The Threat of Misinformation on Journalism’s Epistemology: Exploring the Gap between Journalist’s and Audience’s Expectations when Facing Fake Content
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the discourse of reporters, editors and audiences in focus groups and in-depth interviews, examining the expectations on journalists when facing misinformation. While both groups agree that journalistic information is critical, how this expectation is met varies. On the one hand, the audience’s way of knowing involves diverse assessments regarding valuable information; also, they are dubious about journalists’ intentions. On the other hand, journalists exhibit a limited understanding of the audience’s informational needs and encounter practical challenges in rigorously fact-checking, affecting their authority in knowledge generation. The study proposes a discussion on acknowledging their complex epistemologies to benefit mutual understanding. Doing this can establish structural support for journalistic information, contributing to trust in journalism when challenged by sources spreading misinformation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it