IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v9y2021i4p170-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Algorithmic or Human Source? Examining Relative Hostile Media Effect With a Transformer-Based Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Chenyan Jia

    (Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, USA)

  • Ruibo Liu

    (Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, USA)

Abstract

The relative hostile media effect suggests that partisans tend to perceive the bias of slanted news differently depending on whether the news is slanted in favor of or against their sides. To explore the effect of an algorithmic vs. human source on hostile media perceptions, this study conducts a 3 (author attribution: human, algorithm, or human-assisted algorithm) x 3 (news attitude: pro-issue, neutral, or anti-issue) mixed factorial design online experiment (N = 511). This study uses a transformer-based adversarial network to auto-generate comparable news headlines. The framework was trained with a dataset of 364,986 news stories from 22 mainstream media outlets. The results show that the relative hostile media effect occurs when people read news headlines attributed to all types of authors. News attributed to a sole human source is perceived as more credible than news attributed to two algorithm-related sources. For anti-Trump news headlines, there exists an interaction effect between author attribution and issue partisanship while controlling for people’s prior belief in machine heuristics. The difference of hostile media perceptions between the two partisan groups was relatively larger in anti-Trump news headlines compared with pro-Trump news headlines.

Suggested Citation

  • Chenyan Jia & Ruibo Liu, 2021. "Algorithmic or Human Source? Examining Relative Hostile Media Effect With a Transformer-Based Framework," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 170-181.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:170-181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/4164
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Graefe & Nina Bohlken, 2020. "Automated Journalism: A Meta-Analysis of Readers’ Perceptions of Human-Written in Comparison to Automated News," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 50-59.
    2. Katherine M. Engelke & Valerie Hase & Florian Wintterlin, 2019. "On measuring trust and distrust in journalism: Reflection of the status quo and suggestions for the road ahead," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 66-86, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sanne Kruikemeier & Sophie C. Boerman & Nadine Bol, 2021. "How Algorithmic Systems Changed Communication in a Digital Society," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 116-119.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefanie Sirén‐Heikel & Martin Kjellman & Carl‐Gustav Lindén, 2023. "At the crossroads of logics: Automating newswork with artificial intelligence—(Re)defining journalistic logics from the perspective of technologists," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(3), pages 354-366, March.
    2. Uwe Hasebrink & Sascha Hölig, 2020. "Audience-Based Indicators for News Media Performance: A Conceptual Framework and Findings from Germany," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 293-303.
    3. Distel, Bettina & Engelke, Katherine M. & Querfurth, Sydney, 2021. "Trusting me, trusting you - trusting technology? A multidisciplinary analysis to uncover the status quo of research on trust in technology," ERCIS Working Papers 35, University of Münster, European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:170-181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.