No Cover Image

Journal article 83 views 5 downloads

Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK

Marina Morani Orcid Logo, Ceri Hughes Orcid Logo, Stephen Cushion Orcid Logo, Maria Kyriakidou Orcid Logo

Journalism

Swansea University Author: Ceri Hughes Orcid Logo

  • 67632.vor.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence.

    Download (580.26KB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1177/14648849241273599

Abstract

This article explores whether different media platforms across impartial news media supplied the same level of scrutiny in how they fact-checked political claims. While prior research has largely focused on independent fact-checking organisations, the fact-checking practices of legacy media through...

Full description

Published in: Journalism
ISSN: 1464-8849 1741-3001
Published: SAGE Publications 2024
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa67632
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2024-09-10T12:55:25Z
last_indexed 2024-09-10T12:55:25Z
id cronfa67632
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rfc1807 xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>67632</id><entry>2024-09-10</entry><title>Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>ea8460af971fe3e3aceb250c199a0f14</sid><ORCID>0009-0003-9537-9016</ORCID><firstname>Ceri</firstname><surname>Hughes</surname><name>Ceri Hughes</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2024-09-10</date><deptcode>CACS</deptcode><abstract>This article explores whether different media platforms across impartial news media supplied the same level of scrutiny in how they fact-checked political claims. While prior research has largely focused on independent fact-checking organisations, the fact-checking practices of legacy media through a cross-platform perspective have comparatively received limited attention. The study develops new lines of inquiry into the fact-checking practices of legacy media, presenting one of the largest and most forensic cross-platform studies of fact-checking to date. It draws on a systematic content analysis of 355 items from fact-checking sites, including 689 claims and 1850 instances where journalists or sources interacted with them in 2021, and assesses how they were covered by a further 280 television news items. Our findings demonstrate that the selection and degree to which journalists and sources scrutinised political claims varied across media platforms, with television news less inclined to report and analyse policy claims than dedicated fact-checking websites. Overall, we argue that the editorial boundaries of fact-checking are policed by journalists’ interpretations of impartiality, which differ across platforms (in television news or dedicated fact-checking websites) due to a range of editorial factors such as production constraints and news values.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Journalism</journal><volume>0</volume><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>1464-8849</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1741-3001</issnElectronic><keywords>Misinformation, fact-checking, impartiality, television news, public service broadcasting, content analysis</keywords><publishedDay>7</publishedDay><publishedMonth>9</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2024</publishedYear><publishedDate>2024-09-07</publishedDate><doi>10.1177/14648849241273599</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Culture and Communications School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>CACS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>Another institution paid the OA fee</apcterm><funders>Arts and Humanities Research Council, AH/S012508/1</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2024-10-25T11:59:31.9821520</lastEdited><Created>2024-09-10T13:50:37.9496237</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Culture and Communication - Media, Communications, Journalism and PR</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Marina</firstname><surname>Morani</surname><orcid>0000-0002-7599-843x</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Ceri</firstname><surname>Hughes</surname><orcid>0009-0003-9537-9016</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Stephen</firstname><surname>Cushion</surname><orcid>0000-0001-7164-8283</orcid><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Maria</firstname><surname>Kyriakidou</surname><orcid>0000-0002-4053-5961</orcid><order>4</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>67632__32569__544b2cd52e88413e8ed38d5d599bd90c.pdf</filename><originalFilename>67632.vor.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2024-10-09T12:31:59.6202898</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>594182</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence.</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling v2 67632 2024-09-10 Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK ea8460af971fe3e3aceb250c199a0f14 0009-0003-9537-9016 Ceri Hughes Ceri Hughes true false 2024-09-10 CACS This article explores whether different media platforms across impartial news media supplied the same level of scrutiny in how they fact-checked political claims. While prior research has largely focused on independent fact-checking organisations, the fact-checking practices of legacy media through a cross-platform perspective have comparatively received limited attention. The study develops new lines of inquiry into the fact-checking practices of legacy media, presenting one of the largest and most forensic cross-platform studies of fact-checking to date. It draws on a systematic content analysis of 355 items from fact-checking sites, including 689 claims and 1850 instances where journalists or sources interacted with them in 2021, and assesses how they were covered by a further 280 television news items. Our findings demonstrate that the selection and degree to which journalists and sources scrutinised political claims varied across media platforms, with television news less inclined to report and analyse policy claims than dedicated fact-checking websites. Overall, we argue that the editorial boundaries of fact-checking are policed by journalists’ interpretations of impartiality, which differ across platforms (in television news or dedicated fact-checking websites) due to a range of editorial factors such as production constraints and news values. Journal Article Journalism 0 SAGE Publications 1464-8849 1741-3001 Misinformation, fact-checking, impartiality, television news, public service broadcasting, content analysis 7 9 2024 2024-09-07 10.1177/14648849241273599 COLLEGE NANME Culture and Communications School COLLEGE CODE CACS Swansea University Another institution paid the OA fee Arts and Humanities Research Council, AH/S012508/1 2024-10-25T11:59:31.9821520 2024-09-10T13:50:37.9496237 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Culture and Communication - Media, Communications, Journalism and PR Marina Morani 0000-0002-7599-843x 1 Ceri Hughes 0009-0003-9537-9016 2 Stephen Cushion 0000-0001-7164-8283 3 Maria Kyriakidou 0000-0002-4053-5961 4 67632__32569__544b2cd52e88413e8ed38d5d599bd90c.pdf 67632.vor.pdf 2024-10-09T12:31:59.6202898 Output 594182 application/pdf Version of Record true Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence. true eng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK
spellingShingle Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK
Ceri Hughes
title_short Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK
title_full Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK
title_fullStr Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK
title_full_unstemmed Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK
title_sort Why media platforms police the boundaries of impartiality: A comparative analysis of television news and fact-checking in the UK
author_id_str_mv ea8460af971fe3e3aceb250c199a0f14
author_id_fullname_str_mv ea8460af971fe3e3aceb250c199a0f14_***_Ceri Hughes
author Ceri Hughes
author2 Marina Morani
Ceri Hughes
Stephen Cushion
Maria Kyriakidou
format Journal article
container_title Journalism
container_volume 0
publishDate 2024
institution Swansea University
issn 1464-8849
1741-3001
doi_str_mv 10.1177/14648849241273599
publisher SAGE Publications
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str School of Culture and Communication - Media, Communications, Journalism and PR{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Culture and Communication - Media, Communications, Journalism and PR
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description This article explores whether different media platforms across impartial news media supplied the same level of scrutiny in how they fact-checked political claims. While prior research has largely focused on independent fact-checking organisations, the fact-checking practices of legacy media through a cross-platform perspective have comparatively received limited attention. The study develops new lines of inquiry into the fact-checking practices of legacy media, presenting one of the largest and most forensic cross-platform studies of fact-checking to date. It draws on a systematic content analysis of 355 items from fact-checking sites, including 689 claims and 1850 instances where journalists or sources interacted with them in 2021, and assesses how they were covered by a further 280 television news items. Our findings demonstrate that the selection and degree to which journalists and sources scrutinised political claims varied across media platforms, with television news less inclined to report and analyse policy claims than dedicated fact-checking websites. Overall, we argue that the editorial boundaries of fact-checking are policed by journalists’ interpretations of impartiality, which differ across platforms (in television news or dedicated fact-checking websites) due to a range of editorial factors such as production constraints and news values.
published_date 2024-09-07T11:59:30Z
_version_ 1813883356877684736
score 11.035655

Similar Items