iamcr 2016 annual conference, leicester, uk

News redissemination and public debate on social networks

Lluïsa Llamero, Jaume Suau, Pere Masip,

Carles Ruiz, (Universitat Ramon Llull)

Leicester

28/07/2016


• Project and scope

• Theoretical debate

• Objectives and methodology

• Findings

• Conclusion

• Suggestions for new research lines

Summary


• A holistic account on audiences

• From the perspective of the journalists to the one of citizens

• Motivations, practices and expectations

• The role of audience participation in journalism and democracy

Funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, (CSO2012-39518-C04-01)

The Research Project

Active audiences and journalism: Engaged citizens or motivated consumers?


• Social networks as an expanded public sphere (Papacharissi, 2010,

2015; Singer et al 2011) in a hybrid media system (Chadwick, 2013).

• Put in jeopardy the hegemony of journalists as gatekeepers.

• Research trends:

– Facebook for entertaintment, keeping in touch with friends

– Twitter for hard news, perceptions of elitism

• User’s motivations for sharing and debating online are

insufficiently addressed.

Theoretical debate


Previous survey

Most popular activities on social networks


Previous survey

Source of the news received through social networks


• To achieve a greater understanding of the role played by social networks in the

consumption of news

• To inquiry about citizen’s motivations for interacting with

news in social networks

• To find out whether citizens regard social networks as suitable spaces for public debate

Objectives


Methodology

● 12 focus groups, 106 participants

● Sample (theoretically oriented)

○ Civic Engagement

•43 people were members of political parties, unions, NGOs, cultural associations and other social movements

•63 people were not involved in any association


– Media Engagement

High media engagement

37 people who:

● read the news every day

● both print and/or online

● use more than one media outlet (at least once a week)

● once a week read a print newspaper

Medium media engagement

46 people who:

● usually read the news but less than six times a week

● both print and/or online

Low media engagement23 people who:

● read the news online once a week (irrespective of how

often they read the news in the printed media)


news consumption• content about public affairs is received in the

audiences’ social-networks feed on a regular basis (several times a day)

• most of the content is links to news produced by media or by journalists

• mainstream media are perceived as biased, but they are still the main source of news:

– “I read La Vanguardia, because it’s like a habit” (BA43)

Findings


“I follow the media via Twitter and Facebook, but my friends also tweet and send me stories. Both help me to keep informed.”(AM21)

“I’m in Facebook and I follow [media] profiles, and [the media] update the news, but my contacts also post news they are interested in and maybe they are of a different opinion than yours. Sometimes are silly stuff.” (JC22)


• Participants expressed greater confidence about the content found in social networks if the content had been previously published by media. Non-journalists sources are seen as not trustable:

– “… in any case news are signed, but in social networks nobodys signs the content” (TJ56)

– “... when I see a story [in Facebook] not signed I don’t trust it (TJ56)

Findings


• social networks allow people to access news outside their usual subjects of interest or that would otherwise go

unnoticed (thanks to secondary gatekeepers / friends)

• to read topics different from the mainstream media agenda:– “You have a lot of people on Facebook (...) The good

thing about it is that, when you see a piece of news, other items are displayed and you end up turning your attention to a lot more things.” (LS24)

Findings


Motivations• to discuss and debate with people who challenge users’

ideologies:–“I have a friend who isn’t that different to me, but

who often sends me stories that go against my ideas. Sometimes I counterattack and send him others back.” (AC20)

Findings


• but some informants reported a fear of social isolation:

“...by being honest you lose friends, so you’re politically correct depending on the comment (...) if we are going to talk about politics, everyone will give their own view, what they feel, their ideology, and that’s not going to change, it’d be like changing religion”. (CF47)

Findings


other motivations:• the need to share and to keep contact with friends

• the belief that some stories deserve to be disseminated

• searching for friend’s views on topics of (self-)interest

• practising an ideological proselytism

• expressing protest, indignation...

Findings


public debate:

• social networks foster better public debate than legacy media

• they allow users to express themselves

– “on Twitter you can tweet, make comments. It’s not adebate, just you’re expressing your position. They aren’tdebates, in the sense of a conversation where points ofview are exchanged, rather, you comment on a piece ofnews or you retweet, whereas to start a debate, anexchange of ideas, I’m more inclined to do it in personwith whoever I want to, and not with a stranger”. (XB23)

Findings


• but they are not the ideal spaces due to:

– lack of courtesy and good manners

– a spiral of silence, audiences do not confront with their friends

– issues about politics or ideology causes a polarization of opinions and the discussion do not arrive to a consensus

Findings


• “I think that people have to learn to debate. Almost always

it’s as if two people quarrel, one saying to the other that he is

an idiot and the other saying…” (CCM29)

• “I participate provided people are polite; when they loose

politeness and they start to insult themselves… I’m not

interested and I leave the debate.” (JC49)

• “I don’t comment because I don’t like to get into fights and

when you write some idea against what people think, then

everybody attacks you. It is not worthy.” (LS24)


• audiences use social networks for accessing news and redisseminating those of their own interest

• audiences report social networks to be spaces suitable

for expressing themselves, but limited spaces

for a constructive debate

• people do not interact with media outlet’s profiles

on social media

Conclusions


Ideas for a new research agenda

• to explore the differences between

expressing opinions and debating

• to inquiry about group dynamics on

discussing about public affairs

• to explore where alternative news items

come from

Thanks !

Lluïsa Llamero ([email protected]) Jaume Suau ([email protected])Pere Masip ([email protected])Carles Ruiz ([email protected])

Leicester

28/07/2016

iamcr 2016 annual conference, leicester, uk

Presentations & Public Speaking