• by Ray Schultz , Columnist, August 7, 2024

Given the volume of misinformation appearing in media, one would think that journalists who correct the facts would be cherished.

But they're not. They are trusted less than reporters who confirm information, judging by a study published in Communication Research. 

Why would people believe a confirmation over a good-faith check? Authors Randy Stein and Caroline Meyersohn conducted two studies to find out why.

In one, “participants read a real fact-check that corrected or confirmed a claim about politics or economics.” In the other, people "read a real report that corrected or confirmed a marketing claim for one of several products.”

They found that participants in both studies “had higher levels of distrust for journalists providing corrections, perceiving them as more likely to be lying and possessing ulterior motives.”

The authors add, “This effect held even among corrections consistent with respondents’ prior beliefs (i.e., for claims that participants thought might be false). The results represent a novel reason why people distrust journalists and resist belief correction.” 

In a synopsis in NiemanLab, the authors acknowledge that “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.”

This should sober up reporters who think they will be thought of as heroes for correcting false claims.  

Maybe it’s just that people are in the mood for good news.