an article by Edda Humprecht (University of Zurich, Switzerland) published in Information, Communication & Society Volume 22 Issue 13 (2019)
Abstract
How does the content of so-called ‘fake news’ differ across Western democracies?
While previous research on online disinformation has focused on the individual level, the current study aims to shed light on cross-national differences. It compares online disinformation re-published by fact checkers from four Western democracies (the US, the UK, Germany, and Austria).
The findings reveal significant differences between English-speaking and German-speaking countries.
In the US and the UK, the largest shares of partisan disinformation are found, while in Germany and Austria sensationalist stories prevail. Moreover, in English-speaking countries, disinformation frequently attacks political actors, whereas in German-speaking countries, immigrants are most frequently targeted.
Across all of the countries, topics of false stories strongly mirror national news agendas.
Based on these results, the paper argues that online disinformation is not only a technology-driven phenomenon but also shaped by national information environments.
Showing posts with label polarization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polarization. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 November 2019
Thursday, 17 October 2019
Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: The mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion
an article by Yonghwan Kim (Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea) and Youngju Kim (Konkuk University-Glocal campus, South Korea) published in Computers in Human Behavior Volume 99 (October 2019)
Highlights
This study examined whether and how (in)civility and the presence of supporting evidence in disagreeing comments influence individuals' attitude polarization.
The study used a 2 (civility vs. incivility) × 2 (evidence vs. no evidence) factorial design involving reading dissimilar viewpoints in Facebook comments. The results showed that exposure to uncivil opposing comments, compared to exposure to civil disagreeing comments, led to lower levels of willingness to read more comments and greater levels of negative emotions and attitude polarization.
However, the presence or absence of supporting evidence in comments did not have any significant effect on the outcome variables.
The findings suggest that it is the civility or incivility of information that influences whether exposure to dissimilar perspectives either mitigates or reinforces individuals’ attitude polarization.
This study also suggested willingness to read more comments and negative emotions as two mediating factors between exposure to uncivil/civil disagreeing comments and attitude polarization.
Highlights
- Exposure to uncivil disagreeing comments reduces one's willingness to read more comments.
- Exposure to uncivil disagreeing comments induces negative emotions. .
- Willingness to read more comments mediates the effect of uncivil disagreeing comments on attitude polarization.
- Negative emotion mediates the effect of uncivil disagreeing comments on attitude polarization.
This study examined whether and how (in)civility and the presence of supporting evidence in disagreeing comments influence individuals' attitude polarization.
The study used a 2 (civility vs. incivility) × 2 (evidence vs. no evidence) factorial design involving reading dissimilar viewpoints in Facebook comments. The results showed that exposure to uncivil opposing comments, compared to exposure to civil disagreeing comments, led to lower levels of willingness to read more comments and greater levels of negative emotions and attitude polarization.
However, the presence or absence of supporting evidence in comments did not have any significant effect on the outcome variables.
The findings suggest that it is the civility or incivility of information that influences whether exposure to dissimilar perspectives either mitigates or reinforces individuals’ attitude polarization.
This study also suggested willingness to read more comments and negative emotions as two mediating factors between exposure to uncivil/civil disagreeing comments and attitude polarization.
Friday, 6 September 2019
Topic polarization and push notifications
an article by Madelyn Rose Sanfilippo (Princeton University) and Yafit Lev-Aretz (City University of New York) published in First Monday Volume 24 Number 9 (September 2019)
Abstract
In the fake news era, a combination of politics, big technology, and fear and animosity are blamed for the media mistrust and filter bubbles that are entrenching fragmentation in the public sphere.
A partisan divide in the media and extreme political disagreements are nothing new, but new technology, such as social media and mobile push notifications, influences these years-old phenomena and plays an important role in current concerns. This paper explores how stories are represented differently by topic and across platforms, examining representation, polarization, and objectivity.
Specifically, this paper looks at those issues from a novel perspective: through sentiment analysis of push notifications generated and archived from the Breaking News App on disasters, gun violence, and terrorism.
Results indicate that partisan news organizations
Abstract
In the fake news era, a combination of politics, big technology, and fear and animosity are blamed for the media mistrust and filter bubbles that are entrenching fragmentation in the public sphere.
A partisan divide in the media and extreme political disagreements are nothing new, but new technology, such as social media and mobile push notifications, influences these years-old phenomena and plays an important role in current concerns. This paper explores how stories are represented differently by topic and across platforms, examining representation, polarization, and objectivity.
Specifically, this paper looks at those issues from a novel perspective: through sentiment analysis of push notifications generated and archived from the Breaking News App on disasters, gun violence, and terrorism.
Results indicate that partisan news organizations
- emphasize different stories;
- label the same events as categorically different;
- hyperbolize and emotionalize different types of stories; and,
- represent different categories of breaking news stories to different degrees of subjectivity.
Monday, 15 July 2019
State of the world 2018: democracy facing global challenges
an article by Anna Lührmann, Sandra Grahn, Richard Morgan, Shreeya Pillai and Staffan I. Lindberg (University of Gothenburg, Sweden) published in Democratization Volume 26 Issue 6 (2019)
Abstract
This article analyses the state of democracy in the world in 2018, and recent developments building on the 2019 release of the V-Dem dataset.
First, the trend of autocratization continues and 24 countries are now affected by what is established as a “third wave of autocratization”.
Second, despite the global challenge of gradual autocratization, democratic regimes prevail in a majority of countries in the world (99 countries, 55%) in 2018. Thus, the state of the world is unmistakably more democratic compared to any point during the last century. At the same time, the number of electoral authoritarian regimes had increased to 55, or 31% of all countries.
Third, the autocratization wave is disproportionally affecting democratic countries in Europe and the Americas, but also India’s large population.
Fourth, freedom of expression and the media, and the rule of law are the areas under attack in most countries undergoing autocratization, but toxic polarization of the public sphere is a threat to democracy spreading across regimes.
Finally, we present the first model to predict autocratization (“adverse regime transitions”) pointing to the top-10 most at-risk countries in the world.
Full text (PDF 22pp)
Abstract
This article analyses the state of democracy in the world in 2018, and recent developments building on the 2019 release of the V-Dem dataset.
First, the trend of autocratization continues and 24 countries are now affected by what is established as a “third wave of autocratization”.
Second, despite the global challenge of gradual autocratization, democratic regimes prevail in a majority of countries in the world (99 countries, 55%) in 2018. Thus, the state of the world is unmistakably more democratic compared to any point during the last century. At the same time, the number of electoral authoritarian regimes had increased to 55, or 31% of all countries.
Third, the autocratization wave is disproportionally affecting democratic countries in Europe and the Americas, but also India’s large population.
Fourth, freedom of expression and the media, and the rule of law are the areas under attack in most countries undergoing autocratization, but toxic polarization of the public sphere is a threat to democracy spreading across regimes.
Finally, we present the first model to predict autocratization (“adverse regime transitions”) pointing to the top-10 most at-risk countries in the world.
Full text (PDF 22pp)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
