Suchergebnisse

Social media allow users some degree of control over the content to which they are exposed, through blocking, unfriending, or hiding feeds from other users. This article considers the extent to which they do so for political reasons. Survey data from Pew Research suggests that political unfriending is relatively rare, with fewer than 10% of respondents engaging in the practice. Analysis finds support for the idea that political unfriending is most common among those who talk about politics, those strongest in ideology, those that see the most politics in social media, and those that perceive the greatest political disagreement in their social networks. This suggests that social media are not exacerbating the political information gap as political information on social media is likely still reaching the least politically engaged, whereas the most politically engaged may opt out of political information within social media but still receive it elsewhere.

Although correction is often suggested as a tool against misinformation, and empirical research suggests it can be an effective one, we know little about how people perceive the act of correcting people on social media. This study measures such perceptions in the context of the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, introducing the concept of value for correction. We find that value for correction on social media is relatively strong and widespread, with no differences by partisanship or gender. Neither those who engage in correction themselves nor those witnessing the correction of others have higher value for correction. Witnessing correction, on the other hand, is associated with lower concerns about negative consequences of correction, whereas engaging in correction is not.

This study expands on existing research about correcting misinformation on social media. Using an experimental design, we explore the effects of three truth signals related to stories shared on social media: whether the person posting the story says it is true, whether the replies to the story say it is true, or whether the story itself is actually true. Our results suggest that individuals should not share misinformation in order to debunk it, as audiences assume sharing is an endorsement. Additionally, while two responses debunking the post do reduce belief in the post's veracity and argument, this process occurs equally when the story is false (thereby reducing misperceptions) as when it is true (thus reinforcing misperceptions). Our results have implications for individuals interested in correcting health misinformation on social media and for the organizations that support their efforts.

ObjectiveOne of the recent late‐night political comedy successes is John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, which includes frequent calls to action at the end of a segment, encouraging viewers to do something about the problem they have just learned about.MethodsUsing an experimental design, this study investigates the effects of these calls to action on the likelihood of engaging with the issue of net neutrality.ResultsFindings suggest that exposure to political comedy activates viewers to engage in small but meaningful behaviors, but does not spill over to encourage more difficult political behaviors, nor does it boost political efficacy.ConclusionThe call to action, encouraging viewer participation in remedying a problem addressed in a political comedy show, seems effective at encouraging viewers to participate. However, it may not make them feel more equipped to do so.

With the increasing salience of online privacy as an issue, concern has focused on the ability to delete outdated personal information. In response, several varieties of a law mimicking the European "Right to be Forgotten" have been introduced at the state and federal level in the United States, despite limited measurement of public opinion on the issue. Because policymakers and courts often consider public opinion when deciding what laws to make and how to interpret those laws, public opinion is an important consideration when thinking about the potential for a right to be forgotten in the United States. In order to determine likely levels of support, as well as what predicts public backing of such a law, we analyze survey data collected from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (N = 1,380). We find that women are more likely to support such a law, as are those who are particularly concerned about online privacy, and those who express greatest confidence in Google. Those who think the government is too large are less likely to support such legislation. This suggests a complicated road forward for a Right to be Forgotten in the United States, with coalitions of support crossing traditional political boundaries.

The concession and victory speech is a ritual in American politics, described by Corcoran as a "rite of capitulation," in which both candidates at the end of an election sanction the legitimacy of the process, agree on the outcome, and start the political transition. Concession and victory speeches emerged as a distinct convention in the television era, but as web services like Twitter take on a larger role in electoral politics, traditions like the concession are being adapted to new formats. The literature has identified a series of substantive and procedural conventions for conceding and claiming victory, but it is unclear how these conventions hold up as technology evolves. An examination of 200 Twitter feeds from congressional, senatorial, and gubernatorial candidates during the 2010 midterm elections shows that while candidates touch some of the traditional concession themes, the procedural rules to concession have not migrated unchanged to the online world.

The 2008 presidential election was one of the most watched campaigns in American history, and prominently featured the vice presidential candidates, Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joseph Biden. This election contest presents an exciting opportunity to expand and test our current understandings of the relationship between gender and media coverage. We examine this relationship using computer‐assisted content analysis of major newspapers, television news broadcasts, and political blogs. These three media are analyzed in terms of both quantity and substance of coverage received by Palin and Biden. Using a multiple medium perspective in our investigation of the contest between Palin and Biden, this article finds differences in volume of coverage (Governor Palin receives more), substance of coverage (roughly reflecting gender‐based stereotypes), and medium (with differences in volume and substance of coverage across newspapers, television, and blogs). Implications for future contests and for American politics in general are discussed.Related Articles:"Women Candidates and the Media: 1992‐2000 Elections." (2006)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2006.00030.x/abstract"The Influence of Female Candidates' Campaign Issues on Political Proselytizing." (2008)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2008.00093.x/abstract"Incumbent Responsiveness to Female Challengers." (2010)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00271.x/fullRelated Media:Blogs athttp://themoderatevoice.com/,http://committedtoromney.com/, andhttp://www.barackoblogger.com/La elección presidencial del 2008 fue una de las campañas más vistas en la historia de los Estados Unidos, dando un lugar destacado a los candidatos para la vicepresidencia, la gobernadora Sarah Palin y el Senador Joseph Biden. Esta contienda electoral presenta una gran oportunidad para ampliar y poner a prueba nuestra comprensión actual de la relación entre el género y la cobertura de los medios de comunicación. Este artículo examina esta relación usando un análisis de contenido de los principales periódicos, programas de televisión y blogs políticos. Estos tres medios son analizados en términos de cantidad y sustancia de la cobertura recibida por Palin y Biden. Usando una perspectiva de múltiples medios en nuestra investigación de la competencia entre Palin y Biden, este estudio encuentra diferencias en el volumen de cobertura (la gobernadora Palin recibió más), sustancia de la cobertura (más o menos reflejando estereotipos de género), y de medio (con diferencias de volumen y sustancia de cobertura entre periódicos, televisión, y blogs). Las implicaciones para futuras contiendas y la política estadounidense en general son discutidas.