ArticleScientific reports2025
Rethinking news framing with large language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mainstream media, with its broad reach, plays a central role in shaping public opinion and thus warrants close scrutiny. Subtle forms of media bias-such as selective fact presentation and tone-can meaningfully influence public attitudes, even when reporting remains factually accurate. Although effects such as these have been widely studied by scholars of framing, much of the existing research focuses on specific topics and relies on manually constructed or pre-existing frames, limiting both scalability and generalizability. Here we introduce a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate synthetic news articles by systematically varying the selection and tone of the content while holding factual accuracy and other features constant. We evaluate the impact of these alternative framings in a large, pre-registered randomized experiment (N = 2,141), and find that selective presentation of accurate information can significantly shift individuals' policy views and emotional responses across a diverse collection of topics. These effects are consistently stronger for negative than positive framings and are more pronounced among individuals who say they are less informed about the topic. Our findings demonstrate the persuasive power of subtle bias in mainstream news as well as the value of LLMs as tools for scalable, controlled investigations of media effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.