide more background information than the official 
park ranger. Despite his/her knowledge as an eyewitness, 
unfortunately, his/her lack of authority status disqualified him/her 
from being considered as an unbiased source.
Elaboration Likelihood Model
A way to avoid being misled by over-generalization of the impact of 
low-credible and high-credible sources is to consider the Elaboration 
Likelihood Model (ELM). The model was developed by Petty and Cacioppo 
(1986), who noted that research on cognitive responses to persuasion 
in the previous decade failed to consider an important audience 
variable. According to them, elaboration was "the extent to which a 
person thinks about the issue-relevant arguments contained in a 
message" (p. 128). There are various levels of elaboration and it is 
best viewed as falling along a continuum (Perloff, 1993). The amount 
of elaboration individuals engage in depends on how active they are 
as information processors. According to Petty and Cacioppo (1986), 
active information processors process the message they receive 
through the central route, which involves heavy cognitive 
elaboration; passive receivers take the peripheral route for 
information processing and hardly engage in any elaboration work.
Under the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which pathway an individual 
chooses for message processing is determined by his/her motivation 
and ability to process. Motivation is more extensively studied in the 
literature, of which involvement has been identified as the key 
element. People are high in involvement when they perceive an issue 
as highly relevant to their personal lives. They are low in 
involvement when an issue bears little personal relevance to them. 
Under high involvement situations individuals are motivated to select 
the central route and engage in issue-relevant thinking. As a result 
they pay more attention to fundamental features such as the quality 
of an argument. Under low involvement conditions, however, 
individuals are more likely to take the peripheral route, which 
usually requires nothing but superficial thinking about the issue. 
One of the possibilities is that under low involvement message 
recipients make simple decisions by such peripheral cues as source 
expertise (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981) or even the number of 
arguments in a message (Eagly & Chaiken, 1984; Perloff, 1993). As a 
consequence, they may agree with the message simply because it 
includes an expert source or numerous, albeit weak, arguments. When 
exposed to news, it is possible that low-involvement individuals 
focus on the authoritativeness of sources, rather than attending to 
the bias with which such sources present their account of a certain issue.
Hypotheses
Some unique features of the Internet require that online news readers 
be active news seekers. For example, unlike traditional news reports, 
online news stories are usually presented in a non-linear format with 
the use of hyperlinks. Very often online news readers seek news they 
are interested in by selecting certain hyperlinks and click on them. 
As predicted by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), individuals 
with high motivation tend to choose the central route for information 
processing. As a consequence, they are less likely to make simple 
decisions based on such source cues as authority and expertise. 
Rather, they would pay more attention to the quality of the 
arguments, including inherent bias on the part of the sources 
providing these arguments. Therefore, officials, despite their 
authority status, may be perceived as no less biased than the other 
two types of sources.
H1a: Individuals with high motivation will perceive officials more 
biased than involved parties;
H1b: Individuals with high motivation will perceive officials equally 
biased as involved parties;
H2a: Individuals with high motivation will perceive officials more 
biased than affiliated individuals;
H2b: Individuals with high motivation will perceive officials equally 
biased as affiliated individuals.
When surfing a news Web site, however, some online news readers may 
accidentally click on a link and come across news stories that they 
are usually not interested in, or they might try any link on a Web 
page and read a story to pass time. As a consequence, they are not 
highly motivated to read those news stories and may simply judge the 
stories by such peripheral cues as the authoritativeness of news 
sources. However, the biases of different source types are not 
equally apparent to the general audience. Because officials occupy 
the center of the power structure in a society and have been the 
dominant sources in news coverage, their biases are rarely noticeable 
under the cover of authority and credibility the society assumes them 
to possess. However, there is no conclusive evidence as to whether 
involved parties or affiliated public members are considered biased. 
In some studies it was found that traditional news audience tended to 
ignore the bias of such involved parties as victims and witnesses 
(Aust & Zillman, 1996; Gibson & Zillman, 1998; Zillman, Gibson, 
Sundar, & Perkins, 1996), but were concerned about the bias of a 
spokesperson of a non-governmental organization (Fedler & Counts, 
1981). However, one study (Armstrong & Nelson, 2003) reported that a 
witness (a fellow hiker in a story about a missing hiker) was 
considered more biased than a non-governmental official (a park ranger).
H3: Individuals with low motivation will perceive officials less 
biased than: a) involved parties, and b) affiliated individuals.
Methods
Overall Design
This study employed a 2_7 experimental design that combined a 
within-subject and a between-subject design. A within-subject design 
was used for the manipulation of the independent variable 
"motivation." Each participant was asked to read four news stories on 
different topics, two stories high in "motivation," and two low in 
"motivation" (meaning that the stories aroused high/low levels of 
motivation among the respondents). A between-subject design was 
chosen for the manipulation of the other independent variable "story 
type." As a consequence, there were seven treatment groups in this study.
One hundred and five college students at a Southwestern university 
participated in this study in September 2004. Although a random 
sample was not used in this study, efforts were made to randomly 
assign treatments to the participants. This randomization helped 
control for extraneous variances that might exist in certain groups 
of participants.
The dependent variable, source bias, is a perceived attribute of a 
news source whereby the individual news source, or the group the news 
source represents, has an apparent vested interest in a cause or 
action relative to maintaining or changing the status quo (Rouner, 
Slater, & Buddenbaum, 1999). In a broader sense, it refers to whether 
a news source presents only one side of a story. Researchers 
(Andsager, 2003; Rouner et al., 1999) frequently used a single-item 
scale "bias" to measure source bias. To increase the validity of the 
measure, three additional items were used to measure the variable, 
which are one-sided, neutral, and fair. Six-point Likert-type 
statements were presented about the three sources quoted in each 
story. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on 
those statements (strongly agree, agree, slightly agree, slightly 
disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree).
A Web site was designed specifically for this study. To rule out 
story-specific effect (Jackson, 1992), two stories were used in each 
treatment conditions. In the high motivation condition were a story 
about prisoner abuse in Iraq and one about a proposed tuition 
increase in the program where the respondents were enrolled in. The 
low motivation condition included a story about protection of eagle 
habitats in Ohio and one about budget changes for summer schools in 
New York City.
Seven versions were created for each of the four stories. The basic 
information in all seven versions was identical, with variation in 
only the type of sources quoted within each story. The first three 
versions each cited only one type of source, with version one citing 
an official, version two citing an involved party, and version three 
citing an affiliated public member. Versions four to six each cited 
two types of sources, with version four citing both an official and 
an involved party, version five citing both an official and an 
affiliated public member, and version six citing an involved party 
and an affiliated public member. The last version, version seven, 
cited all three types of sources. In all versions except the last 
one, quotations from the sources who were not included in each 
version were converted into statements by the reporter. Slight 
changes in language were made in the first six versions when needed 
for grammatical and logical purposes. To help the respondent identify 
the sources and refer back when necessary, all source names appeared 
in boldface on the Web site.
A different version of a paper and pencil questionnaire was prepared 
for each treatment group. All seven versions of the questionnaire 
were identical in content. The major difference between the versions 
was that they directed participants to different links on the Web 
site, and the links took the participants to Web pages with matching 
versions of the four treatment stories. For example, version one of 
the questionnaire directed the participant to the link "A1," and this 
hyperlink took him/her to a page with version one of story A, which 
cited only an official source. After reading the first story and 
completing the questions about the official source and the story 
itself in the questionnaire, the participant read directions that 
told him/her to click on "B1" on the current Web page, and that took 
him/her to version one of story B, which also cited only an official 
source. After reading the second story, he/she answered the questions 
about the source and story B1. Similarly, the respondent completed 
stories C1 and D1. Subjects assigned to other treatment groups read 
similar instructions and went to the links that matched the 
treatments they were assigned to.

Procedures for Data Collection
The experiment was carried out in computer labs with Internet access 
at a mid-sized Southwestern university. To rule out the possibility 
that students in one session were systematically different from those 
in another session, individual subjects were randomly assigned to the 
seven conditions.
Two graduate students administered the study in a computer laboratory 
setting. All seven versions of the questionnaire were collated and 
handed out in such a way that a randomly selected first participant 
in the first session received version one, the second version two, 
until the eighth receiving version one again. This systematic way of 
distributing the questionnaire was employed during the whole process 
of this study to ensure that each respondent was randomly assigned to 
a treatment condition.
After completing the questions on demographics and general media use, 
the respondents were instructed to visit the Web site of this study. 
The first page of the Web site displayed the text "Welcome to 
participate in this study" in a large font at the center of the 
screen. A "Start" button was located below the welcoming message. The 
respondents were told to click the "Start" button and open another 
Web page, which listed seven buttons. Following the directions at the 
bottom of page 2 of the questionnaire, the respondent clicked on the 
button corresponding to the version he/she was assigned to (button A1 
for version one; A2 for version two…A7 for version seven) and read 
the first story.
At the end of the first story on the computer screen, there was an 
instruction "End of Story A1(A2…A7). Now please turn to p. 3 of the 
questionnaire and answer the questions about the story you just 
read." After completing the questions about the first story, 
respondents read another instruction on the questionnaire saying, 
"Now please click on the button B1 (B2, …B7) at the bottom of your 
computer screen and read story B1 (B2, …B7)." Similar to the first 
story, at the end of the second story respondents read an 
instruction, "Now please turn to p.4 of the questionnaire and answer 
the questions about the story you just read." Similar instructions 
were provided for stories C and D. At the end of the questionnaire, 
respondents read, "That's all. Thank you!" After everybody in a 
session completed, the questionnaires were collected. The respondents 
were thanked and dismissed.
Findings
This study analyzed data from 105 students enrolled in classes at a 
mid-sized public university. Most of the respondents were 
Communications majors (84.8%). The youngest respondent was 18 years 
old, and the oldest 43, with an average age of 20.7 years old. There 
were slightly more females (51.4%) than males.
Repeated-measure ANOVA tests established that the effect of source 
type on perception of source bias was uniform across stories. 
Therefore, a composite measure of the dependent variable, source 
bias, was created by averaging scores across the two stories under 
the same treatment condition.
When reading stories arousing high motivation, the student 
respondents rated affiliated individuals the least biased (mean = 
3.51) among all three types of sources. For a six-point scale with a 
mean of 3.50, the bias rating of affiliated individuals at 3.51 
suggested that affiliated individuals were not actually considered 
biased. Involved parties, such as the mistreated prisoner in Baghdad 
and the local high school student who might be affected by a proposed 
tuition increase, were considered to be the most biased (mean = 
4.14). Officials were seen as slightly less biased (mean = 4.05) than 
involved parties, but somewhat more biased than individuals 
affiliated with non-governmental organizations. Different source 
types were rated significantly different in terms of bias, as 
indicated by the significant ANOVA result of the effect of source 
type on the composite measure of source bias after controlling 
demographic variables (F(2, 179) = 7.707, p. < .05).
Involved parties were also considered the most biased source (mean = 
4.74) for the students reading stories that stimulated low 
motivation. Officials (mean = 3.92) and affiliated individuals (mean 
= 3.91) received identical bias ratings, both considerably lower than 
involved parties. The source type had a significant effect on 
perceived source bias under the low motivation condition (F. = 
20.255, p. < .05) after controlling the variance of demographic 
variables, as the ANOVA analysis suggested. The bias ratings also 
showed that both involved parties and affiliated individuals were 
rated as far more biased when respondents were not motivated than 
when they were highly motivated. As the level of motivation 
increased, however, respondents tended to believe that officials were 
less biased.
H1a: Individuals with high motivation will perceive officials more 
biased than involved parties;
H2b: Individuals with high motivation will perceive officials equally 
biased as involved parties.
When the student participants were exposed to stories that evoked 
high motivation, they considered officials slightly less biased than 
involved parties. However, as shown in Table 1, the difference was 
not statistically significant (t (1, 118) = -.554, p. > .05). 
Therefore, H1a, which proposed that respondents with a high level of 
motivation would consider officials more biased than involved 
parties, was rejected and H1b, which predicted that respondents with 
highly motivation would consider officials equally biased as involved 
parties, was supported.
H2a: Individuals with high motivation will perceive officials more 
biased than affiliated individuals;
H2b: Individuals with high motivation will perceive officials equally 
biased as affiliated individuals.
For students reading the stories on prisoner abuse and tuition 
increase (both arousing high motivation), officials were considerably 
more biased (mean = 4.05) than individuals affiliated with 
non-government organizations (mean = 3.51). T-test results in Table 1 
suggested that the difference in bias scores was significant (t (1, 
118) = 3.398, p. < .05), leading to the retention of H2a, which 
stated that respondents with high motivation would rate officials as 
more biased than affiliated individuals, and the rejection of H2b, 
which proposed that the two source types would be equally biased.
Table 1
Perceived Source Bias as a Function of Source Type
Source type
t (1, 118)
p.
Official
Involved
Affiliated
High motivation
4.05
4.14
-.554
.580
4.05
3.51
*3.398
.001
Low motivation
3.92
4.74
*-5.689
.000
3.92
3.91
.089
.930
(Note: * indicated a significant effect at alpha = .05)
H3a: Individuals with low motivation will perceive officials less 
biased than involved parties;
H3b: Individuals with low motivation will perceive officials less 
biased than affiliated individuals.
When reading the stories on eagle protection and summer schools, 
which aroused a low level of motivation, the students believed that 
officials (mean = 3.92) were considerably less biased than involved 
parties (mean = 4.74). As displayed in Table 1, officials were rated 
as significantly less biased than involved parties (t (1, 118) = 
-5.689, p. < .05), providing support for H3a, which predicted that 
respondents with low motivation would perceive officials as less 
biased than involved parties. However, for respondents under the same 
low motivation condition, officials and affiliated individuals were 
nearly even in bias (t (1, 118) = .089, p. > .05), leading to the 
rejection of H3b, a proposition that officials would be seen as less 
biased than affiliated individuals.
Discussion and Conclusions
This study examined how different types of online news sources were 
perceived in terms of bias. College students from a mid-sized 
Southwestern public university participated in the study in an 
experimental setting. Participants in each of the seven treatment 
groups were asked to read a version of four news stories posted on a 
Web site designed specifically for this study. Two of the stories 
were about topics that were considered highly relevant to the student 
participants and hence would arouse a high level of motivation from 
the participants, and the other two stories were about topics that 
were seen to bear little relevance to the students, thus arousing a 
low level of motivation. Each version of the stories quoted one of 
the three types of sources (officials, involved parties, and 
affiliated individuals) or a combination of the three source types.
The findings provide evidence that the Elaboration Likelihood Model, 
a theoretical model in understanding how people process information 
delivered through traditional mass communication and interpersonal 
communication, bears strong explanatory power in how individuals 
process news delivered on the Internet. The results from this study 
also support the proposition that source type plays an important role 
in people's perception of source bias and online news credibility. 
Among the three types of sources quoted in different versions of 
stories manipulated in this study, some sources were considered 
biased, while others were not, despite the presumption that any 
source could present only one perspective of a certain issue or event.
In addition to the strong support this study lends to the ELM in 
online news, an interesting finding of this study was that for the 
college student subjects in this study as a group, affiliated 
individuals were considered as not biased or low in bias, but 
involved parties were always seen as biased. This is consistent with 
an earlier study (Armstrong & Nelson, 2003), which found that a 
witness was believed to be more biased than an individual affiliated 
with a non-governmental organization (a park ranger). That affiliated 
individuals were considered to be low in bias can be explained by 
saying that affiliated individuals are usually perceived as 
disinterested and less likely to exercise authority over the public, 
at least those individuals who hold distrust of politicians might 
think so. This explanation is relevant to the ELM, but also differs 
from the ELM in that it carries across different levels of 
motivation. It is not yet clear, however, why involved parties were 
considered high in bias, despite their apparent involvement in the 
issue and hence first-hand experience about what has happened. A 
possible explanation might be that involved parties are usually 
perceived to be highly emotional and lacking sufficient detachment to 
provide neutral and rational elaboration of an occurrence.
For the respondents with low motivation, officials were no longer 
considered biased, although the same type of source was believed to 
be highly biased among individuals reading highly motivating stories. 
This is not surprising, however, considering the authority officials 
possess and the ELM prediction that individuals under the low 
motivation condition base their judgment on the authority of a 
source. What deserves attention is that although both officials and 
affiliated individuals received low bias ratings among respondents 
reading stories arousing low motivation, only the low bias of 
officials was carried over to participants' perception of story 
credibility. In other words, while the perceived low bias of 
officials helped foster the credibility of stories quoting officials, 
the similarly low bias of affiliated individuals did not seem to have 
affected the credibility of the stories quoting affiliated 
individuals. This disparity in how perceived bias of officials and 
that of affiliated individuals affected the perceived credibility of 
the stories quoting these sources may be related to how valid the 
perception of the low bias of each source type is among the student 
participants when they read stories arousing little motivation. A 
possibility is that for individuals exposed to low motivation 
stimulus, officials and affiliated individuals were both considered 
to possess low levels of bias but according to differing standards.
This study is among the first to use the Elaboration Likelihood Model 
to explain people's perception of online news messages. The strong 
support for the ELM found in this study indicates that the ELM should 
not be limited to traditional media research. Although online news is 
an extensive category and may still lack a clear definition among the 
public, online versions of traditional news media are an important 
part of online news. This study provides evidence that, in addition 
to its strong explanatory power established in traditional media 
research, the ELM is also helpful in our understanding of online news 
perception.
Suggestions for Future Research
This study is an exploratory examination of the impact of source type 
on people's perception of source bias and news credibility in the 
online environment. Much research is desirable to test the 
explanatory power of source bias as the predictor variable and to 
address the limitations mentioned in the previous section.
Future research should study other samples from the online news 
population. First, it is important to know whether the findings from 
this study are representative of the perceptions of college students 
in other parts of the country, e.g., students in a metropolitan 
institution, students at a private research university, or those at a 
small community college. Second, because it is currently impossible 
to study a random sample of all online news users in the United 
States, further studies should be conducted to examine other segments 
of this population, especially those with highly different 
demographics than the somewhat homogenous student sample employed in 
this study. For example, because college students represent a narrow 
range of age, it is important to study individuals of other age 
groups, such as the middle-aged or the elderly. It can also be 
revealing if similar studies can be carried out with individuals with 
less education, or with people who are more dependent upon 
traditional news media than most college students are.

References
Andsager, J. (2003). Consider the source: How perceived bias affects 
message credibility. In Paper presented to the Midwest Association 
for Public Opinion Research annual conference, November 2003, 
Chicago, Illinois.
Armstrong, C. L., & Nelson, M. R. (2003, November). Conditional 
characterizations: The influence of cognition and personality on 
gender assessments of official and non-official newspaper sources. In 
Paper presented at the Midwest Association of Public Opinion Research 
annual conference, Chicago, Illinois.
Atwater, T. (1987). Network evening news coverage of the TWA hostage 
crisis. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 520-525.
Aust, C. F., & Zillman, D. (1996). Effects of victim exemplification 
in television news on viewer perception of social issues. Journalism 
and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 787-803.
Berkowitz, D. (1987). TV news sources and news channels: A study in 
agenda-building. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 513.
Brown, J. D., Bybee, C. R., Weardon, S. T., & Straughan, D. M. 
(1987). Invisible power: Newspaper news sources and the limits of 
diversity. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 45-54.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. 
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 
(pp. 267-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ericson, R. V., Baranek, P. M., & Chan, J. B. L. (1987). Visualizing 
Deviance: A Study of News Organization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Fedler, F., & Counts, T. (1981). Variations in attribution affect 
readers' evaluations of stories. Newspaper Research Journal, 2, 25-34.
Gallimore, T. (1991). Media compliance with voluntary press 
guidelines for covering terrorism. In Y. Alexander & F. G. Picard 
(Eds.), In the camera's eye: News coverage of terrorist events (pp. 
103-118). Brassey's (US), Inc.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news. New York: Vintage Books.
Gibson, R., & Zillman, D. (1993). The impact of quotation in news 
reports on issue perception. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 793-800.
Gibson, R., & Zillman, D. (1998). Effects of citation in exemplifying 
testimony on issue perception. Journalism Quarterly, 75, 167-176.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of 
experience. NY: Harper & Row.
Harris, L. (1979). ABC news-Harris survey. Chicago: Chicago Tribune.
Izard, R. S., Culbertson, H. M., & Lambert, D. A. (1977). 
Fundamentals of news reporting. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Jackson, S. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design 
and analysis. New York: The Guilford Publications, Inc.
Janowitz, M. (1991). On social organization and social control. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, J. P. (1976). Gathering and writing the news. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Online News Association (2001, July 21). "Digital journalism 
credibility study." Retrieved April 4, 2004, from 
http://www.journalist.org/Programs/StudyText.htm
Paletz, D. L., Fozzard, P. A., & Ayanian, J. Z. (1982). The I. R.A., 
the Read Brigades, and the F.A.L.N. in the "New York Times." Journal 
of Communication, 32, 162-171.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). The Dynamics of Persuasion (1st ed.). 
Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood 
model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental 
social psychology (pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal 
involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2005). Internet: The 
mainstreaming of online life. Retrieved March 9, 2005, from 
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/148/report_display.asp
Picard, R. G., & Adams, P. D. (1991). Characterizations of acts and 
perpetrators of political violence in three elite U.S. daily 
newspapers. In A. O. Alali & K. K. Eke (Eds.), Media Coverage of 
Terrorism: Methods of Diffusion (pp. 12-21). Newbury Park, Calif.: 
Sage Publications.
Rouner, D., Slater, M. D., & Buddenbaum, J. M. (1999). How 
perceptions of news bias in news sources relate to beliefs about 
media bias. Newspaper Research Journal, 20, 41-51.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message: 
Theories of influences on mass media content. New York: Longman.
Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and 
politics of newsmaking. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co.
Soloski, J. (1989). Sources and channels of local news. Journalism 
Quarterly, 66, 864-870.
Sundar, S. S. (1998). Effect of source attribution on perception of 
online news stories. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 55-68.
Thurwanger, M. L. (2003). Community Newspapers as Instruments of 
Social Control: Framing Prison Site Selection in Rural Illinois 
(Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2003).
Zeng, L. (2002, November). Coverage of the "9/11" attack in elite 
newspapers: A comparative study of the U.S. and U.K. In paper 
presented to the Midwest Association of Public Opinion Research 
annual conference, Chicago: Illinois.
Zeng, L. (2003, July-August). Characterizations of the "9/11" attack 
and perpetrators in three U.S. elite newspapers. In paper presented 
to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication 
annual conference, Kansas City, Missouri.
Zeng, L., & Xiao, Z. (2003, November). Who and how? Investigating 
sources and characterizations in elite British newspaper coverage of 
the "9/11" attack. In paper presented to the Midwest Association for 
Public Opinion Research annual conference, Chicago, Illinois.
Zillman, D., Gibson, R., Sundar, S. S., & Perkins, J. W. Jr. (1996). 
Effects of exemplification in news reports on the perception of 
social issues. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 427-444.
Zoch, L. M., & Turk, J. V. (1998). Women making news: Gender as a 
variable in source selection and use. Journalism and Mass 
Communication Quarterly, 75, 762-775.


[1]  Although only 1.6 percent of the total, witnesses played a role 
that was more than trivial because Zeng (2003) employed the same 
scales that Picard and Adams (1991) used. The media, which is not 
strictly a news source, contributed to more than 70% of the 
characterization terms in Zeng's study, therefore leading to a 
smaller percentage for witnesses than they actually accounted for. 

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main AEJMC Page

Permalink



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager