Cited by 146Misinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Studies and CommunicationCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

Generalised scepticism: how people navigate news on social media

Fletcher, Richard, Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis·2019·Information, Communication & Society

Abstract

Social media is an increasingly widely used and important source of news. News on social media is ‘selected’ by a variety of actors, including the editors and journalists that produce the content, and the algorithms developed by technology companies to make automatic display decisions based on users’ past behaviour and the actions of their friends. We analyse how people navigate news on social media, and focus on their perception of the different kinds of news selection involved. The analysis uses a mixed-methods design based on focus group material and survey data from Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across all four countries, with their different political and media systems, we find (i) that the majority do not understand exactly how the information they receive is filtered by algorithms, but they do not uncritically accept it either, because they are sceptical of all forms of selection ‒ including that performed by editors and journalists, (ii) that approval for algorithmic selection is stronger amongst younger people, and (iii) that those with a high level of interest in ‘soft’ news topics (and low interest in ‘hard’ news topics) are more likely to approve of news algorithmically selected on the basis of what their friends have consumed. We argue that the way in which most people navigate news on social media is thus based on a ‘generalised scepticism’ where people question all kinds of selection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2018.1450887

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The myth of fake news being common makes people more skeptical of news in general.

    “Similar to the idea of perceived polarization increasing actual polarization, the myth of fake news being common makes people more skeptical of news in general (Altay, Berriche, & Acerbi, 2022; Fletcher & Nielsen, 2019; Guess et al., 2021).”

    From Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. (2024) · cites this paper as Fletcher & Nielsen, 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Fletcher, Richard
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Published
2018-03-20
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
1751-1769
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
OpenAlex
W2790098223
Cited by
146
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
FWCI
31.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Google (CTR00220)
  • Digital News Report (CTR00150)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
social media news, news selection, algorithmic filtering, young audiences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review