Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Carroll richardson

ISOJ 2007

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Carroll richardson

  1. 1. A New Credibility: Identification, Interactivity & Transparency Brian Carroll & Randy Richardson Berry College
  2. 2. Standing on shoulders  Hovland, McCroskey  Johnson & Kaye  Flanagin & Metzger  Meyer  Burke  Brock, Brommet, Crable, Cohen
  3. 3. Traditional dimensions of credibility  Expertise Accuracy Fairness Absence of bias
  4. 4. New paradigm for credibility Identification (Burke) Interactivity Transparency Re-voicing of journalism (The humanity of it all!)
  5. 5. Research Questions  RQ1: Why do readers loyally read their blogs of choice? What does this say about the values or qualities of A-list blogs and their authors that make them credible to their readers?  RQ2: Why do blog readers trust the blogs they read?
  6. 6. Pharyngula
  7. 7. Informed Comment
  8. 8. Online Survey Self-selected Anonymous Number of respondents: Pharyngula: 70 Informed Comment: 222
  9. 9. Why do you read Informed Comment? Expertise >> 107 of 222 respondents (48%) NOT mainstream media >> propaganda, drivel, political spin, distorted reporting Absence of bias >> 18 mentions Accuracy >> 15 mentions Fairness >> 11 mentions
  10. 10. Why do you trust Informed Comment? Expertise >> 91 of 222 responses (41%) Credentials >> 39 mentions Fairness >> 37 mentions Absence of bias >> 17 mentions Accuracy >> 18 mentions
  11. 11. Why do you read Pharyngula? 11 of 70 cited “expertise” Zeroes for absence of bias, accuracy, fairness
  12. 12. Why do you trust Pharyngula? 26/70 citing “expertise” Zeroes for other traditional credibility dimensions He cites his sources (transparency)
  13. 13. Emergent dimensions of credibility online Identification: “His politics agree with mine.” “His judgment echoes my own.” 27 overt mentions of ID for Q1, 18 for Q2 (Cole) 13 overt Q1, 11 Q2 (Myers) “common enemy” ID (10 cites of Bush in Cole; “bastards, bastards”; 20 of 70 for Pharyngula -- 29%)
  14. 14. Emergent dimensions of credibility online -- Identification Humanity and Authenticity >> 12 mentions (Cole); “re-voicing” Humor >> 17/70 Pharyngula (24%) Interactivity: A conversation, not a lecture. Emails returned. Dining out.
  15. 15. Emergent dimensions of credibility online -- Identification Transparency: “I was wrong.” “I don’t know.” “I’ve changed my mind.” “Here are my sources.” (This all relates to accountability and objectivity.) Humanity: “He cares about the Middle East and has real sympathy for the people living there.” Navigability and site design
  16. 16. Aristotelian ethos Back to the future Good sense (competence, intelligence, expertise) Good moral character (honesty, trustworthiness, fairness) Goodwill (compassion, humanity)
  17. 17. Limitations and Future Research Inter-coder reliability (& Scott’s Pi) Systematic factor analytic approach using emergent criteria across media Longitudinal research Locus of the transaction
  18. 18. Schemas for media-specific ethos Legacy Media New(er) Media Traditional Smart Imperative to inform Infor. as a means to democracy Market economy Knowledge capital Professional (editors) Top-down, centralized Filtered, edited content Fact-checked Polished, cool, conclusive Audience as receptors Mass media messages Non-interactive Audience as electorate High barriers to entry (elitist) Linear Positivist Emergent Simple Imperative to empower Democracy as a means to knowledge Gift economy Social capital Amateur (readers are editors) Edges-in, de-centralized Unfiltered, unedited content Transparent In-process, engaged, non-conclusive Audience as participants Microcontent Interactive, hyperlinked, hypermediated Audience as activists Low barriers to entry (egalitarian) Networked Post-modern