Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pseudo-Information, Media, Publics, and the Failing Marketplace of Ideas: Theory

Kim, Jeong-Nam, Gil de Zúñiga, Homero·2021·American Behavioral Scientist
DOI 10.1177/0002764220950606
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The explosive usage in recent years of the terms “fake news” and “posttruth” reflects worldwide frustration and concern about rampant social problems created by pseudo-information. Our digital networked society and newly emerging media platforms foster public misunderstanding of social affairs, which affects almost all aspects of individual life. The cost of lay citizens’ misunderstandings or crippled lay informatics can be high. Pseudo-information is responsible for deficient social systems and institutional malfunction. We thus ask questions and collect knowledge about the life of pseudo-information and the cognitive and communicative modus operandi of lay publics, as well as how to solve the problem of pseudo-information through understanding the changing media environment in this “truth-be-damned” era of information crisis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0002764220950606

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Bimber B., Gil de Zúñiga H. (2020). The unedited public sphere. New Media & Society, 22(4), 700-715. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819893980 · DOI
  2. Carter R. F., 1972, Far West Region Meeting, Society for General Systems Research
  3. Chaffee S., 1991, Explication
  4. Chiu M. M., Oh Y. W. (2021). How fake news differ from personal lies. American Behavioral Scientist, 65: 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220910243 · DOI
  5. Donovan J., Boyd D. (2021). Stop the presses? Moving from strategic silence to strategic amplification in a networked media ecosystem. American Behavioral Scientist, 65, 333-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878229 · DOI
  6. Gagliardone I. (2018). World trends in freedom of expression and media development 2018: Global Report 2017/2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322977599_World_Trends_in_Freedom_of_Expression_and_Media_Development_2018/link/5a7abbc145851541ce5efc85/download
  7. Gil de Zúñiga H. (2015). Toward a European public sphere? The promise and perils of modern democracy in the age of digital and social media. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3152-3160. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4783
  8. Grunig J. E., 2003, Communication, a different kind of horse race: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter, 85
  9. Grunig J. E., Kim J-N. (2017). Publics approaches to health and risk message design and processing. Oxford encyclopedia of health and risk message design and processing. https://doi.10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.322 · DOI
  10. Ha L. H., Perez L. A., Ray R. (2021). Mapping recent development in scholarship on fake news and misinformation 2008-2017: Disciplinary contribution, topics and impact. American Behavioral Scientist, 65, 290-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869402 · DOI
  11. Jang S. M., Mortensen T., Liu J. (2021). Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist, 65, 371-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869406 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Kim J.-N., 2014, Communication Insight, 3, 10
  13. Kim J.N. (2018). Digital networked information society and public health: Problems and promises of networked health communication of lay publics. Health Communication, 33(1), 1-4, https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1242039 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1242039
  14. 10.1080/15531181003701913 · DOI
  15. Kim J.N., Grunig J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Kim J.N., Grunig J. E. (2021). Lost in informational paradise: Cognitive arrest to epistemic inertia in problem solving. American Behavioral Scientist, 65, 213-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878237 · DOI
  17. Kim J.N., Krishna A. (2014). Publics and lay informatics: A review of the situational theory of problem solving. Annals of the International Communication Association, 38(1), 71-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2014.11679159 · DOI
  18. Kim J.N., Oh Y. W., Krishna A. (2018). Justificatory information forefending in digital age: Self-sealing informational conviction of risky health behavior, Health Communication, 33(1), 85-93, https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1242040 · DOI
  19. Krishna A., Thompson T. (2021). Misinformation about health: A review of health communication and misinformation scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 65, 316-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878223 · DOI
  20. Lee E. J., Shin S. Y. (2019). Mediated misinformation: Questions answered, more questions to ask. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869403 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Lovari A., Martino V., Righetti N. (2020). Blurred shots: Investigating information crisis around vaccination in Italy. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220910245 · DOI
  22. Marx K. (1867). Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie: Der Produktionsprozess des Kapitals (Vol. 1, 1st ed.) [Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I: The Process of Capitalist Production]. Verlag von Otto Meissner. https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-25773 · doi:10.3931/e-rara-25773
  23. Oh Y. W., Park C. H. (2019). Machine-cleaning of online opinion spam: Developing a machine-learning algorithm for detecting deceptive comments. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878238 · DOI
  24. Stanley J. (2018, September 4). What John Stuart Mill got wrong about freedom of speech. Boston Review. http://bostonreview.net/politics-philosophy-religion/jason-stanley-what-mill-got-wrong-about-freedom-of-speech
  25. Weeks B., Gil de Zúñiga H. (2019). What’s next? Six observations for the future of political misinformation research. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878236 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kim, J.-N., & Gil de Zúñiga, H.
Affiliations
  • The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
  • University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
Venue
American Behavioral Scientist
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-08-30
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
163-179
ISSN
  • 0002-7642
  • 1552-3381
DOI
10.1177/0002764220950606
Cited by
53
References
1
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.