Reliability and validity study of the perception of political neutrality scale for media organizations

Abstract

The impartiality of the media is critically important for the healthy flow of information and the formation of public opinion in democratic societies. It is clear that the existence of an impartial media, especially during election periods, contributes to the conduct of elections in accordance with democratic principles. In this context, the aim of the present study is to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure the perception of political impartiality of media organizations. Accordingly, this study examines the following question: ‘Is the scale developed to measure the perception of political impartiality of media organizations a valid and reliable tool in the context of Turkey, and how effectively do its four main sub-factors (Impartiality and Objectivity, News Sources and Accuracy, Political Equality and Justice, Manipulation and Distortion) play a role in measuring media perceptions?’ The lack or absence of such a scale in the Turkish sample, as well as the inadequacy of existing scales developed for other countries to suit the general structure of the Turkish sample, has made this research necessary. The study focuses on four main sub-factors: Impartiality and Objectivity, News Sources and Accuracy, Political Equality and Justice, and Manipulation and Distortion. These factors aim to provide a comprehensive assessment of the perception of political impartiality in media organizations. The research sample consists of voluntary participants aged 18 and over residing in Istanbul. Data were collected using the ‘Perception of Political Impartiality of Media Organizations Scale’ and analyzed using SPSS and AMOS software. As a result of Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses, the four-factor structure of the scale was found to be valid and reliable. The findings reveal that the developed scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the perception of political impartiality of media organizations in Turkey. This scale can be used as an important measurement tool for evaluating the performance of media organizations and examining perceptions of impartiality. By filling a significant gap in the literature on media impartiality, the developed scale offers a measurement tool that can be used in both theoretical and applied fields. For future research, it is recommended that the scale be administered to different socio-cultural and demographic groups. This will provide deeper insights into the validity and reliability of the scale and offer a broader perspective on media impartiality.

Keywords

• Political science
• media neutrality
• political neutrality
• news accuracy
• media reliability

Medya kuruluşlarının siyasi tarafsızlık algısı ölçeğinin güvenirlik ve geçerlilik çalışması

Öz

Medyanın tarafsızlığı, demokratik toplumlarda sağlıklı bilgi akışı ve kamuoyu oluşumu açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Özellikle seçim dönemlerinde tarafsız bir medyanın varlığının demokrasi ilkeleri etrafında bir seçimin yapılmasına katkı sağlayacağı aşikardır. Bu bağlamda yapılan bu çalışmanın amacı, medya kuruluşlarının siyasi tarafsızlık algısını ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Bu kapsamda mevcut çalışmada şu sorulara yanıt aranmıştır: Medya kuruluşlarının siyasi tarafsızlık algısını ölçmek için geliştirilen ölçek, Türkiye bağlamında geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç mıdır? Ayrıca, bu ölçeğin dört temel alt faktörü (Tarafsızlık ve Objektiflik, Haber Kaynakları ve Doğruluk, Siyasi Eşitlik ve Adalet, Manipülasyon ve Çarpıtma), medya algılarını ölçmede ne ölçüde etkilidir? Türkiye örnekleminde böyle bir ölçeğin noksan olması/ya da hiç olmaması, literatürde var olan ve diğer ülkelere özgü hazırlanan ölçeklerin Türkiye örnekleminin genel yapısına uygun olmaması bu araştırmayı gerekli kılmıştır. Çalışmada, Tarafsızlık ve Objektiflik, Haber Kaynakları ve Doğruluk, Siyasi Eşitlik ve Adalet ile Manipülasyon ve Çarpıtma olmak üzere dört temel alt faktör üzerine odaklanılmıştır. Bu faktörler, medya kuruluşlarının siyasi tarafsızlık algısını kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma örneklemi, İstanbul’da yaşayan 18 yaş ve üstü gönüllü katılımcılardan oluşmaktadır. Veriler, “Medya Kuruluşlarının Siyasi Tarafsızlık Algısı Ölçeği” ile toplanmış ve SPSS ile AMOS yazılımları kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizleri sonucunda, ölçeğin dört faktörlü yapısının geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, geliştirilen ölçeğin Türkiye’deki medya kuruluşlarının siyasi tarafsızlık algısını ölçmede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu ölçek, medya kuruluşlarının performanslarını değerlendirmek ve tarafsızlık algılarını incelemek için önemli bir ölçüm aracı olarak kullanılabilir. Geliştirilen ölçek, medya tarafsızlığına ilişkin literatürde önemli bir boşluğu doldurarak hem teorik hem de uygulamalı alanlarda kullanılabilecek bir ölçüm aracı sunmaktadır. Gelecekteki araştırmalar için, ölçeğin farklı sosyo-kültürel ve demografik gruplarda uygulanması önerilmektedir. Bu, ölçeğin geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği hakkında daha derinlemesine bilgi sağlayacak ve medya tarafsızlığına dair daha geniş bir perspektif sunacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siyaset bilimi
• medya tarafsızlığı
• siyasi tarafsızlık
• haber doğruluğu
• medya güvenilirliği

Kaynakça

1. Altun, F. (2011). Medya etiği ve tarafsızlık söylemi. İş Ahlakı Dergisi, 4(8), 9-24. Erişim adresi: https://isahlakidergisi.com/sayilar/4-cilt-2-sayi/m0040
2. Altun, F. (2011). Medya etiği ve tarafsızlık söylemi. İş Ahlakı Dergisi, 4(8), 9-24. Erişim adresi: https://isahlakidergisi.com/sayilar/4-cilt-2-sayi/m0040
3. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
4. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
5. Atabek, N. (1994). Gazetecilikte tarafsızlık. Marmara İletişim Dergisi, 7(Temmuz), 23-36. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA42ZU24ML
6. Atabek, N. (1994). Gazetecilikte tarafsızlık. Marmara İletişim Dergisi, 7(Temmuz), 23-36. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA42ZU24ML
7. Büyükafşar, M., & Özçağlayan, M. (2019). Haber ve doğruluk ilişkisi: doğruluk sorununun geçmişi ve haberin dönüşümü. Düşünce ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 29-49.Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA76HA65PB
8. Büyükafşar, M., & Özçağlayan, M. (2019). Haber ve doğruluk ilişkisi: doğruluk sorununun geçmişi ve haberin dönüşümü. Düşünce ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 29-49.Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA76HA65PB

9. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York City: The Guilford Press.
10. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York City: The Guilford Press.
11. Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2017). Troops, trolls and troublemakers: a global ınventory of organized social media manipulation. Computational Propaganda Research Project.
12. Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2017). Troops, trolls and troublemakers: a global ınventory of organized social media manipulation. Computational Propaganda Research Project.
13. Bucy, E. P. (2003). Media credibility reconsidered: Synergy effects between on-air and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699003080002
14. Bucy, E. P. (2003). Media credibility reconsidered: Synergy effects between on-air and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699003080002
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
16. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
17. Cengiz, M. F., & Patan, İ. (2021). Haberde gerçeklik: sosyal medyada gerçeklik algısı üzerine bir analiz. Anadolu Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 235-259. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA22EJ68WC
18. Cengiz, M. F., & Patan, İ. (2021). Haberde gerçeklik: sosyal medyada gerçeklik algısı üzerine bir analiz. Anadolu Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 235-259. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA22EJ68WC
19. Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.
20. Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.
21. Curran, J. (2002). Media and power. Routledge.
22. Curran, J. (2002). Media and power. Routledge.
23. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
24. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
25. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications.
26. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications.
27. Entman, R. M. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Entman, R. M. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of western democracies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
30. Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of western democracies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
31. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
32. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
33. Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63(3), 451-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908606300301
34. Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63(3), 451-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908606300301
35. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2010). What drives media slant? Evidence from US daily newspapers. Econometrica, 78(1), 35-71. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7195
36. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2010). What drives media slant? Evidence from US daily newspapers. Econometrica, 78(1), 35-71. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7195
37. Greenberg, B. S., & Hagan, J. (2002). Communication and terrorism: Public and media responses to 9/11. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
38. Greenberg, B. S., & Hagan, J. (2002). Communication and terrorism: Public and media responses to 9/11. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
39. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191-1237. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355305775097542
40. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191-1237. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355305775097542
41. Groeling, T. (2013). Media bias by the numbers: Challenges and opportunities in the empirical study of partisan news. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123
42. Groeling, T. (2013). Media bias by the numbers: Challenges and opportunities in the empirical study of partisan news. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123
43. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
44. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
45. Hampton, M. (2008). The “objectivity” ideal and its limitations in 20th-century British journalism. Journalism Studies, 9(4), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700802113060
46. Hampton, M. (2008). The “objectivity” ideal and its limitations in 20th-century British journalism. Journalism Studies, 9(4), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700802113060
47. Hartley, J. M., & Askanius, T. (2020). Activist-journalism and the norm of objectivity: Role performance in the reporting of the #MeToo movement in Denmark and Sweden. Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1805792
48. Hartley, J. M., & Askanius, T. (2020). Activist-journalism and the norm of objectivity: Role performance in the reporting of the #MeToo movement in Denmark and Sweden. Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1805792
49. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of communication, 59(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
50. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of communication, 59(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
51. Jukes, S. (2018). Back to the future: How UK-based news organisations are rediscovering objectivity. Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1494512
52. Jukes, S. (2018). Back to the future: How UK-based news organisations are rediscovering objectivity. Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1494512
53. Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008
54. Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008
55. Kavaklı, N. (2019). Yalan Haberle Mücadele ve İnternet Teyit/Doğrulama Platformları. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 6(1), 663-682. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.453398
56. Kavaklı, N. (2019). Yalan Haberle Mücadele ve İnternet Teyit/Doğrulama Platformları. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 6(1), 663-682. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.453398
57. Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction (psychology revivals): Introduction to psychometric design. London: Routledge.
58. Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction (psychology revivals): Introduction to psychometric design. London: Routledge.
59. Korkmaz, Ö., & Yeşil, R. (2011). Medya ve televizyon okuryazarlık düzeyleri ölçeği geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 110-126. Erişim adresi: http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423936368.pdf
60. Korkmaz, Ö., & Yeşil, R. (2011). Medya ve televizyon okuryazarlık düzeyleri ölçeği geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 110-126. Erişim adresi: http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423936368.pdf
61. Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect (3rd ed.). New York City: Three Rivers Press.
62. Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect (3rd ed.). New York City: Three Rivers Press.
63. Köklü, N., Büyüköztürk, Ş., & Çokluk Bökeoğlu, Ö. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler İçin İstatistik (2. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
64. Köklü, N., Büyüköztürk, Ş., & Çokluk Bökeoğlu, Ö. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler İçin İstatistik (2. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
65. Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. Data & Society Research Institute.
66. Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. Data & Society Research Institute.
67. Marsh, K. (2012). Issues of impartiality in news and current affairs. Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies, 1(1), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1386/ajms.1.1.69_1
68. Marsh, K. (2012). Issues of impartiality in news and current affairs. Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies, 1(1), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1386/ajms.1.1.69_1
69. Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x
70. Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x
71. McChesney, R. W. (2008). The political economy of media: Enduring issues, emerging dilemmas. Monthly Review Press.
72. McChesney, R. W. (2008). The political economy of media: Enduring issues, emerging dilemmas. Monthly Review Press.
73. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
74. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
75. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
76. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
77. Mellado, C. (2015). Professional roles in news content: Six dimensions of journalistic role performance. Journalism Studies, 16(4), 596–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.922276
78. Mellado, C. (2015). Professional roles in news content: Six dimensions of journalistic role performance. Journalism Studies, 16(4), 596–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.922276
79. Mont’Alverne, C., Badrinathan, S., Ross Arguedas, A., Toff, B., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2023). “Fair and balanced”: What news audiences in four countries mean when they say they prefer impartial news. Journalism Studies, 24(9), 1131–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2201864
80. Mont’Alverne, C., Badrinathan, S., Ross Arguedas, A., Toff, B., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2023). “Fair and balanced”: What news audiences in four countries mean when they say they prefer impartial news. Journalism Studies, 24(9), 1131–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2201864
81. Napoli, P. M. (2001). Foundations of communications policy: Principles and process in the regulation of electronic media. Hampton Press.
82. Napoli, P. M. (2001). Foundations of communications policy: Principles and process in the regulation of electronic media. Hampton Press.
83. Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket Programlar İle İstatistiksel Veri Analizi 1. İstanbul: Kaan Kitabevi.
84. Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket Programlar İle İstatistiksel Veri Analizi 1. İstanbul: Kaan Kitabevi.
85. Patterson, P., & Wilkins, L. (2011). Media ethics: Issues and cases. McGraw-Hill Education.
86. Patterson, P., & Wilkins, L. (2011). Media ethics: Issues and cases. McGraw-Hill Education.
87. Raeijmaekers, D., & Maeseele, P. (2015). In objectivity we trust? Pluralism, consensus, and ideology in journalism studies. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915614244
88. Raeijmaekers, D., & Maeseele, P. (2015). In objectivity we trust? Pluralism, consensus, and ideology in journalism studies. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915614244
89. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
90. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
91. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
92. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
93. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). London: Pearson.
94. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). London: Pearson.
95. Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
96. Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
97. Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1086/225193
98. Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1086/225193
99. Uçar, A. K. (2020). Bir Gazetecilik Ideolojisi ve Kültürü Olarak Objektiflik: Eleştiriler ve Alternatifler. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 6(60), 1490-1498. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.2264
100. Uçar, A. K. (2020). Bir Gazetecilik Ideolojisi ve Kültürü Olarak Objektiflik: Eleştiriler ve Alternatifler. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 6(60), 1490-1498. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.2264
101. Ward, S. J. A. (2009). Ethics and the media: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
102. Ward, S. J. A. (2009). Ethics and the media: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
103. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The Spread of True and False News Online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
104. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The Spread of True and False News Online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
105. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking. Council of Europe Report. Erişim adresi: https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html
106. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking. Council of Europe Report. Erişim adresi: https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html
107. Watkins, M. W. (2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: from alpha to omega. The clinical neuropsychologist, 31(6-7), 1113- 1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364 Watanabe, K. (2017). Measuring bias in international news: a large-scale analysis of news agency coverage of the Ukraine crisis, [Doctoral dissertation], London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
108. Watkins, M. W. (2017). The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: from alpha to omega. The clinical neuropsychologist, 31(6-7), 1113- 1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1317364 Watanabe, K. (2017). Measuring bias in international news: a large-scale analysis of news agency coverage of the Ukraine crisis, [Doctoral dissertation], London School of Economics and Political Science, London.