Fakeness Assessments
According to Nielson and Graves (2017), ordinary citizens do not distinguish fake news from genuine news in a straightforward manner, and their use and understanding of fake news varies widely. In fact, individuals identify fake news across a wide spectrum ranging from propaganda to sponsored content and from advertising that is intended to mislead to poor journalism. Therefore, using a seven-point scale from not at all fake to extremely fake, this study sought to answer two major questions. First, does the information source play a role in audience evaluations of health information? Second, is audience processing of the health information influenced by their prior health beliefs? Findings suggest that individuals holding different prior beliefs on milk consumption assessed the fakeness of the health news item significantly differently. In addition, sources which are less seen to be motivated by financial profits are less likely to be seen as fake.
Based on definitions of fake news (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Tandoc et al., 2018; Wardle, 2017), when asked to identify whether a news story is fake, audience must make this determination in light of two components: whether the content is false and the source’s intent. While Allcott and Gentzkow (2017) define fake news as ‘news articles that are intentionally and verifiably false, and could mislead readers’ (p.213), Wardle (2017) defines fake news as news that is fabricated and created for financial gain or to achieve political aims. Following these conceptualizations, this study focused on the extent to which news audience perceive news content as deliberately false and to what degree they perceive an intent to spread such content for ideological or financial purposes (Tandoc et al., 2018). Therefore, besides perceived fakeness, this study examined two other core components of fake news perception: perceived inaccuracy and perceived intent to pursue financial gain.