## 5 Analysis
Across all metrics considered in the study, Republicans and independents/other party members indicated that none of the categories presented should be used to judge the trustworthiness of a news article 'a lot' ideally. Republican responses indicate that, in practice, they utilize the title, author, author's political alignment, quantity of opinion statements, and virality 'a lot' in making judgements about news trustworthiness. Independents/other party members, meanwhile, consider themselves to only use the publisher and the author 'a lot' to determine whether a publication is trustworthy. However, as none of these are considered ideal metrics by either group, a question remains as to what metrics would be perceived as being better. Democrats have expressed a higher level of enthusiasm for most metrics than Republicans or independents/other party members; however, they still express reservations about certain categories. While Democrats believe that most categories should be used ideally, exceptions to this are the author's political alignment, publisher's political alignment, article virality, controversy level, and reading level. Democrats express the belief that everyone, themselves included, uses the political alignments of the author and publisher, but that neither should be used. In the cases of article virality and controversy level, Democrats believe that everyone else incorrectly uses these metrics. In the case of reading level, Democrats believe that only they use this metric, when they should not. Depending upon the paradigm, the respondent may be indicating that they consider themselves to be the problem individual, at odds with everyone else and the ideal. This occurs four times for Democrats with articles' title, the sponsor's political alignment, the quantity of opinion statements and the reading level. For Republicans, this occurs once with the title, but for the opposite reason of Democrats. Democrats indicated believing that they use the title too little, while Republicans indicated believing that they use it too much. For independents/other party members, this occurs once for the author category. Some paradigms indicate that respondents consider that everyone, including me is the problem. This occurs two times for Democrats, with the author and publisher's political alignment metrics. For Republicans, it occurs four times with the author, author's political alignment, quantity of opinion statements, and virality metrics. For independents/other party members, this occurs only once with the publisher metric. Yet, other paradigms indicate that the respondent considers everyone else to be the problem. This occurs three times for Democrats with the publication date, virality, and controversy level metrics. For Republicans, it occurs three times with the publisher, publisher's political alignment and the controversy level metrics. For independents/otherparty members, this occurs six times with the title, author's political alignment, sponsor's political alignment, quantity of opinion statements, virality and controversy level metrics. Overall, independents/other party members are the least likely to consider themselves at fault, either as part of the group or as an individual outlier. As such, there may be additional challenges in convincing independents/other party members to use labeling mechanisms, even as they report each metric to be at least of'moderate' importance. Democrats are the most likely to consider themselves to be part of the problem and also support the largest set of labeling metrics. As such, Democrats may be the most likely early adopters of labeling mechanisms. Keeping these unique challenges in mind when designing and promoting labeling mechanisms will be crucial for their eventual adoption by the public. With each political group reporting a majority supporting using each labeling metric at least 'a moderate amount,' the prospects for broad adoption seem quite positive.