How health journalists gatecheck public figures who share misinformation

This study investigates how health journalists report handling misinformation shared by a public figure. Survey results from 629 U.S. journalists show that nearly 70% said they would gatecheck the information or make an explicit reference that the information was incorrect. Using the gatekeeping theory and the Hierarchy of Influences model, we examined the individual and organizational influences on information correction and found that women and more experienced professionals were less likely to correct the public figure. For those who chose to correct the public figure, their motivations included public-figure accountability, journalistic duty, concern that the audience would further pursue misinformation, and informing the public. Meanwhile, concerns about balance, maintaining neutrality in the marketplace of ideas, and amplifying misinformation could dissuade them.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journalism
Published
2025-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251391857
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How health journalists gatecheck public figures who share misinformation

Amanda Hinnant, María E. Len‐Ríos, Rongwei Tang, Rachel Young et al.
Journalism
Misinformation and Its Impacts
article

How health journalists gatecheck public figures who share misinformation

Amanda Hinnant, María E. Len‐Ríos, Rongwei Tang, Rachel Young, Zhiying Xu
article en

Abstract

This study investigates how health journalists report handling misinformation shared by a public figure. Survey results from 629 U.S. journalists show that nearly 70% said they would gatecheck the information or make an explicit reference that the information was incorrect. Using the gatekeeping theory and the Hierarchy of Influences model, we examined the individual and organizational influences on information correction and found that women and more experienced professionals were less likely to correct the public figure. For those who chose to correct the public figure, their motivations included public-figure accountability, journalistic duty, concern that the audience would further pursue misinformation, and informing the public. Meanwhile, concerns about balance, maintaining neutrality in the marketplace of ideas, and amplifying misinformation could dissuade them.

Journalism
Purdue University Northwest (US), University of Iowa (US), University of Minnesota (US), Twin Cities Orthopedics (US), University of Missouri (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.