Explore the vast range of titles available.

Exploring reputation and organizational communication, this study tests how journalists perceive press releases containing grammatical errors. Journalists (n = 118) read a press release with or without errors from an existing or unknown company. Journalists ranked the press releases without errors more favorably, regardless of their perceptions of the company. Additionally, press releases from the existing company were ranked more favorably than those from the unknown one, regardless of errors. Notably, there were no interaction effects, which suggests that reputation cannot overcome negative error effects and that polished writing cannot overcome negative corporate perception effects. Implications for the public relations–journalism relationship are discussed, as is the legitimacy of using unknown organizations when testing reputation via experiments.

Despite calls to conceptualize credibility as three separate concepts—source credibility, message credibility, and media credibility—there exists no scale that exclusively measures message credibility. To address this gap, the current study constructs and validates a new scale. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis suggest that message credibility, specifically in the context of news, can be measured by asking participants to rate how well three adjectives describe content: accurate, authentic, and believable. Validity and reliability tests are reported, and contributions to credibility research are discussed.

This study of types of corrections in newspapers finds that readers consider objective, high-impact corrections more important than errors that are objective and low-impact. The findings do not directly support previous research that suggested corrections help foster credibility.

This study examines the effects of grammatical errors on the credibility of news stories and the amount of time and effort required to read them. Such errors increase reading difficulty and lower readers' perception of credibility as well as what they can recall..

Corrections of errors in a news story are perceived as most important when they do not repeat the error or attribute blame. Additionally, blaming the error on the source leads to lower liking of that source.

Journalistic editing has remained fairly constant over time, despite ongoing changes to the media landscape. Traditional skills are still taught to journalism students and still employed in traditional newsrooms. This study sought to determine the psychological effect of journalistic writing conventions on modern audiences. Through the paradigm of dual-processing models of persuasion (i.e., the Elaboration Likelihood Model and the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model), this study explores two possibilities: Do readers notice mistakes and then consciously decide not to trust the content? Or do mistakes serve as distractions that unconsciously inhibit understanding? In other words, are errors heuristic cues, or are they inhibitors that block in-depth processing? A between-subjects experiment (N = 504) was conducted to observe the relationship between errors and perceptions. Participants were shown news articles with various mistakes (i.e., grammatical errors, AP style errors, and inverted pyramid structure errors) and responded to questions about their perceptions. Participants also were put in either a high-motivation or low-motivation condition to determine whether perceptions differed based on attention. Results showed no significant effects of errors on recall, writing quality, message credibility, or informativeness. These results held regardless of which errors were considered and which article was read. Power analysis showed that the sample was large enough to detect even a small effect size. This suggests that the effects are either contingent on study design or no longer existent. Future studies could determine whether such effects are still present. If, as this study suggests, these effects can no longer be found, then we could be observing a shift in the way readers view historic standards for writing. Based on this study, readers are more willing to overlook style and structure errors than has been found in previous research. Therefore, this study proposes that journalists and journalism educators in the 21st century need to rethink the emphasis on style in the newsroom and the classroom.

This content analysis of The New York Times corrections found that the majority were for errors in people's names, titles, non-age numbers and dates. Most originated in the Features and Lifestyles and the National News sections and were assessed to have little impact on society.

This study considers the impact of grammatical errors on cognitive processing and subsequent evaluation of news articles. It begins with an examination of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model, and grammar-related research. An experiment then tests the impact of grammatical errors on measures of cognitive processing. Participants read articles with varying levels of grammatical error and answer questions to reveal cognitive processing. The results show that grammatical errors in news articles are associated with high mental effort, low retention, and low perceived credibility. These measures indicate that grammatical errors are associated with deep processing of news articles. This study recommends that journalists focus more of their attention on fixing grammatical errors, as doing so will provide a better service to their readers.

The authors discuss content production and consumption based on comparative studies of leading news websites, including those from the United States (abcnews.com, cbsnews. com, chicagotribune.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, news.yahoo.com, seattlepi.com, usatoday.com, and washingtonpost.com), Western Europe (Welt.de, tagesspiegel.de, Elmundo.es, Elpais.es, Guardian.co.uk, and Times.co.uk), and Latin America (Clarín. com, Nacion.com, Folha.com, Eluniversal.com.mx, Reforma.com). Maybe quirky entertainment stories just lend themselves to these behaviors more than hard news articles. [...]the \"news gap\" as measured could be overstated.

Maras, a Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications at the University of Sydney-Australia, summarizes decades of academic research and professional practices related to journalistic objectivity, including its history, its criticisms, and its defenses. [...]certain chapters can be a bit too elementary for people who have already studied aspects of objectivity.