Lee, Angela M.Tenenboim, O.2020-05-282020-05-282019-06-031751-2786http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1623709https://hdl.handle.net/10735.1/8660Due to copyright restrictions and/or publisher's policy full text access from Treasures at UT Dallas is limited to current UTD affiliates (use the provided Link to Article).Second-level agenda-setting suggests that news media influence how we think. As a case study examining the nature and effects of mainstream news media’s coverage of the 2015 Apple/FBI dispute about data privacy versus national security, this study found via content analysis that a majority of articles covering the dispute (73.7%) made the same potentially misleading claim about how the American public feels about the dispute. Nearly half (45.6%) of those articles made public opinion claims without offering empirical evidence, and almost all articles (97.4%) that cited the Pew survey appeared to have inadvertently created an unsubstantiated social reality. Then, this study found in a subsequent experiment that, consistent with impersonal influence, the above-mentioned news portrayals significantly affected the participants’ view on Americans’ collective opinion towards the Apple/FBI dispute. The long-term effect of this journalistic oversight is notable. Theoretical implications and practical recommendations for future science communication in the news are discussed. ©2019 Informa UK Ltd., trading as Taylor & Francis Groupen©2019 Informa UK Ltd.Apple computerContent analysis (Communication)United States. Federal Bureau of InvestigationNews agenciesPew Research Center for the People & the PressPublic opinion pollsPublic opinionarticleLee, A. M., and O. Tenenboim. 2019. "How did Americans Really Think About the Apple/FBI Dispute? A Mixed-Method Study." Journalism Practice 14(1): 483-498, doi: 10.1080/17512786.2019.1623709144