This is scientific American 60 second science. I'm Christopher Intagiyata.

In the age of fake news, it's worth remembering. The medium is the message.

For example, psychological studies have shown that text that's hard to read is more likely

to be deemed untrue.

Now a study suggests that when radio shows interview guests over bad phone lines, listeners might discount the credibility of a speaker

and her work.

We find over and over again

that the easier something is to process

the more likely are to assume that it's true and the more compelling you find it.

Norbert Schwartz is a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Southern California,

who readily agreed to record himself in a higher quality format

for this story than we'd get by recording his phone line.

Schwartz and its collaborator Aaron Newman asked 99 volunteers to listen to an interview about genetics on the public radio

program, Science Friday. One recording was presented in normal phone quality.

Grows horns in Holstein and replaces it with the allele that stops horns growing in Angus.

But the other was tampered with to cut its quality even more.

Hard to hear and less compelling.

So in the condition where the audio quality is less good,

so same researcher saying exactly the same thing,

it's the same basic clip, is evaluated as being less qualified, being less good,

being less convincing, and the message is assumed to reflect less important research.

So basically if your audio is not good,

...