Lecture 9 Flashcards
è Study how online news personalization, both implicitly and explicitly, affects content and source diversity.
A large, and increasing share of news consumers rely on algorithmically
curated environments in which algorithms automatically select personalized news based on information about individual news consumers.
- Algorithms aim at maximizing economic gain by increasing media consumption.
News diversity
Represents the means for a broadly informed public and is thus one of the “fundamental pri nciples underlying evaluations of the performance of mass media systems.
News diversity follows ideals of deliberative politics and is seen as one of the key dim ensions of news quality within any democratic society around the world
Source diversity
describes the pluralism of quoted actors’ affiliations or status positions
Content diversity
oftentimes relates to the mere appearance of topics
Algorithmic Personalization
2 types personalization:
Algorithms typically use information about users’ interests, preferences, and surf behavior as well as contextual information
2 types personalization:
1. Explicit personalization: requires users to proactively reveal their preferences
- Implicit personalization: is based on observations of an individual user’s online behavior.
- -> Algorithms also evaluate match user’s follow-up actions (clicks, likes etc): this reduces diversity and ‘information blindness’ = filter bubble.
filter bubble
Risk of selfreinforcement and reduced diversity, which may ultimately lead to partial information blindness
Effects of personalisation on news diversity for news aggregators:
- Bias in news (conservative and ‘sensationalist click-bait’) sources
(= reduction in viewpoint diversity) - Very low effect of implicit personalisation on content diversity
Conclusion article Mario filterbubbles
Filterbubble phenomenon may be overestimated in the case of algorithmic personalization within Google News.
Filter bubbles: personalised content via algorithms
Decline in editor sovereignty and human selection
Black box: “we do not know which parameters drive personalised outcomes.” - Algorithms underlying news aggregators or not made public…..
Effect is decline in news diversity:
Source diversity
Content diversity
Viewpoint diversity
Echo chambers
The idea that online conversations about politics are typically divided into a variety of sub-groups, and that this division takes place along ideological lines with people only talking to others with which they already agreement
The Media Get You When You’re Not Paying Attention
The news media do have an influence on the way people think about politics and not only during elections.
5 features of media effects theories:
- Selectivity of media use by audience
- Media properties matter
- Media effects are indirect
- Media effects are conditional (on individual characteristics and societal context)
- Media effects are transactional (producers/senders, receivers and content interact and influence each other)
Changing social structures, technologies and identity formation (tt vraag!) (artikel bennet)
- Proliferation of channels/supply of information
- Interactive co-production of information
- Stratification and fragmentation of audience
- News exposure: increasing knowledge gap
- Partisan selective exposure, political polarisation and detachment
- Decline of socially conformist identity processes (individualisation)
Three types of effects that are prominent in the field of communication
- Framing: an interpretive theme used by political activists to promote their case and by journalists to tell a coherent story. It does make a differende about how people make choices.
- Agenda setting: has to do with the ability of the media to set people’s political priorities.
3 Priming: it goes one step further than agenda setting by saying that because the media can influence what to think about (e.g., the economy), they also have an effect on what types of considerations (e.g., economic) we use when thinking about particular political candidates and issues Two other, more general, media effects:
- Learning
- Persuasion
- Framing
Non- partisans and people with less education are more likely to be affected by watching “strategic” news.
- Those who are unaffiliated and are less educated are the ones who are most likely to accept the cynical framing that is so prevalent in elections news
HOW people think about issues
George Lakoff:
- Communication itself comes with a frame.
- Elements of the communication frame include: a messgae, an audience, a messenger, a medium, images, a context and especially higher-level moral and conceptual frames. The choice of language is, of course, vital but it is vital bc language evokes moral and conceptual frames.
- Frames form a system. The system has to be built up over time. It takes a long-range effort. Conservative think-tanks have been at it for 40 years. Most of this system development involves moral and conceptual frames, not just communicative frames. Communicative framing involves only the lowest level of framing,
- Negative campaigns should be done in the context of positive campaigns. To avoid negating the opposition’s frame and thus activating it, do the following: start with your ideal case of the issue given. Pick frames in which your ideal case is positively valued. THe contrast will attribute the negatively valued opposite quality to the opposition as a nightmare case.
- Agenda-setting
When the news media put certain topics on the top of their agenda, these issues also then rise to the top of the public’s agend.
Ø The news media may not tell us what to think, but they do tell us what to think about
A truly independent news media would make a point of bringing up important issues that are being ignored by the political elit
The news media do not just decide which candidate they prefer, they base their level of coverage on what is happening in the political world.
Agenda setting provides another example of why the most important media effects are unintentional and unnoticed.
Unintentional because when journalists decide what is most newsworthy, they are unlikely to think about how this will influence people’s political priorities.
Unnoticed because most members of the audience are naïve and take for granted the idea that if the news media are making a big deal out of something, it must be important.
- Priming
When the news media tell us what to think about, they are also indirectly telling us what to think.
Difference agenda-setting and priming:
Agenda setting only relates to the correlation between the media agenda and the public agenda.
Priming takes the process further and asks about the consequences of the changing public agenda.
The lower the level of involvement (e.g. politics), the fewer the effects of priming. !!!
More media use, the higher change of being primed
Less attentive citizend can make a more independent judgement
Because of the major changes that have taken place in the way people consume political information, we can no longer talk about the effects of the “mass” media.
We are moving from an era of broadcasting to the age of narrowcasting.
An increasing variety of communication channels -> exposed to a variety of policcal frames
Good: because citizens in a healthy democracy should learn about a variety of viewpoints
Bad: selective exposure = avoiding hearing opposing views; only own point of view.
4/5. Learning & persuasion
Learning: people learn from the media as well as trying to identify the types of citizens who are most likely to learn.
Ø The underlying assumption is that the more knowledge citizens have the more likely they are to make informed choices and this makes for a healthier democracy. Persuasion: how much people are influenced to change their political attitudes or behavior as a result of being exposed to content from different types of media.
Oprah-effect: people also learn from soft news
- Voters also learn from (negative) political advertising
Power of negative advertising: negative discrouse can have adverse, even positive effects
Cultivation Theory = heavy viewers of television come to believe that what is shown there provides a mirror to reality.
Minds are “cultivated” by watching too much television such that a distorted view of reality can grow.
Television and the Internet has increased the gaps in political knowledge.
RAS model
someone develops or changes their opinion about something, they go through 3 states: Receive, Accept, and Sample.
Sample:
when people form an opinion about something, they base their thinking on considerations they have on the top of their heads at the time they are asked.
Political awareness:
the extent to which people are interested and follow politics and is closely related to the level of political knowledge.
The relationship between political awareness and persuadability is what researchers call a curvilinear relationship.
= a graph where political awareness was on the horizontal axis (the x axis) and persuadability was put on the vertical axis (the y axis) the line would not be straight but would look like an upside-down U.
As political awareness rises, it increases the degree to which someone is persuadable until it reaches a certain high point and when it passes that point increasing awareness leads to less persuadability.
Knowlegde Gap Theory
why is there an increasing knowledge gap?
- Communication skills: people with higher social status generally have higher educational attainment, which improves their readin, comprehesion and memory skills
- Stored information: people with higher social status are more likely to already know of topics in the news through previous media exposure or though formal education.
- Relevant social contact: people with higher status generally have a broader sphere of activity, greater number of reference groups and interpersonal contacts and are thus more likely to discuss news topics with others.
- Selective exposure: lower social strate may be less interested, and therefore less likely to expose themselves to certain news topics
- Media target market: media outlets cater tot he tasted and interest of their audience.
Same effect on all news consumers
Differential effects on each news consumers
Differential effects, but in one direction on avarage:
Mean effect (fixed effect)
Random variation of the effect per receiver (random effect)
Fixed + random effect = total effect
Differential effects, but in opposing directions
Assimilation/contrast, polarization
Reinforcement dominant media opinion > spiral of silence
Categorization of diverse theories: because it’s so complex (6)
1) Direct effect/Persuasion Theories (1944–1963)
Attitude change, behavioral modeling and agenda setting: Magic Bullet Theory/Hypodermic
Needle Theory
2) Limited effect/Active Audience Theories (1944–1986)
Opinion leaders/two-step flow model/Motivated attention
3) Social Context Theories 1955–1983
Social (cognitive) learning/Interpersonal context of communication (spiral of silence)
4) Societal & Media Theories 1933–1978
Long-term accumulation of effects
5) Interpretive Effects Theories 1972–1987
Beyond attitude change— salience, accessibility, and structure of attitudes
6) New Media Theories 1996–
Expanded two-way communication, networking, expanded content choice
- Direct effect/Persuasion Theories (1944–1963)
Direct effects: Assumes audiences passively accept media messaged ans reaction predictably.
è Media injects ideas into people: The Hypodermic Needle Model
Mass media has a direct, immediate and powerful effects on its audiences.
In the 40’s and 50’s mass media were seen as powerful influencers of behaviour change. The assumption of strong effects theory was due to:
Rapid rise and popularisation of radio and TV
Emergence of persuasion industries (advertising and propaganda)
Studies in the 30’s on the impact of movies on children
Hitler’s monopolization of mass media and his ability to persuade large sections of
German society to support the Nazi party
The use of statistical evidence, large numbers of participants and longitudinal date to assess effects and trends.
Yet, such massive, uniform and direct effects are rare.
Society is not undifferentiated and individuals do (usually) not live in isolation.
Audiences tend to be more knowledgeable, critical and and aware of how media messages are constructed. •
Changes to attitudes and beliefs are not always immediately observable or easily…
But they do occur
- Limited effect/Active Audience Theories (1944–1986) 3 functions of mass communication:
- surveillance of the environment
2 connecting sections of society and
3 cultural transmission between generations
- Limited effect/ active audience theories: Shannon and Weaver (1948) add ‘noise’ and ‘feedback’
Focus on individual communication and passive receive
Two-step flow model:
Lazarsfeld et al. find that mass media is pretty powerless. Unexpectedly they found that media messages (through radio, newspapers and TV)
have less influence then informal, personal communication via ‘opinion leaders’ on voting behavior.
Voters who consumed the most media had generally already decided for which candidate to vote, while undecided voters generally turned to family and community members to help them decide.
Mass media rarely directly influences individual decision making, effect comes from others (friends, family, colleagues, etc.).
Opinion leaders influence people – media is influential indirectly.
Adult audience members have already developed opinions independent from the media. Only socially isolated people may be directly affected by media.
Media effects are limited because of individual differences (psychological or perception), personality characteristics, group membership and identities, background characteristics like age, gender, education, class and status, ethnicity, sexuality, disability/ability, regional identity and many other factors…….
Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet (1944) Katz & Lazarsfeld (1955)
Information flows horizontally!
Active Audience Theories (1994-1986)
Selectivity in media use
Two main propositions in media selectivity: (a) among the constellation of messages potentially attracting their attention, people only go to a limited portion of messages; (b) people are only influenced by those messages they select.
Selectivity of media use is a key factor in limiting media effects.
Two theoretical perspectives, uses-and-gratifications and selective exposure theory highlight the psychological and social factors guiding and filtering audience’s media selection.
These theories put media user in the center of the media effect process, and conceptualize media use as a mediator between antecedents and consequences of media effects. In other words, users (intentionally or not), develop their own media use effects.
3) Social Context Theories 1955–1983 Minimal effects
Klapper, 1960
Only a tiny fraction of voters changes his vote intentions during an election campaign
Audience motivations and prior beliefs influence the interpretation of persuasive messages
Messages often discussed among opinion leaders and friends (mediated effects
Why minimal effects? (Bennet and Iyengar)
Competing frames
Existing convictions
Detached and cynical audience
All sides ‘play the game’: contradictory effects
Fragmented media-landscape
personal/mediated communication
Selective exposure/confirmation bias
Hovland et al. found that (US military propaganda) movies were successful in increasing knowledge, but not very effective in influencing attitudes & motivations.
The little change that occurred was strongly influenced by people’s individual differences.
Key to understanding why people attend to, understand, remember and accept a persuasive message is to study the characteristics of the presenter, the content of the message and the characteristics of the receiver.
3 general variables in persuasion:
The communicator (who);
The communication (what);
The audience (whom)
Four steps in communication:
Attention
Comprehension
Acceptance
Retention ( durability of attitude change)
Observing -> Thinking -> Trying
“Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action”
- Societal & Media Theories 1933–1978
- > 5 media effects
- Interpretive Effects Theories 1972–1987 Selectivity in media use
Two main propositions in media selectivity: (a) among the constellation of messages potentially attracting their attention, people only go to a limited portion of messages; (b) people are only influenced by those messages they select.
Selectivity of media use is a key factor in limiting media effects.
Two theoretical perspectives, uses-and-gratifications and selective exposure theory highlight the psychological and social factors guiding and filtering audience’s media selection.
These theories put media user in the center of the media effect process, and conceptualize media use as a mediator between antecedents and consequences of media effects. In other words, users (intentionally or not), develop their own media use effects.
Selective exposure (Sears & Freedman, 1967)
People choose certain types of media content and avoid other types
Goals for media use can be grouped into five uses.
The audience wants to:
- Be informed or educated
- Identify with characters of the situation in the media environment
- Simple entertainment
- Enhance social interaction
- Escape from the stresses of daily life
Why do we use media
PIES: personal identity, information, entertainment, social integration.
- interpretive theories
Disposition theory = Enjoyment of media content as a product of a viewer’s emotional affiliations with characters and the storyline outcomes associated with those characters - Why do we enjoy the stories we enjoy?
Social identity (Tajfel, 1982) = People identify with groups in such a way as to maximize positive distinctiveness
Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957) = Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).
New Media Theories 1996– Effects: 3 more media effects:
Fragmentation
Polarisation
Intolerance
Bright (2016) compares ‘group pairs’: within-group versus between-group communication Hypotheses:
- As the ideological distance between groups increases, they will interact less
- Groups from different sides of the left-right divide will interact less than groups from the same side
- Pairs of extremist groups will interact less than pairs of centrist groups
