English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Empirical accounts point to the increasing weaponization of the “fake news” label—or unwarranted fake news accusations—by politicians to deflect critical reporting and delegitimize media outlets and achieve political ends. While research has begun unpacking the implications of such attacks, little attention has been paid toward avenues to counter them. Drawing upon the literature on misinformation and crisis management research and through an experimental survey ( n = 1,460), this study explores strategies that media outlets can employ to protect themselves against unwarranted “fake news” accusations—specifically through various denial and attack responses. Results show that denial strategies significantly increase respondents’ belief in the initial critical report, increase support of the media while conversely decreasing support of the politician. While variants of more offensive attack strategies also led to these anticipated effects, simple denials were found to be more effective in protecting the legitimacy of the media outlet. This suggests that such strategies can constitute a simple first-level measure through which institutions can undertake to challenge unfounded fake news accusations.

Fighting Fire With Fire? Relegitimizing Strategies for Media Institutions Faced With Unwarranted “Fake News” Accusations