Truth-Seeking vs. Balance: The Credibility Dilemma in Correcting Political Misinformation

When journalists perceive more misinformation from one side of the political spectrum, do they face a normative dilemma between truth and balance? Correcting one party more often in pursuit of truth can undermine news credibility, while maintaining balance to preserve credibility can be misleading. To assess whether the trade-off that I term the “truth-balance dilemma” exists in practice, I examine whether asymmetric corrections of one party undermine news credibility when considered across multiple topics. While prior studies have focused on single-issue contexts, this study highlights how individuals evaluate news sources based on their coverage of a range of issues. Through fact-checking datasets and national surveys, I find that, while journalists have corrected Republican misstatements more often, large segments of the public believe that misinformation comes from both parties or primarily from Democrats. Two preregistered experiments show that asymmetric corrections undermine credibility, but the effect depends on audience perceptions about who spreads misinformation. Individuals who blame both parties for misinformation discount credibility when a source mostly corrects one side—even when the imbalance favors their own side. Meanwhile, those who blame the opposing party find heavier corrections of that party as credible as balanced corrections, but view heavier corrections of their own party as less credible. By showing how the truth-balance dilemma stems from the perception gap between journalists and audiences, this study underscores the reputational risks that truth-seeking journalism faces in polarized environments.