Mainstream and nonmainstream media in Malaysia: Does lack of credibility lead to displacement?

Abstract

The study examined how Malaysians perceive the credibility of mainstream versus alternative media in reporting on the public interest issue of the implementation of a goods and service tax (GST). Consistent with past research, our study established a positive link between credibility and media use. Further analysis shows an increase in the use of alternative media when the credibility of mainstream media decreases, suggesting support for a significant displacement effect.

Keywords

credibility mainstream media media use displacement theory Malaysia

Media credibility has been identified as an important factor in explaining why certain media receive larger audiences than others (Zeng, 2005). News research suggests that audiences use news media that they perceive to be credible and then they rely on that news media for their news and information. It is often argued that news media credibility is strongly related to media reliance (Johnson & Kaye, 2010, 2015; Kaye & Johnson, 2016; Miller, 2005; Tsfati, 2002, 2003, 2014). Researchers in agenda-setting believe that perceived credibility influences reliance, which in turn influences the use and extent of agenda-setting effects (Dearing & Rogers, 1996; Greer, 2003; Severin & Tankard, 2001; Wanta & Ghanem, 2007). Studies have also found that media reliance affects audience attitudes and beliefs (Burgoon & Hale, 1984; Hovland et al., 1953). Hence, the news media perceived to be more credible are expected to have more effect on people’s opinions.

Past research assesses credibility from message, source, and medium perspectives. They are in fact interdependent. Scholars argue that message credibility is the most relevant aspect of credibility, which leads to reliance on the medium (Metzger et al., 2003; Thorson et al., 2010). Meanwhile, source credibility has been categorized mainly according to two aspects, trustworthiness and expertise, which are likely to result in credible information or messages (Armstrong & Nelson, 2005; Flanagin & Metzger, 2003; Metzger et al., 2003). Credibility, on the contrary, is how believable users think the news media are as sources of information (Meyer, 1988). Most often, credibility is associated with accuracy, believability, trustworthiness, and fairness. These qualities, however, are often missing in news media organizations that are not independent and in which their owners, and governments, interfere with their reporting decisions.

Media ownership in many nondemocratic countries is controlled by state or political interests (Coronel, 2003). A World Bank study in 2011 showed that in the 97 countries investigated, news media monopolies dominate. A substantial proportion of radio stations (72%), television stations (60%), and newspapers (29%) were controlled by states, while 57% of newspapers and 34% of television stations were reported to be controlled by single families. The media industry is largely dominated by private parties for private benefits (Djankov et al., 2003). Hence, traditional news media such as television and newspapers are often regarded in many countries as the fourth branch of government, due to their effectiveness in propagating government views as they shape the content of news and current affairs journalism (although in the United States, the term Fourth Estate—and not fourth branch—is used to indicate journalists holding government accountable). Traditional news media credibility is often reduced in a controlled media environment.

The advent of the internet has exacerbated declining perceptions of traditional news media credibility. This is because internet users have greater control than traditional media users over what sources and content to pay attention to. In the field of communication research, comparison of online and traditional news media credibility (Abdulla et al., 2005; Flanagin & Metzger, 2000; Johnson & Kaye, 1998; Kiousis, 2001) is growing in popularity. Some existing studies suggest that online information is not as credible as traditional news (Johnson & Kaye, 1998, 2000), while others argue that journalistic blogs are more credible than traditional news media because they are often independent from mainstream, corporate-controlled media sources (Andrews, 2003), and are also more transparent (Scoble & Israel, 2006). Yet other studies also have found that different online services have different degrees of credibility (Flanagin & Metzger, 2007; Go et al., 2016; Johnson & Kaye, 2009). Central to this growing research interest is the importance of credibility for the survival of the press (Choi & Kim, 2017), as any news media deemed not credible by audiences is expected to be ineffective (Holtz & Havens, 2009) and may struggle to find readers or users (Greer, 2003).

Does the lack of credibility lead to displacement? Research suggests that credibility leads to news media use and reliance, but little is known about the potential for more credible news media to replace the less credible. This study turns to media displacement theory and niche theory to address the question. Displacement theorists assume that media consumption is a zero-sum competition for audiences and revenue resources (Ha & Fang, 2012). The theory has two premises: time displacement and functional equivalence. First, the consumption of traditional media will decrease as new media consumption grows, and second, the old medium will be displaced by the new when there are overlapping functions between them (Newell et al., 2008). Niche theory focuses on how media compete and coexist. It assumes that consumers allocate their time for media consumption according to niche gratification (Dimmick et al., 2004), and one of its important features is gratification opportunities, which refers to “consumers’ beliefs that a medium allows greater opportunities to achieve satisfaction” (Dimmick & Albarran, 1994). According to Ha and Fang (2012), media competition and displacement effects between the internet and traditional media can be explained by overlap (the extent that a medium shares similar functions with other media) and superiority (the number of gratification attributes of one medium compared with others). They argue that overlap is necessary but insufficient to explain displacement, but superiority is the determining factor for displacement. Most research uses the amount of time spent on different types of media as an indicator of competitiveness.

Research has found evidence of a time displacement effect between old and new media (e.g., Kayany & Yelsma, 2000; Lee et al., 2016), suggesting that competitive displacement occurs as consumers spend more time on new media and therefore less time will be allocated to traditional media. However, almost no evidence supports the notion that displacement effects are based on the degree of credibility of news media. To address this evidence gap, we compare the credibility of mainstream and alternative news media and further explore how users’ perceptions of news media credibility lead to some displacement of less-credible news media by more-credible news media.

This is better tested in an environment of tight media control like Malaysia, than in a setting that upholds greater freedom of expression. This is because countries that practice media control usually have competing media, expressing opposite views on important public affairs issues, which creates varying degrees of audience confidence. Hence, we purposely selected a public interest issue, the implementation of the goods and services tax (GST), to demonstrate how people assign credibility to different types of media in a controlled media environment. Our aim was to establish the effect of credibility on news media use by focusing on the potential for a displacement effect of a more credible media vis-a-vis less-credible ones. With our novel approach, we make an important contribution to the growing literature on media credibility and on journalism practices in a controlled media environment.

Study Context: Media Control in Malaysia and the Issue of GST

Malaysia is regarded as a country in which tight control is exercised over the mainstream media (Sani, 2005), to which opposing or dissenting voices have no access. Many accuse the Malaysian state of using the news media as a propaganda tool; the government argues that it must restrict the press because as a multicultural, multiracial, and multireligion country, Malaysia has many sensitive issues to resolve before press freedom can be implemented (Sani, 2009, p. 52). Several acts in the Malaysian constitution restrict freedom of speech and expression by stipulating what may and may not be discussed in public. Sedition and defamation laws restrict freedom of speech and protect political figures from scrutiny. In addition, media laws such as the Printing Press Act 1984 and Broadcasting Act 1987 limit political discussions in that news or stories deemed derogatory or overly critical of the government may not be published. These practices of control and monitoring have curbed press freedom (Sani, 2009; Wok & Mohamed, 2017).

The lack of open access to the mainstream news media has pushed opposition parties in Malaysia to create their own, alternative news media including newsletters, newspapers, and magazines, whose primary objective is to challenge “the consensus that powerful interests try to shape and sustain through the mainstream media” (George, 2006, p. 3). The more traditional forms of unofficial news media often find it difficult to survive due to the lack of funds and barriers related to license renewals (Tapsell, 2013), but since 1990, the World Wide Web has provided new ways of communicating and disseminating information. Forms of new media that have emerged in the past nearly 30 years range from expanded internet services for existing alternative media (such as online newspapers and e-zines) to online social media platforms (such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube). The proliferation of social media has facilitated user-generated content (UGC), which gives its users the chance to become news and information producers and thus encourages freedom of expression. Although government control of opposition media remains tight, and the latter are often hampered by the restrictive media laws, the internet allows political activists to convey their messages to wider audiences and provide forums for political discussions without having to worry about regulations (Sani, 2005).

This study examines the extent to which people assign credibility to the two contesting but powerful news media types. To do this, we had to identify a controversial issue that has generated opposing views. The GST introduced on April 1 2014 was chosen because its implementation touches the everyday lives of most Malaysians who were expected to be actively acquiring information and expressing their views about this new tax. The GST is imposed on goods and services at each production and distribution stage in the supply chain, including the importation of goods and services (Ministry of Finance Malaysia, 2013). It is known as the value-added tax in many countries, which is a multistage consumption tax on goods and services (Why GST, 2013). The Malaysian government states that the goal of GST was to enhance the capability, effectiveness, and transparency of tax administration and management (Why GST, 2013). Through numerous media, it has explained the reasons for the new scheme, and its chief efforts were made through the mainstream media over which it has legal control.

But the new tax scheme has been highly criticized by many and has become the focus of much debate among the opposition parties (Saira et al., 2010), who are skeptical of its effects on purchasing power, inflation, and the like. Some argue that the timing of its introduction was inappropriate, and also about its rate (Hakim et al., 2016). Opinions are generally divided between mainstream media, which support the GST, and those who oppose it, who tend to express their views on alternative media. We aimed to answer two questions: how do users gauge the credibility of the two media expressing opposing views about an issue? And to what extent do perceptions of the credibility of one medium affect the other?

Credibility of Mainstream and Alternative Media

According to Tsfati (2010) and Tsfati and Cohen (2013), the concept of news media credibility is related to the general concept of trust, how much trust does an audience have in news content? Most studies find a significant relationship between trust in news media and news media exposure (Kiousis, 2001; Metzger et al., 2003; Rimmer & Weaver, 1987; Tsfati & Cappella, 2005). In a tightly controlled media environment like Malaysia, the degree of audience trust in mainstream news media is an important subject of investigation because the newspapers, magazines, television, and radio that make up what we call mainstream media influence a large number of people (Chomsky, 1997). Yet, in the age of the internet, the distinction between mainstream and alternative media is no longer so clear because the latter have become part of everyday media use. In conceptualizing alternative media, Rauch (2016) distinguishes them from traditional news media by their (a) organizational structures, processes, and forms and (b) content.

First, mainstream news media are structurally tied to the center of power while alternative media remain at the margin (George, 2007). Rauch (2016) conceives the relationships between them as ranging across a spectrum of homogeneity, from corporate or state-run organizations to independent or collective ownership, vertical or hierarchical organization to horizontal and self-organization, costly production to low budget production, profit-driven to noncommercial orientation, and large-to small-scale operations. Second, mainstream news media can be distinguished from alternative media in terms of their contents. Mainstream news media content tends to be more homogeneous (as they depend on official and elite sources), ubiquitous, pro status quo, and distant from its audience than alternative media content, which is more likely to highlight the voices of diverse, marginalized, and disadvantaged people; cover neglected issues and events; promote social change; and encourage people to take action (Rauch, 2016). In short, mainstream news media are often regarded as “authority oriented,” drawing on sources in authority for their coverage (Sovacool, 2008), and they play an important role in both echoing and forming public opinion. In contrast, alternative news media outlets tend not to reflect dominant public opinion and are usually not controlled by any specific entity (Chomsky, 1997); they often also serve as channels of communication for and among social and political movements and causes that are systematically ignored or side-lined by mainstream news outlets (George, 2007).

Despite the growing research comparing the credibility of online and traditional media, studies that explain the differences between mainstream and alternative media in a controlled media setting are scarce. Several studies that have appeared sporadically have discussed credibility in the context of media freedom in Malaysia (Anuar, 2005; Netto, 2002; Sani, 2005) and examined the impact of media credibility on news consumption (Omar et al., 2018). Empirical research into users’ perceptions of media credibility in Malaysia is limited, but several studies have examined the perceptions of its credibility in other countries with limited press freedom, including China and Singapore. Zhang et al. (2014), examining how people in China perceive the credibility of different media types (television, newspapers, radio, magazines, websites, and mobile devices), found that television was seen as the most credible medium. Other studies focusing on news media in China have examined the impact of its perceived credibility on value orientation (Zhu & He, 2002) and political trust (Chen & Shi, 2001). George (2007) claims that traditional media in Singapore, despite having low credibility, continue to thrive at the expense of more independent media. More broadly, scholars have paid some attention to the varying degrees of credibility that audiences assign to different media types. Go et al. (2016) found that social network users see information shared by users in their networks as more credible than information delivered by traditional news media organizations. Another study by Andrews (2003) found that online media were more credible than older forms of news media and associated the low credibility of the latter to corporate media control practices. In this study, we assume higher credibility for alternative media than mainstream media because people may believe that the latter frames the GST debate according to government interests. Our hypothesis is the following:

Hypothesis 1:Alternative media are perceived as more credible than mainstream media in Malaysia

Researchers usually compare perceptions of credibility among traditional and online media (e.g., Abdulla et al., 2005) or online platforms (e.g., Go et al., 2016). Their studies focus on differences in perceived credibility among media but neglect the relationships among the credibility of two or more media. A study by Tsfati (2010) found a negative association between mistrust of mainstream media and exposure to online news. In this study, we are interested in exploring whether the credibility of one medium is associated with the credibility of another. If people perceive alternative media as credible sources of information about the GST, then we can anticipate that their perceptions of the credibility of mainstream media will decrease. Hence, we posit the second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2:The credibility of alternative media is negatively related to the credibility of mainstream media in Malaysia.

Existing research suggests that media credibility has positive effects on media reliance (e.g., Johnson & Kaye, 2010, 2015; Kaye & Johnson, 2016) and that people use the media they consider credible. On the contrary, media displacement theory suggests that news media compete for users’ time because users have a limited amount of it to spend on reading, watching, and listening to news. If they increase the time they spend on one medium, then they will reduce the time they spend on others (Kayany & Yelsma, 2000; Noelle-Neumann, 1991). We thus argue that an increase in the credibility of mainstream news media will lead to reduced use of alternative media and vice versa. Hence, we propose a third, two-part hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a:The credibility of mainstream news media is positively related to the use of mainstream news media, and the credibility of alternative media is positively related to the use of alternative media in Malaysia.

Hypothesis 3b:The credibility of mainstream news media is negatively related to the use of alternative media, and the credibility of alternative media is negatively related to the use of mainstream news media in Malaysia.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

Data for this study were obtained through an online survey. It seemed to be the most appropriate method for this study to obtain data from the widest audience. It has proven to be cost-effective, free from human error, is interactive and attractive, and allows fast data collection and convenient implementation (Vehovar et al., 2008). Despite the many advantages of online data collection, this method may reduce the randomization of a sample since members of the population do not have an equal chance of receiving the questionnaire (Vehovar et al., 2008). However, it is important to note that internet access is widespread in Malaysia: 25 million out of a population of approximately 31 million were internet users in 2015 (Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Malaysia, 2015). Still, the remaining 6 million did not have a chance of receiving the online survey.

The study population was the general Malaysian population and therefore the sampling frame was not available to conduct a probability sampling. To recruit respondents from a large and widely dispersed population, we used an online network sampling technique known as virtual snowball sampling. This method, according to Baltar and Brunet (2012), is effective for studies of hard-to-reach populations and for descriptive and exploratory investigations. Virtual snowball sampling has the advantages of increasing sample size and simplifying recruitment; nevertheless, it also presents problems of sample representativeness and selection bias, which greatly reduce the external validity of findings (Fricker et al., 2005). High participation among individuals with large networks and strong ties (Baltar and Brunet, 2012) may contribute to selection bias. Scholars have, however, suggested a few ways of overcoming these limitations. Atkinson and Flint (2001) suggest large sample sizes and the replication of results to increase generalization. Other recommendations include comparing sample characteristics with demographic data or/and official statistics to improve sample representativeness (Witte et al., 2000).

We acknowledge the limitation of the virtual snowball sampling method and attempted to address this limitation by comparing the sample with the Malaysian population; its characteristics are almost in accord with the general Malaysian population profile. The Department of Statistics Malaysia (2017) indicates that Malaysian citizens are 52% male, 48% female, with 69.7% between 15 and 64 years old. Our study sample was 55.5% male, 44.5% female, with 75.3% between 21 to 64 years old. The racial or ethnic distribution of the Malaysian population is Malay, 69.1%; Chinese, 23%; and Indian, 6.9%. In our study, Malay respondents were 58.9%, Indian, 14.4%, and Chinese, 23.3%. So differences between the population and our sample were rather small, thus helping to establish confidence that the study sample was representative enough of the general population.

The link to the questionnaire was sent to an initial group of 50 Malaysians aged at least 18 who were later asked to share the link with their circle of acquaintances. To increase the response rate, the link to the questionnaire was also posted on social media. The questionnaire was distributed online from April 1 to May 30, 2015, and collected 700 responses, only 548 of which (completion rate 78.2%) were included in the analysis (152 responses were excluded from the analysis either because they were disqualified [i.e., the respondents aged below 18 years old and/or were not Malaysian], or because of incomplete or partial responses [i.e., respondents did not complete the questionnaire and did not click “done” on the last page of the online survey]).

Multiple measures of credibility have been developed. Some studies (Kang, 2010; Metzger et al., 2003) treat credibility as a multidimensional factor and use dimensions such as authenticity, legitimacy, transparency, authority, quality, accuracy, and currency to measure it. A more widely used measure of credibility, however, is the semantic differentials scale. Usually, studies that use semantic differential scales (e.g., Johnson and Kaye, 2009, 2010; Thorson et al., 2010) adopt Meyer’s (1988) measure credibility, which includes a continuum of fair/unfair, biased/unbiased, accurate/inaccurate, doesn’t tell the whole story/tells the whole story; cannot be trusted/can be trusted, and balanced/imbalanced. In a cross-validation study of the Meyer credibility scale, West (1994) established a five-item measure of reliable credibility index (α = 83) and recommended it as a standard measure for future credibility research. We adopted West’s version of the credibility index and measured credibility using five statements, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Statements were modified to suit the context of this study by asking respondents how credible each media are in reporting about GST, and they were asked to separately respond to statements about mainstream and alternative media. Examples of the statements are “information about the GST provided by mainstream/alternative online media is trustworthy” and “mainstream/alternative online media is accurate in its reporting about the GST.”

When answering questions about mainstream media credibility, respondents were asked to refer to major daily newspapers (including The New Straits Times, The Star, Utusan Malaysia, and Berita Harian) and electronic media outlets (such as Radio Televisyen Malaysia and TV3) in Malaysia. Specific media were listed in the instructions preceding the questions on mainstream news media credibility. Both print and online versions of these news media were treated as mainstream news media because they are controlled by the government or by political parties in the ruling coalition. For alternative news media, respondents were asked to think particularly about online news sources such as Malaysiakini, Malaysia Insider, Free Malaysia Today, and the online newspapers of opposition political parties. Similarly, specific media were listed as examples in the instructions preceding the questions on alternative media credibility. Since the alternative news media world is extensive, we limited sources to online sources operated by organizations and independent of government ownership and control. We excluded Twitter, blogs, and other social media, as these mostly originate from individuals and often mix news with personal content.

Frequency of use of mainstream news media was measured using a 6-point scale tapping the frequency of use of major daily newspapers, public television, and radio in Malaysia. Responses ranged from “Never use” to “Use several times a day.” Similarly, respondents’ frequency of use of alternative news media was also measured using the same scale.

Results

Perceived credibility indicates the extent to which users of news media see the selected news media type as a credible source of information. We measured the perceived credibility of mainstream and alternative news media using five indicators on a 10-point scale. Results show that the respondents see alternative media as more credible (M = 5.57, SD = 2.37) than mainstream news media (M = 4.52, SD = 2.67), with alternative news media above the midpoint of 5.5 and mainstream news media below the midpoint. The scores for mainstream news media were lower than five for all items, except “not misleading” (M = .51, SD = 2.77), which was still lower than for alternative media (M = .64, SD = 2.33). Overall, all credibility indicators were higher for alternative than for mainstream media (Table 1).

Table 1

Perceived Credibility of Mainstream and Alternative Media

	Level of agreement (%)										M	SD
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Mainstream media credibility
Trustworthy in reporting	17.3	9.3	7.8	11.9	25.4	9.7	6.6	4.7	2.4	4.9	4.46	2.48
Accurate in reporting	18.4	8.8	12.4	10.2	22.4	10.8	8.4	3.6	1.6	3.3	4.26	2.38
Not misleading	15.5	6.6	8.4	10	11.3	18.6	8.2	7.3	5.8	8.2	5.13	2.77
Telling the whole story	26.5	8.0	11.5	9.1	10.2	12.8	6.4	4.9	4.4	6.2	4.27	2.84
Fair in reporting	23.5	8.4	11.3	7.5	8.0	17.9	6.9	5.3	3.8	7.3	4.5	2.86
Overall											4.52	2.67
Alternative media credibility
Trustworthy in reporting	8.0	4.6	9.1	10.4	25.4	12.6	9.9	9.3	4.9	5.8	5.35	2.38
Accurate in reporting	6.9	5.7	9.1	9.9	28.8	12.2	10.2	6.9	5.5	4.7	5.26	2.29
Not misleading	4.9	2.6	3.8	6.2	10.9	25.0	14.2	11.9	9.1	11.3	6.41	2.33
Telling the whole story	6.9	4.2	11.3	11.1	26.5	9.3	10.4	8.0	4.7	7.5	5.36	2.41
Fair in reporting	7.5	5.7	6.9	10.4	28.1	9.9	8.8	9.1	6.0	7.7	5.46	2.46
Overall											5.57	2.37

The difference between perceived credibility (trustworthiness, accuracy, not misleading, telling whole story, and reporting fairly) of mainstream and alternative news media was later tested using a paired-sample t-test (Table 2). Significant differences are found—with alternative media ranked higher—between mainstream and alternative media on all five aspects of credibility: trustworthiness (t = −5.82, df = 547, .001), accuracy (t = −6.94, df = 547, .001), not misleading (t = −8.48, df = 547, .001), telling the whole story (t = −6.10, df = 547, .001), and fairness in reporting (t = −5.20, df = 547, .001). Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Table 2

Paired-Sample t-Test Between Mainstream and Alternative Media in Terms of Perceived Credibility

Perceived credibility	Mainstream media			Alternative media			t	df	p
	N	M	SD	N	M	SD
Trustworthy in reporting	548	4.46	2.48	548	5.35	2.38	−5.82	547	.000
Accurate in reporting	548	4.26	2.38	548	5.26	2.29	−6.94	547	.000
Not misleading	548	5.13	2.77	548	6.41	2.33	−8.48	547	.000
Telling the whole story	548	4.27	2.84	548	5.36	2.41	−6.10	547	.000
Fair in reporting	548	4.50	2.86	548	5.46	2.46	−5.20	547	.000

Note. Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 10 = Strongly Agree.

We were also interested in knowing whether the credibility of one media type is associated with the credibility of the other. We conducted partial correlation analysis to determine the relationship between mainstream and nonmainstream news media credibility by controlling for the effects of demographic and political-related factors (Table 3). The controlled variables include gender, marital status, income, education, religion, race, employment type, party affiliation, satisfaction with ruling party, and age. We thus attempted to reduce their influences in the relationship between the credibility of two media types. The result of partial correlation suggests that credibility of mainstream news media and credibility of alternative news media are negatively correlated (r = −.25, p < .01). Thus the results support the second hypothesis, which posits a negative relationship between mainstream media credibility and alternative media credibility.

Table 3

Partial Correlation Between Mainstream Media Credibility and Alternative Media Credibility Controlling for Demographic and Political-Related Factors

	Credibility of nonmainstream media
Credibility of mainstream media	−.25**

Note. N = 537.

p < .05 (2-tailed), **p < .01 (2-tailed).

Literature suggests that credibility positively affects media usage. In this study, we tested the relationship between perceived credibility of alternative news media with the use of not only alternative news media but also mainstream news media. Two series of hierarchical regression analysis were involved; first, by regressing the frequency of mainstream news media use on both mainstream and alternative news media credibility and second, by regressing the frequency of alternative news media use on the two credibility measures. Both regression models were significant, but factors predicting mainstream news media use had greater variance explained (R² = .20) than factors predicting alternative news media use (R² = .12). The magnitude of the change brought by both types of credibility was higher on mainstream news media use (ΔR² = .16) than alternative media use (ΔR² = .55). The results in Table 4 suggest that standardized regression weights from mainstream news media credibility to mainstream news media use are significant (β = .37, p < .001) while from alternative news media to mainstream news media use are insignificant (β = .02, p > .05). The first suggests that mainstream news media credibility predicts mainstream news media use, while the later indicates that alternative news media credibility has no effect on mainstream news media use. Results from Table 5, on the contrary, show a significant positive relationship between alternative news media credibility and alternative news media use (β = .15, p < .001), and a significant negative relationship between mainstream news media credibility and alternative news media use (β = −.17, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 3a is fully supported, while there is partial support for Hypothesis 3b.

Table 4

Hierarchical Linear Regression Predicting Mainstream Media Use

	Mainstream media use (N = 547)
Variable	Beta^a	t	R ²	ΔR²
Step 1			.09	.09
Gender	.01	0.22
Marital status	.03	0.72
Income	−.09	−1.78
Education	−.02	−0.38
Religion	.06	1.15
Race	−.08	−1.59
Employment type	.05	1.15
Party affiliation	−.07	−1.51
Satisfaction with ruling party	.24	5.87***
Age	.14	2.66**
Step 2			.20	.16
Gender	.00	0.04
Marital status	.02	0.53
Income	−.05	−1.07
Education	−.01	−0.16
Religion	.03	0.61
Race	−.12	−2.53*
Employment type	.05	1.32
Party affiliation	−.04	−1.01
Satisfaction with ruling party	.13	3.14**
Age	.14	2.67**
Credibility of mainstream media	.37	8.64***
Credibility of alternative media	.02	0.56

Betas are final beta.

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 5

Hierarchical Linear Regression Predicting Alternative Media Use

	Alternative media use (N = 547)
Variable	Beta^a	t	R ²	Δ R²
Step 1			.06	.06
Gender	.02	0.48
Marital status	.03	0.52
Income	.12	2.35*
Education	.08	1.58
Religion	−.06	−1.07
Race	−.02	−0.43
Employment type	−.05	−1.27
Party affiliation	.05	1.19
Satisfaction with ruling party	−.16	−3.75***
Age	.02	0.35
Step 2			.19	.06
Gender	.02	0.44
Marital status	.05	0.98
Income	.10	1.91
Education	.07	1.39
Religion	−.02	−0.45
Race	−.02	−0.35
Employment type	−.04	−0.89
Party affiliation	.02	0.57
Satisfaction with ruling party	−.06	−1.37
Age	.01	0.19
Credibility of mainstream media	−.17	−3.75***
Credibility of alternative media	.15	3.28***

Betas are final beta.

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

As in partial correlation analysis, we controlled for demographic and political factors in the hierarchical regression analysis. Analysis of the effects of controlled variables on news media use suggests that satisfaction with the ruling party (β = .24, p < .01) had a positive effect on mainstream news media use, while its effect on alternative news media use was negative (β = −.16, p < .001). The results suggest high mainstream news media use among those who are highly satisfied with the ruling party, while those who are dissatisfied use more alternative news media. The results also indicate that older people (β = .14, p < .01) are more likely to use mainstream news media, while higher income people (β = .12, p < .05) are more likely to use alternative news media. Third, a negative significant effect of race (β = −.12, p <.05) suggests that Malays (coded as 1 in the analysis) predict mainstream news media use and hence are the main audience of mainstream news media in Malaysia.

Our findings show significant effects of news media credibility on news media use. We found that the perceived credibility of mainstream news media leads to mainstream news media use, and credibility of alternative news media leads to alternative news media use. When we tested the relationships in the opposite direction, we found mixed results. The credibility of alternative news media has no influence on mainstream news media use, but when mainstream news media are perceived as credible, there is a significant negative influence on alternative news media use. The negative result implies that the use of alternative news media increases when the credibility perception of mainstream news media decreases.

Conclusion

This study tested perceptions of the credibility of mainstream and alternative media in Malaysia, which are subject to different degrees of state control and take different stances on important public interest issues, in this case, the introduction of the GST. Two contexts were selected: first was the mainstream media that support the GST and represent the government’s view of the issue, and second was the independent alternative media, which are against the GST. The study set out to test Malaysian perceptions of the credibility of the two media types, and the extent to which credibility affects media use and displaces less-credible media.

In terms of theoretical contributions, we extended the application of displacement theory and niche theory to media credibility research. Existing research has strongly associated credibility with media use and reliance (e.g., Johnson & Kaye, 2015) and lack of credibility has been associated with the problem of surviving in a highly competitive media environment (e.g., Choi & Kim, 2017). The link between credibility and media competition is evident but little is known about the association between credibility and media displacement. In this study, we found two significant associations that support the displacing effects of credible media on less-credible ones. First, when Malaysians believe that alternative media are credible sources of information about the GST, they believe that mainstream media are less-credible sources on the same issue. Second, if they perceive that the credibility of mainstream media is low, they increase the use of alternative news media. Hence, our findings indicate that credibility is an influential factor in displacement of mainstream media by alternative media if the former is seen as having low credibility. In this context, credibility suggests the superiority of a medium over other media, which is central to the assumption of gratification opportunities in niche theory. So far, gratification opportunities have been associated with perceptions of the content, time, and space attributes of a medium (Dimmick & Albarran, 1994), and with wide-ranging content, flexible access, and greater freedom of use (Dimmick et al., 2004). In this study, we suggest that the perception that the media we consume can be trusted is a desired gratification and a pointer to the superiority of a particular news medium over others. It is a form of gratification that is perhaps more relevant and sought after in today’s disrupted media environment.

The results of our comparison of the competing media worlds in an environment of tight political control suggest that the perceived low credibility of mainstream media could be an indicator of the adverse impact of government control over mainstream media in Malaysia: state control engenders lack of trust in mainstream media and their content. Yet while it is tempting to link such perceptions of low credibility to state control, we acknowledge that they may be created by the selection of the GST issue itself. Since the implementation of GST has raised the cost of living, most Malaysians have probably developed negative views of it, and thus tend to trust the alternative media sources which share their views. Nevertheless, our findings are consistent with past research (e.g., Kaye & Johnson, 2016), as we implied the importance of credibility for both mainstream and alternative media for it shapes uses and reliance. However, we found that the onus to gain credibility among audiences is greater for mainstream media than for alternative media because the former’s lack of credibility can lead to its displacement by the latter. In other words, Malaysians would not turn to alternative media if they trusted the mainstream media. And conversely, when they regard mainstream media as less credible, then their use of alternative media will increase. Other research has shown an increase in the use of internet for information-gathering among Malaysians (Leong, 2015; Muhamad, 2011; Wok & Mohamed, 2017), a phenomenon which can be linked to the mainstream media’s lack of credibility. On the contrary, we found that mainstream media would not displace alternative media even if the latter were perceived as less credible than the former. The research confirms that mainstream media in Malaysia must maintain their credibility if they are to survive, avoiding displacement. As for alternative media in Malaysia, credibility is important for them to flourish rather than simply to survive. These findings could be representative of other countries that present similar conditions of state control over media.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge several limitations which might be addressed by future research. First, we excluded Twitter, blogs, and other social media platforms from the alternative media category because they often mix personal views and experience with news stories, which may influence audience perceptions. However, these new media platforms are increasingly important news sources in the digital environment and therefore should be included in future research. Second, we did not investigate certain other factors such as antecedents of media use but rather focused solely on perceptions of media credibility to establish reciprocal relationships between two types of credibility (mainstream and alternative media) and two types of media use (mainstream and alternative). We would highly recommend that future research exploring the variables affecting media grasp the complete picture of why audiences use certain media and not the other. Third, we used an online survey, which has the inherent weaknesses of self-selection of network sampling and exclusion of those who have no internet access. Although we took measures to minimize this problem, future research would be improved by the use of probability sampling with random selection. Fourth, our literature review was based primarily on studies performed in cultures outside Malaysia, while our hypotheses, data, and conclusions are about Malaysia; further Malaysia-specific studies on media consumption are necessary. Finally, we would also recommend that future investigations examine the effects of media credibility beyond media use. Such research could, for instance, investigate how different media, depending on their levels of perceived credibility, exert influence on audience attitudes and behavior in relation to important issues. In addition to the cross-media credibility perception approach, future studies could examine credibility in a cross-issues context because different issues may have different effects on perceptions of credibility. Researchers would do well to use both cross-media and cross-issues approaches to reveal the interactions between medium and message credibility, and thus advance credibility research.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Exploratory Research Grant Scheme (ERGS), Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.

ORCID iD

Bahiyah Omar

References

Abdulla

R. A.

Garrison

Salwen

M. B.

Driscoll

P. D.

Casey

(2005). Online news credibility. In Salwen

M. B.

Garrison

Driscoll

P. D.

(Eds.), Online news and the public (pp. 148–163). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Andrews

(2003). Is blogging journalism? Nieman Reports, 57(3). http://niemanreports.org/issues/fall-2003/

Anuar

M. K.

(2005). Politics and the media in Malaysia. Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 20(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2008.14

Armstrong

C. L.

Nelson

M. R.

(2005). How newspaper sources trigger gender stereotypes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 820–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200405

Atkinson

Flint

(2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33(1), 1–4.

Baltar

Brunet

(2012). Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Research, 22(1), 57–74.

Burgoon

J. K.

Hale

J. L.

(1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390195

Chen

Shi

(2001). Media effects on political confidence and trust in the People’s Republic of China in the post-Tiananmen period. East Asia, 19(3), 84–118.

Choi

Kim

(2017). Online news flow: Temporal/spatial exploitation and credibility. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 18(9), 1184–1205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916648096

10.

Chomsky

(1997). What makes mainstream media mainstream. Z Magazine. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710–htm

11.

Coronel

(2003). The role of the media in deepening democracy. NGO Media Outreach. http://www.changecommunications.org/docs/dib/dibengunpan010194.pdf

12.

Dearing

J. W.

Rogers

E. M.

(1996). Agenda-setting. SAGE.

13.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2017). Selected demographic statistics estimates Malaysia 2017. https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=397&bul_id=SmtySjF1eXplQTIrVWh3Wkx5N1pyQT09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09

14.

Dimmick

Albarran

A. B.

(1994). The role of gratification opportunities in determining media preference. Mass Communication Review, 21, 223–235.

15.

Dimmick

Chen

. (2004). Competition between the Internet and traditional news media: The gratification-opportunities niche dimension. The Journal of Media Economics, 17(1), 19–33.

16.

Djankov

McLiesh

Nenova

Shleifer

(2003). Who owns the media. Journal of Law and Economics, XLVI(October), 341–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-5961(83)90091-5

17.

Flanagin

A. J.

Metzger

M. J.

(2000). Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700304

18.

Flanagin

A. J.

Metzger

M. J.

(2003). The perceived credibility of personal Web page information as influenced by the sex of the source. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 683–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00021-9

19.

Flanagin

A. J.

Metzger

M. J.

(2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015

20.

Fricker

Galesic

Tourangeau

Yan

(2005). An experimental comparison of web and telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(3), 370–392.

21.

George

(2006). Contentious journalism and the internet: Towards democratic discourse in Malaysia and Singapore. NUS Press and University of Washington Press. http://ezlibproxy1.ntu.edu.sg/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00103a&AN=ntu.a398527&site=eds-live&scope=site

22.

George

(2007). Credibility deficits: Why some news media don’t pay the price. Journalism Studies, 8(6), 898–908.

23.

You

H. K.

Jung

Shim

(2016). Why do we use different types of websites and assign them different levels of credibility? Structural relations among users’ motives, types of websites, information credibility and trust in the press. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.046

24.

Greer

J. D.

(2003). Evaluating the credibility of online information: A test of source and advertising influence. Mass Communication and Society, 6(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0601_3

25.

Fang

(2012). Internet experience and time displacement of traditional news media use: An application of the theory of the niche. Telematics and Informatics, 29(2), 177–186.

26.

Hakim

T. A.

Karia

A. A.

Bujang

(2016). Does goods and services tax stimulate economic growth? International evidence. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 10(3), 137–147.

27.

Holtz

Havens

J. C.

(2009). Tactical transparency: How leaders can leverage social media to maximize value and build their brand. Jossey-Bass.

28.

Hovland

C. I.

Janis

I. L.

Kelley

H. H.

(1953). Communication and Persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.

29.

Johnson

T. J.

Kaye

B. K.

(1998). Cruising is believing? Comparing internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

30.

Johnson

T. J.

Kaye

B. K.

(2000). Using is believing: The influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested internet users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 865–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700409

31.

Johnson

T. J.

Kaye

B. K.

(2009). In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components of the internet among politically interested internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.004

32.

Johnson

T. J.

Kaye

B. K.

(2010). Still cruising and believing? An analysis of online credibility across three presidential campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376311

33.

Johnson

T. J.

Kaye

B. K.

(2015). Reasons to believe: Influence of credibility on motivations for using social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.002

34.

Kang

(2010). Measuring social media credibility: A study on a measure of blog credibility. Institute for Public Relations, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5133

35.

Kayany

J. M.

Yelsma

(2000). Displacement effects of online media in the socio-technical contexts of households displacement effects of online media in the socio-technical contexts of households. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_4

36.

Kaye

B. K.

Johnson

T. J.

(2016). Strengthening the core: Examining interactivity, credibility, and reliance as measures of social media use. Electronic News, 11, 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243116672262

37.

Kiousis

(2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age. Mass Communication and Society, 4(4), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0404_4

38.

Lee

S. Y.

Lee

S. W.

Kim

(2016). Time displacement effect of online video services on other media in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.002

39.

Leong

(2015). Political communication in Malaysia: A study on the use of new media in politics. JEDEM, 7(1), 46–71. http://www.jedem.org

40.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Malaysia. (2015). Internet Users Survey 2014. http://www.skmm.gov.my/Resources/Statistics/Internet-users-survey.aspx

41.

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

Eyal

Lemus

D. R.

Mccann

R. M.

(2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 293–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029

42.

Meyer

(1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500301

43.

Miller

(2005). Communication theories perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

44.

Ministry of Finance Malaysia. (2013). http://www.treasury.gov.my

45.

Muhamad

(2011, June 30). Political blogging and the public sphere in Malaysia [Proceedings]. C&T 2011 Workshop on Government and Citizen Engagement, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

46.

Netto

(2002). Media freedom in Malaysia. Media Asia, 29(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2002.11726658

47.

Newell

Pilotta

J. J.

Thomas

J. C.

(2008). Mass media displacement and saturation. International Journal on Media Management, 10(4), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14241270802426600

48.

Noelle-Neumann

(1991). The theory of public opinion: The concept of the spiral of silence. In Anderson

J. A.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 256–287). SAGE.

49.

Omar

Ismail

Kee

N. S.

(2018). Understanding online consumption of public affairs news in Malaysia. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 28(1), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.00009.oma

50.

Rauch

(2016). Are there still alternatives? Relationships between alternative media and mainstream media in a converged environment. Sociology Compass, 10(9), 756–767.

51.

Rimmer

Weaver

(1987). Different questions, different answers? Media use and media credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 64(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908706400104

52.

Saira

Zariyawati

M. A.

Yoke-May

(2010, July 13–15). An exploratory study of goods and services tax awareness in Malaysia [Seminar session]. National Resilience (SNAR 2010) Political Managements and Policies in Malaysia, Langkawi, Malaysia.

53.

Sani

M. A. M.

(2005). Media freedom in Malaysia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 35(3), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330580000201

54.

Sani

M. A. M.

(2009). The public sphere and media politics in Malaysia. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

55.

Scoble

Israel

(2006). Naked conversations: How blogs are changing the way businesses talk with customers. John Wiley.

56.

Severin

W. J.

Tankard

J. W.

(2001). Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. Pearson College Division.

57.

Sovacool

B. K.

(2008). Spheres of argument concerning oil exploration in the arctic national wildlife refuge: A crisis of environmental rhetoric? Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 2(3), 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030802396745

58.

Tapsell

(2013). Negotiating media “balance” in Malaysia’s 2013 general election. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 32(2), 39–60.

59.

Thorson

Vraga

Ekdale

(2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13(3), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903225571

60.

Tsfati

(2002). The consequences of mistrust in the news media: Media skepticism as a moderator in media effects and as a factor influencing news media exposure. University of Pennsylvania.

61.

Tsfati

(2003). Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.1.65

62.

Tsfati

(2010). Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: Exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376309

63.

Tsfati

(2014). Uses and perceptions of media. In Reinemann

(Ed.), Political communication: Handbooks of communication science (pp. 489–506). de Gruyter.

64.

Tsfati

Cappella

J. N.

(2005). Why do people watch news they do not trust? The need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychology, 7, 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_2

65.

Tsfati

Cohen

(2013). Perception of media and media effects: The third-person effect, trust in media and hostile media perceptions. In The international encyclopedia of media studies (pp. 128–146). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems995

66.

Vehovar

Manfreda

K. L.

Koren

(2008). Internet surveys. In Donsbach

Traugott

M. W.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (p. 639). SAGE.

67.

Wanta

Ghanem

(2007). Effects of agenda setting. In Preiss

R. W.

Gayle

B. M.

Burrell

Allen

Bryant

(Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 37-51). Lawrence Erlbaum.

68.

West

M. D.

(1994). Validating a scale for the measurement of credibility: A covariance structure modeling approach. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 71(1), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909407100115

69.

Why GST. (2013). Royal Malaysian Customs Department. http://gst.customs.gov.my/en/gst/Pages/gst_wy.aspx

70.

Witte

J. C.

Amoroso

L. M.

Howard

P. E. N.

(2000). Research methodology—Method and representation in internet-based survey tools. Social Science Computer Review, 18(1), 179–195.

71.

Wok

Mohamed

(2017). Internet and social media in Malaysia: Development, challenges and potentials. In Acuña

B. P.

(Ed.), The evolution of media communication (pp. 45–64). InTech.

72.

Zeng

(2005). Whose bias is no bias? The impact of source types on perception of online news credibility. Univerisity of Southern Illinois.

73.

Zhang

Zhou

Shen

(2014). Public trust: A comprehensive investigation on perceived media credibility in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 158–172.

74.

Zhu

J. J.

(2002). Information accessibility, user sophistication, and source credibility: The impact of the internet on value orientations in mainland China. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(2), JCMC727.