News

Survey: Across parties, Americans accept removal of false health info by social media companies, survey says

By ajk90February 17th, 2025in Homepage, Media & Technology Press Releases

By Burt Glass

An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans across political parties believe it is acceptable for social media platforms to remove inaccurate information about public health issues, according to a new opinion survey from Boston University.

The survey, designed by researchers at the Communication Research Center at the university’s College of Communication, found that Americans agreed on this across political divides, with 85% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans approving of companies removing this kind of false content.

The same poll reveals that nearly two in three adults (63%) believe if social media posts spread unverified information about a public health issue, it is acceptable for independent fact-checking organizations to verify social media content. About the same percentage (65%) of Americans believe it’s acceptable for social media companies to lower the visibility of inaccurate information about public health issues on their apps and websites, known as “downranking.”

The integrity of public discourse is at risk as political leaders push the boundaries of truth,” says Michelle Amazeen, an associate professor at Boston University’s College of Communication and director of the Communication Research Center. “With social media companies abandoning their fact-checking programs, it is more urgent than ever for these platforms to take meaningful action, given their pivotal role in shaping the national conversation.”

In contrast, less than half (48%) of those surveyed support the “community notes” model where users write and rate notes that appear next to specific posts. Although there are some partisan differences—73% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 55% of Republicans favor a fact-checking model—the lukewarm reception of community notes crosses party lines.

“The results so far of social media platforms relying on users to rate the accuracy of posts are sobering,” Amazeen says. “Despite the presence of the community notes programs, social media platforms that use this model remain rife with misinformation.”

Read full story here.

Survey: Despite Election Results, Americans Held More Negative Feelings About Trump Than Harris, Survey Finds

By ajk90February 17th, 2025in Homepage, Media & Technology Press Releases

By Burt Glass

Americans surveyed just before the presidential election held stronger negative emotions about Donald Trump than Kamala Harris, running counter to the results days later, according to the latest survey by Boston University’s College of Communication.

Nearly half of respondents said they would describe their feelings about Trump as “disgusted” (48%) or “repulsed” (45%). In contrast, about a third said they would describe their feelings about Harris as “disgusted” (34%) or “repulsed” (32%). The gap was similar when respondents considered other emotions such as anger and fear.

Neither candidate seemed to elicit enthusiasm among respondents. Only 40% felt enthusiastic, strongly other otherwise, about Harris, and 31% felt that way about Trump.

Yet four days after the survey was completed, Trump won nearly 50% of the popular vote compared to slightly more than 48% for Harris.

“In general, Americans were slightly more enthusiastic toward Harris and more angry, afraid, and disgusted by Trump,” said H. Denis Wu , a professor at Boston University’s College of Communication and author of the survey questions. “Partisan difference of emotions in candidate evaluations is predictable and self-clarifying.

“However, the emotions voters had right before the election did not necessarily align well with their party memberships, as some Democrats were angry and disgusted by Harris,” he added.

Read full story here.

Letter from the Director: January 2025

By ajk90January 28th, 2025in Homepage, Letters From the Director

Americans Expect Social Media Content Moderation

By: Michelle Amazeen

In an age where misinformation spreads at the speed of a click, the announcement by Meta—formerly Facebook—to abandon its partnership with independent fact-checking organizations raises urgent questions. Meta’s decision comes at a critical juncture, as the U.S. faces an era where disinformation campaigns—often amplified by political figures—threaten democratic discourse and public trust. How will this shift affect the quality of content on its platforms? And, as Meta is the largest funder of fact-checkers globally, what does this mean for the future of fact-checking itself?

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg justified the decision by claiming that the company’s fact-checking program “too often became a tool to censor.” Yet, a recent poll from Boston University’s College of Communication paints a very different picture of public sentiment. A majority (72%) of Americans believe it is acceptable for social media platforms to remove inaccurate information about public health issues. Support spans political divides, with 85% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and even 61% of Republicans agreeing that such content moderation is necessary.

Instead of relying on independent fact-checkers, Meta is pivoting to a “community notes” model. In this approach, users write and rate notes that accompany posts containing dubious claims. This model mirrors the approach Elon Musk has implemented on Twitter, now rebranded as X.

But Americans remain skeptical. The same poll reveals that nearly two in three adults (63%) believe independent fact-checking organizations should verify social media content. In contrast, less than half (48%) support the “community notes” model. Although there are some partisan differences—73% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 55% of Republicans favor a fact-checking model—the lukewarm reception of community notes crosses party lines.

Is there any evidence that crowdsourcing claim verification works? The academic literature is mixed. In certain contexts, crowdsourcing can rival expert verification. However, other research highlights its inconsistencies. Crowdsourcing is generally effective at assessing the credibility of news sources but struggles to reliably identify disinformation. Partisanship often undermines its efficacy, influencing which claims are selected for verification. Moreover, distinguishing verifiable claims from unverifiable ones is a skill that typically requires training.

Black and white photo of a hand dropping a ballot into a ballot box.

In practice, the results are sobering. Despite the presence of the community notes program, X remains a platform rife with misinformation on elections, climate change, and other critical topics. Offloading content moderation responsibilities onto users is yet another example of platforms shirking their duty to ensure the safety of their digital products. By abandoning content moderation, social media platforms risk enabling disinformation from those in power. Accountability measures are essential, especially as a new administration with a history of weaponizing disinformation takes office.

Still, paying independent fact-checkers has its own complications. Under Meta’s program, the platform itself determined which claims were submitted for review. This approach often resulted in fact-checkers debunking viral but non-political content, while more politically charged claims that could influence democratic processes went unaddressed. Additionally, Meta did not disclose what happened to posts flagged as inaccurate, leaving fact-checkers in the dark about the impact of their work.

Thus, the silver lining in Meta’s rejection of fact-checkers may be that the commercial imperatives of the company will no longer influence fact-checker claim selection process. Freed from Meta’s influence, fact-checkers might return their focus to democratic priorities. However, the financial loss will undoubtedly strain these organizations.

There is a potential bright side: the public could play a pivotal role in sustaining independent fact-checking. According to the Boston University poll, one-third of U.S. adults would donate $1 to fund these initiatives through crowdfunding campaigns. Such efforts could restore some of the financial resources that fact-checking organizations need to thrive.

The question of who should moderate social media content—and how—is a critical challenge of the digital age. As political leaders test the limits of truth, the integrity of public discourse hangs in the balance. Social media platforms must rise to the occasion, for their role in shaping the national conversation has never been more consequential.

Michelle A. Amazeen is Associate Professor of Mass Communication at Boston University, Associate Dean for Research at the College of Communication and directs the Communication Research Center.

Letter from the Director: December 2024

By ajk90December 17th, 2024in Homepage, Letters From the Director

The Fall 2024 Semester in Review

By: Michelle Amazeen

December marks the conclusion of another bustling semester for the CRC which kicked off with our inaugural open house co-hosted with the Center for Innovation in Social Science. We also celebrated the 15-year milestone of our Colloquium Series, which consists of monthly research presentations that highlight current and original research of CRC fellows. Our fall speakers included Dr. Denis Wu (September), Dr. Chris Wells (November), and Dr. Maria “Betsi” Grabe (December).

An image of faculty from BU's School of Hospitality and the CRC Lab Manager, Amanda King, prepping a graduate student for biometric data collection.
A graduate student being prepped for biometric data collection by the CRC Lab Manager, while a faculty member looks on, pictured here.

Every semester, the CRC invites a distinguished scholar from outside the university to share their outstanding scholarship, expertise, and experience with the BU community. Our Fall 2024 Dr. Melvin L. DeFleur Distinguished Lecturer was Dr. Bartosz Wojdynski (University of Georgia) who spoke about deepfakes, AI images, and the psychology of detection. We were thrilled to welcome nearly 200 attendees from the BU community and from other universities in the Boston area.

To foster connections within our research community, our faculty fellows met monthly as part of our Work-In-Progress meetings. Special guests this semester included representatives from BU’s Institutional Review Board and from the office of BU’s Foundation Relations. We will continue these meetings in the spring semester on the first Thursday of the month at 3:30 pm. Our first meeting will be February 6th. Moreover, our Lunch & Learn series continued, enabling doctoral students the opportunity to talk with scholars such as Edward Schiappa, Ph.D, Arunima Krishna, Ph.D, Maria Grabe, Ph.D, and Katy Coduto, Ph.D, about their academic research and careers.

We concluded the semester with an onsite workshop focused on training faculty fellows on our biometric technology. Led by an iMotions Product Specialist, the workshop offered an introduction to the iMotions software, theoretical insights into neuroscience and voice analysis, and practical, hands-on experience with the hardware and software required for conducting in-depth analyses with these tools. If you are interested in learning more about biometrics, short primers are available here and here.

Given the University’s commitment to involving students in research, the CRC continued to facilitate fellows’ efforts to recruit students as research participants via our SONA research participant management system. SONA provides both graduate and undergraduate students with the opportunity to engage in various research activities across COM while earning course credit. This semester, students from 42 different COM courses had access to 26 research opportunities. Faculty fellows (or their advisees) who utilize CRC resources are required to register their courses with SONA. We encourage you to consider including your courses in the upcoming Spring semester. To enroll, please complete this form. For more details about the SONA program, visit our website or email us comsona@bu.edu.

Michelle Amazeen, Ph.D, Tammy Vigil, Ph.D, and Charlotte Howell, Ph.D photographed in the podcast studio.
All smiles following the first recording of 'The COMversation' with Michelle Amazeen, Ph.D (left), Tammy Vigil, Ph.D (center), and Charlotte Howell, Ph.D (right), pictured here.

The CRC also sought to advance the thought leadership of its fellows with the Media & Technology Public Opinion Poll. In August, Prof. Anne Danehy lent her expertise to a poll about candidate imagery: Democrats’ Convention Knocked Trump’s Image Among Independents, Survey Suggests. Our September poll addressed social media warning labels that corresponded to research from Dr. Traci Hong: Social Media Should Include Warnings About Nicotine, Vaping – and Social Media Itself, Say Large Majorities. And in October, our poll examined gendered media effects with Dr. Nivea Canalli Bona: Social Media Negatively Impacts Women More than Men, Americans Say in Survey. Faculty fellows interested in participating in a future poll can propose topics of interest by completing this form.

Finally, to make communication research more accessible to the public, the CRC has launched The COMversation, a podcast that connects academic insights with current events. Hosted by Dr. Charlotte Howell, the debut episode dives into the evolving norms of communication and the role of misinformation in politics, providing listeners with an engaging, in-depth discussion on these timely issues. And, as of today, the second episode Wicked Success has been released; it explores the rise in on-screen adaptations, big-budget marketing tours, and what led to the wicked success of Wicked Part 1.

None of these efforts would have been possible without the commitment and hard work of our staff this fall. I am tremendously grateful to our Lab and Research Manager, Amanda King, who received their certification from iMotions in human behavior research and has been offering an unbelievable number of workshops to our students throughout the semester. I would also like to thank our wonderful graduate and undergraduate assistants who helped to keep the Center running. Yelena Rodolitz (EMS) is our SONA administrator doing the behind-the-scenes work on our research participant management system. Yifang “Violet” Li (MCR) is our Communications Assistant writing about and promoting our activities. And Abby Bonner (FTV) and Eliza Lakritz (MS/AH) are our Podcast Assistants putting all the procedures and protocols in place for getting our podcast launched. Thanks to all, and I’m delighted our assistants will be continuing with us in the spring semester.

To our CRC community of fellows, I wish you all a joyous and restful holiday season and look forward to the many new and exciting activities we are planning for 2025!

CRC Seed Grant Spotlight: AnneMarie McClain’s Study on Media and Marginalized Youth

By ajk90December 6th, 2024in Homepage

By Violet Li

The inaugural CRC Faculty Research Seed Grants, awarded last Spring, have provided essential support for innovative projects advancing communication scholarship. These grants foster inter-departmental collaboration and address pressing societal issues, showcasing the power of research to make meaningful contributions. As we look ahead to the next round of funding in Spring 2025, we celebrate the grant recipients and their exceptional work.

In this article, we spotlight the research of Professor AnneMarie McClain, whose community-engaged study highlights the intersection of media representation and identity among marginalized youth. Below, she shares an overview of her research, the invaluable role of the CRC Faculty Research Seed Grant, and her aspirations for the impact of this work.

Research Overview and Goals

Professor AnneMarie McClain (she/her) is running a series of community-engaged focus groups with gender expansive children (ages 3 to 17) and their families, in partnership with two LGBTQ+ youth nonprofit organizations and a seasoned children’s media content expert, Elly Kramer. Since there is striking little research about what particular kinds of representations are most affirming, useful, and effective for marginalized youth and their families, AnneMarie and her research team will explore what kinds of media this particular community of kids and families need and want to see in their children’s media representation, and what kinds of media they already use to help them navigate identity. The intention is to share results and recommendations for content with folks in both industry and academia.

 

Violet: "How the CRC Faculty Research Seed Grant has enabled your work, particularly in ways that would not have been possible without the funding?"

Professor McClain:
“The CRC Faculty Research Seed Grant has been essential to this project, and I’m so honored to have received one. Focus groups are expensive and time-intensive. We need to feed people, compensate participants well, have supplies (e.g., markers, paper) for kids to participate, and compensate the nonprofit partners who are integral to recruitment efforts and data collection. Additionally, given the sensitive topics discussed and vulnerability of this community, we also need to ensure that transcriptions are made via a company that does HIPPA-compliant services, which adds another cost. With my CRC Grant, I am able to cover all of these expenses, as well as pay for a wonderfully talented undergraduate RA to round out my team of strong graduate student RAs. The fact that this project has institutional financial support from COM also meant a lot to one of the LGBTQ+ youth organizations we are working with, because it helped communicate the value of this work.”
Violet:"What are your hopes for the future impact of this research, and how do you envision its potential applications or long-term objectives?"
Professor McClain:
“We have so many goals for this project! One goal is to push the field of children’s media scholarship forward theoretically; there is little work that has been done in terms of robust theorizing around the representation preferences and selections for marginalized kids, and I see ways to combine various theoretical traditions to expand our frameworks and understanding. This study is only the first of a long series of projects that I envision doing that centers this community and the ways they use media.

I also hope that the project can serve as an example of the kind of inclusive methodology that can generate meaningful partnerships and findings that can be used to make a tangible difference in the lives of kids and families. Related to this, we plan to share the results and recommendations with folks in the children’s media industry, and we hope to co-design those recommendations with children’s media colleagues, our nonprofit partners, and kids and families. Media have so much potential to affirm kids and help them navigate identity, including as it relates to experiences with bias. We hope to get more conversations started about exactly what kinds of representation might help promote positive outcomes for kids who are looking to see themselves.”

The CRC Faculty Research Seed Grants demonstrate the transformative potential of targeted funding in advancing communication research and fostering meaningful societal impact. Professor McClain’s work is a testament to how these grants empower scholars to tackle pressing issues with innovative approaches, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive and equitable future. As the CRC prepares for the next round of funding, we look forward to supporting more groundbreaking projects that bridge academia, industry, and community to address the challenges of our time.

Letter from the Director: November 2024

By ajk90November 18th, 2024in Homepage, Letters From the Director

Election 2024 Debrief: Insights from Communication Research

By: Michelle Amazeen

Since November 5th, there has been ongoing reflection on why the election ultimately favored Trump, particularly given his frequent use of misleading or false claims. For those who study media and communication, the link between misinformation and voting behavior is concerning. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Americans misinformed about crime rates, the economy, and immigration were more likely to vote for Trump.

One critical factor not fully captured by polling data is the persistence of high prices on essentials like groceries and housing, despite a decrease in inflation over the past year. If people struggle to put food on the table or keep up with rent, that tangible economic hardship outweighs broader statistical trends.

At the same time, the constant barrage of misinformation – spread through ads, news programming, and social media – can create an illusory truth effect where repetition makes false claims seem credible. This repetition led many to believe that issues like border crossings and inflation remained out-of-control, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

In understanding the election outcome, it’s also important to consider the quickly evolving media environment and changes in how people are getting their news and information. These are topics I have explored in-depth with my students throughout the year. Podcasts, for example, are an increasingly popular medium for news, with nearly half of US adults having listened to at least one in the past month, according to Statista. Both presidential candidates tapped into this trend, appearing on influential podcasts such as Joe Rogan’s (Trump) and Howard Stern’s (Harris). Simultaneously, many Americans are turning away from traditional news outlets and are seeking information online from alternative sources and influencers. Even some prominent journalists have left legacy media to strike out on their own (see Kara Swisher, Taylor Lorenz, and Chris Wallace).

Social media has also become a dominant news source. More than half (54%) of US adults, and over three-quarters (78%) of young adults aged 18-24, get their news from social media at least occasionally. My students, drawing from their own experiences and research, tell me that young people prefer social media for news because it’s accessible, caters to shorter attention spans, and—importantly—is free. With paid news subscriptions largely unappealing to young audiences, free access on platforms like Instagram and TikTok is more attractive.

However, these alternative news sources often lack the commitment to journalistic principles like verification and accuracy. Since Twitter’s rebranding to X, the platform has become a significant vector for misinformation. Facebook has also deemphasized its role as a news source, removing its news tab and ending licensing deals with publishers. While some news influencers strive to engage and inform audiences, foreign adversaries have also leveraged the influence of certain content creators to spread conspiratorial narratives that deepen existing societal divisions.

The election outcome highlights how emotional narratives held more sway than facts and logic. Interestingly, my research with Dr. Arunima Krishna has shown that narrative-based counter-messaging can help combat misinformation. This offers a hopeful silver lining for our communication students, who are learning to become the emotionally resonant storytellers of tomorrow.

To make communication research more accessible to the public, the CRC recently launched The COMversation, a podcast that connects academic insights with current events. Hosted by Dr. Charlotte Howell, the debut episode dives into the evolving norms of communication and the role of misinformation in politics, providing listeners with an engaging, in-depth discussion on these timely issues.

If you're interested in exploring how communication research informs our understanding of current events, join us on The COMversation. Listen to the latest episode, share it with your network, and be part of a conversation that strives for a more informed and engaged public.

Survey: Social Media Negatively Impacts Women More than Men, Americans Say in Survey

By ajk90November 11th, 2024in Homepage, Media & Technology Press Releases

By Burt Glass

Social media impacts women more negatively than men, according to most Americans, but traditional media does a better job giving equal attention to issues that affect both.

The latest Media & Technology survey by Boston University’s College of Communication found that three times as many than not, for example, say social media content negatively impacts women more than men, in terms of body perception, lifestyle and self-esteem (52% agree vs. 17% disagree).

But when asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the idea that TV, magazines, radio and newspapers “give equal attention to issues that affect women and issues that affect men,” respondents were almost evenly split (32% agreed, 35% disagreed).

“The most surprising result was the proportion of people, an average of 35%, that have no clear position when it comes to having an opinion on how women’s issues are covered or portrayed in the media,” said Nivea Canalli Bona., a master lecturer at Boston University’s College of Communication. “This could be a sign of low media literacy, which shows that people are not critical of the role media plays in perpetuating stereotypes. It can further point to the need for more media literacy projects in the country – with the goal of fighting misinformation and disinformation – which should investigate the gender issue.”

Read full story here.

Media & Technology Survey Interest Poll

By ajk90October 24th, 2024in Faculty Opportunities, Homepage

Faculty members are invited to participate in monthly polls conducted in collaboration with Ipsos, exploring key topics like media trust, artificial intelligence, and climate change. This is an opportunity to advance thought leadership, gain media coverage, and contribute to research that aligns with COM's strategic goals of addressing modern communication challenges. Selected faculty will collaborate with the CRC polling committee to craft questions, analyze cross-tabulated data, and contribute insights to press releases.

For more details on how to submit your topic of interest, visit here.

Letter from the Director: October 2024

By Michelle AmazeenOctober 17th, 2024in Homepage, Letters From the Director

Resisting the Era of Darkening: The Researcher Support Consortium

By: Michelle Amazeen

Last week, I moderated a panel of experts on the growing intimidation and harassment faced by researchers studying misinformation. As I’ve noted in previous writings, scholars investigating the origins, spread, and impacts of misinformation are increasingly becoming targets of congressional hearings, subpoenas, doxxing, and other forms of abuse. According to reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post, these attacks are often framed as reactions to alleged political bias and the suppression of conservative speech. Rather than debating the merits of this argument – which lacks empirical support –my focus is on highlighting the assaults on misinformation researchers. My goal is to raise awareness of this issue, help researchers access the support they need to continue their vital work, and to urge institutions to implement protections for these researchers.

Efforts to silence those presenting scientific evidence that challenges prevailing beliefs are far from new. In the 1500s, Copernicus, whose heliocentric theory contradicted the Catholic Church’s geocentric view that the Earth was the center of the universe, was denounced for proposing that the Earth orbits the sun. Galileo, who defended this theory, spent the final years of his life under house arrest as a result. During Nazi Germany’s Third Reich (1933-1945), scholars who produced evidence contradicting Nazi ideology, particularly the belief in a “Master race,” faced imprisonment, exile, or worse. And for years, the US tobacco industry attempted to raise doubt, discredit, and derail the work of scientists providing evidence of the connection between smoking and cancer. This strategic suppression has been repeated against those raising alarms about climate change, those studying vaccines, and, more recently, misinformation researchers.

Intimidation and harassment of scientific experts has become an occupational hazard. Nearly half of US researchers report that they or someone they know has been a target. Among climate scientists who have been quoted in the media at least once a month, almost 3 in 4 have experienced abuse. It’s even worse for scientists who are women or from underrepresented groups.

Coordinated campaigns targeting researchers have far-reaching personal, professional, and societal consequences. On a personal level, those attacked often experience heightened anxiety, depression and social withdrawal. Professionally, these researchers are more likely to self-censor, limit the public availability of their work, or even leave the field entirely. As a result, public trust in scientific experts and higher education erodes, stifling informed discourse and debate. Ultimately, we are moving away from the age of enlightenment into an era of darkening where science, empirical evidence, and rationality are obscured.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. The Researcher Support Consortium has compiled resources to assist those under attack and provides guidance to organizations on how to effectively address their needs. Researchers can empower themselves by planning ways to mitigate risks, by developing strategic response strategies, and by connecting with a broader community of supporters.

Institutions have an important role to play in supporting researchers, as well. The Researcher Support Consortium offers a toolkit of practical and actionable steps that institutions can take to prepare for attacks. Steps include setting up researcher support and response teams, understanding how to effectively communicate with impacted researchers, and responding to incidents of abuse while both protecting the needs of the researcher and the reputation of the institution.

To this end, the CRC has issued a statement on researcher intimidation and harassment, which is available in full here. The CRC views these threats as serious occupational hazards and is committed to 1) raising awareness of these challenges, 2) creating robust policies and protocols to safeguard researchers, and 3) fostering an environment that empowers our research fellows to continue their important work in addressing contemporary societal challenges.

Thank you to the researchers who have established the Researcher Support Consortium, a valuable resource that will benefit many.

Survey: Social Media Should Include Warnings about Nicotine, Vaping — and Social Media Itself, say Large Majorities

By ajk90October 3rd, 2024in Homepage, Media & Technology Press Releases

By Burt Glass

Social media companies should include warning labels on posts promoting nicotine, vaping and tobacco, say large majorities of Americans in the latest Media & Technology survey from Boston University’s College of Communication.

“The Surgeon General’s call for warning labels on social media is straight from the tobacco playbook when the government required warning labels on tobacco products,” said Traci Hong, PhD., professor at Boston University College of Communication and author of the survey. “They work, but they are not widely used on social media where vaping is promoted.

Read full story here.