CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 9Misinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and PoliticsJournalism and Media Studies

The Consumption of Pink Slime Journalism: Who, What, When, Where, and Why?

Open access
Moore, Ryan Christopher, Dahlke, Ross, Bengani, Priyanjana, Hancock, Jeffrey·2023
DOI 10.31219/osf.io/3bwz6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Pink slime journalism refers to organizations that masquerade as local news outlets, often publishing articles that serve special interests. Past research and reporting has illuminated the production of pink slime journalism (e.g., identifying pink slime outlets and documenting their practices), but no work has systematically analyzed the consumption of pink slime. In this paper, we combine web browsing behavior of a nationally representative sample of American adults collected during the 2020 election (N = 1,238; 21 million website visits) with a database of websites of pink slime outlets (1,627 outlets, 132,237 distinct articles) to illuminate who, what, when, where, and why in the consumption of pink slime journalism. Our analysis reveals that 3.7% of American adults (approximately 9.5 million people) visited pink slime in the months surrounding the 2020 election. Pink slime consumption differed considerably from consumption of both misinformation and traditional local news websites. We also find mismatch between production and consumption, with the topics of produced and promoted pink slime articles differing greatly from the topics of articles consumed. Google and Facebook were prominent referrers to pink slime. Despite speculation, people in news deserts were not more likely to be exposed to pink slime.

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 · 10.31219/osf.io/3bwz6

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • At least 3.7% of American adults visited at least one pink slime site during the 2020 Presidential elections period.

    “research from Stanford University analyzed news consumption of pink slime sites and found that at least 3.7% of American adults visited at least one pink slime site during the 2020 Presidential elections period (Moore et al. 2023).”

    From Pink slime journalism on Facebook: advertisement trends and political influence (2019–2024) (2026) · cites this paper as Moore et al. 2023

    The RQ1/RQ3/RQ4 results estimate that 3.7% of American adults were exposed to at least one pink slime website from August 24 to December 7, 2020, and the Summary of Findings describes this as visiting a site. But 3.7% is an estimate, not a lower bound: its reported 95% confidence interval is 2.3–5.2%, so the phrase “at least 3.7%” overstates the finding. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Facebook is the social media platform most commonly used for referral URLs to pink slime news sites.

    “Facebook was chosen because it is the social media platform that is most commonly used for referral URLs to pink slime news sites (Moore et al. 2023).”

    From Pink slime journalism on Facebook: advertisement trends and political influence (2019–2024) (2026) · cites this paper as Moore et al. 2023

  • 17.7% of visits to pink slime sites are referred by Facebook.

    “17.7% of visits to pink slime sites are referred by Facebook (Moore et al. 2023).”

    From Pink slime journalism on Facebook: advertisement trends and political influence (2019–2024) (2026) · cites this paper as Moore et al. 2023

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Allen, J., Howland, B., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D., & Watts, D. J. (2020). Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances, 6(14), eaay3539. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3539 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Althaus, S. L., Cizmar, A. M., & Gimpel, J. G. (2009). Media Supply, Audience Demand, and the Geography of News Consumption in the United States. Political Communication, 26(3), 249-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600903053361 · DOI
  4. Askari, Y. (2020, October 27). 'Pink Slime' Journalism Finds a Home in Texas' News Deserts. The Texas Observer. https://www.texasobserver.org/pink-slime-journalism-finds-a-home-in-texas-news-deserts / Bengani, P. (2019, December 18). Hundreds of 'pink slime' local news outlets are distributing algorithmic stories and conservative talking points. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/hundreds-of-pink-slime-local-news-outlets-are-dis tributing-algorithmic-stories-conservative-talking-points.php/
  5. Bengani, P. (2020, August 4). As election looms, a network of mysterious 'pink slime' local news outlets nearly triples in size. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/as-election-looms-a-network-of-mysterious-pink-slime-local-n ews-outlets-nearly-triples-in-size.php
  6. Bengani, P. (2021, October 14). Advocacy groups and Metric Media collaborate on local 'community news.' Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/community-newsmaker-metric-media-local-news. php/
  7. Bengani, P. (2022, October 31). 'Pink slime' network gets $1.6M election boost from PACs backed by oil-and-gas, shipping magnates. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/local_news/pink-slime-network-gets-1-6m-election-boost-from-pacs-b acked-by-oil-and-gas-shipping-magnates.php
  8. Brown, M. A., Bisbee, J., Lai, A., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2022). Echo Chambers, Rabbit Holes, and Algorithmic Bias: How YouTube Recommends Content to Real Users (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4114905). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4114905 · DOI
  9. Burton, A. G., & Koehorst, D. (2020). Research note: The spread of political misinformation on online subcultural platforms. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-40 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Coddington, M., Lewis, S. C., & Belair-Gagnon, V. (2021). The Imagined Audience for News: Where Does a Journalist's Perception of the Audience Come From? Journalism Studies, 22(8), 1028-1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1914709 · DOI
  11. Cohen, N. S. (2015). From Pink Slips to Pink Slime: Transforming Media Labor in a Digital Age. The Communication Review, 18(2), 98-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2015.1031996 · DOI
  12. Drummond, C., Siegrist, M., & Árvai, J. (2020). Limited effects of exposure to fake news about climate change. Environmental Research Communications, 2(8), 081003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/abae77 · DOI
  13. Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374-378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Guess, A., Aslett, K., Tucker, J., Bonneau, R., & Nagler, J. (2021). Cracking Open the News Feed: Exploring What U.S. Facebook Users See and Share with Large-Scale Platform Data. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 1. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.006 · DOI
  15. Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0833-x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Henke, J., Leissner, L., & Möhring, W. (2020). How can Journalists Promote News Credibility? Effects of Evidences on Trust and Credibility. Journalism Practice, 14(3), 299-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1605839 · DOI
  17. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Litt, E. (2012). Knock, Knock. Who's There? The Imagined Audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705195 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2016). The Imagined Audience on Social Network Sites. Social Media + Society, 2(1), 2056305116633482. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116633482 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Martin, G. J., & McCRAIN, J. (2019). Local News and National Politics. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 372-384. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000965 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, danah. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Matthews, J. (2008). A Missing Link? Journalism Practice, 2(2), 264-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780801999402 · DOI
  23. Moore, R. C., Dahlke, R., & Hancock, J. T. (2022). Exposure to Untrustworthy Websites in the 2020 US Election. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6bgqh · DOI
  24. Nelson, J. L. (2021). Imagined Audiences: How Journalists Perceive and Pursue the Public. Oxford University Press.
  25. Pearson, R. (2022, September 9). Gov. J.B. Pritzker says racism behind political mailings disguised as newspapers that attack new criminal justice laws. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/elections/ct-illinois-governors-race-pritzker-proft- fake-newspapers-20220909-dplcxk67w5g2jn5ajae3jd63zm-story.html
  26. Porter, E., Velez, Y., & Wood, T. J. (2022). Factual Corrections Eliminate False Beliefs About COVID-19 Vaccines. Public Opinion Quarterly, 86(3), 762-773. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac034 · DOI
  27. Rafsky, S. (2022, September 19). Tow Center audience study: Reader perspectives on partisan local news sites. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/tow-center-audience-study-reader-perspectives-o n-local-partisan-news-sites.php/
  28. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2019). stm: An R Package for Structural Topic Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 91, 1-40. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v091.i02 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moore, R. C., Dahlke, R., Bengani, P., & Hancock, J.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
ORCID
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2023-02-16
DOI
10.31219/osf.io/3bwz6
OpenAlex
W4321102145
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
local news, news consumption, 2020 US presidential election, misinformation, news deserts

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