Información política y exposición incidental en las redes socialesUn análisis de Argentina, Chile, España y México

  1. Javier Serrano-Puche 1
  2. Carmen Beatriz Fernández 1
  3. Jordi Rodríguez-Virgili 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Navarra
    info

    Universidad de Navarra

    Pamplona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02rxc7m23

Journal:
Doxa Comunicación: revista interdisciplinar de estudios de comunicación y ciencias sociales

ISSN: 1696-019X

Year of publication: 2018

Issue: 27

Pages: 19-42

Type: Article

DOI: 10.31921/DOXACOM.N27A1 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Doxa Comunicación: revista interdisciplinar de estudios de comunicación y ciencias sociales

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Information consumption is not an independent activity anymore. Instead, it forms part of a continuous connection to the digital space. Thus, users do no often deliberately search for news on social networks. Instead, it is found accidentally amongst other social or entertainment contents. The phenomenon of incidental exposure is an emerging trend in digital consumption, having ramifications for political participation and citizens’ understanding of public affairs. This work provides a comparative analysis of digital users’ incidental exposure to news in four Spanish-speaking countries, on three platforms: Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Samples from Argentina (n = 2,003), Chile (n = 2,005), Spain (n = 2,006) and Mexico (n = 2,003), have been used from those surveyed in the Digital News Report 2017. The results show that a) Spain is the country with the highest incidental exposure rate among users who use social networks to be informed; b) it is more frequent when using Facebook and YouTube than on Twitter; and c) age, ideological orientation and the degree of interest in news influence this phenomenon.

Bibliographic References

  • Altheide, D. L. & Snow, R. P. (1979): Media Logic. Beverly Hills: SAGE.
  • Baldwin-Philippi, J. (2017): “The Myths of Data-Driven Campaigning”, Political Communication, 34 (4), 627-633. Doi: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1372999.
  • Barberá P, Jost JT, Nagler J, et al. (2015): “Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber”, Psychological Science 26, pp. 1531–1542. Doi: 10.1177/0956797615594620.
  • Bergström, A. & Jervelycke Belfrage, M. (2018): “News in Social Media. Incidental consumption and the role of opinion leaders”, Digital Journalism, 6:5, pp. 583-598. Doi: 10.1080/21670811.2018.1423625.
  • Boczkowski, P., Mitchelstein, E. & Matassi, M. (2018): “‘News comes across when I’m in a moment of leisure’: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media”, New Media & Society. Article first published online: January 2. Doi: 10.1177/1461444817750396.
  • Bossetta, M. (2018): “The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. Election”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95 (2), pp. 471-496. Doi: 10.1177/1077699018763307.
  • Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018): “The Affordances of Social Media Platforms”. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Social Media (pp. 233–253). Sage Publications.
  • Calvo, E. (2015): Anatomía política del twitter en Argentina. Tuiteando #Nisman. Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual.
  • Castells, M. (2009): Comunicación y poder. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
  • Chadwick, A. (2013): The Hybrid Media System. Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chadwick, A. (2013): “The Political Information Cycle in a Hybrid News System: The British Prime Minister and the ‘Bullygate’ Affair”, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16 (1), pp. 3-29. Doi: 10.1177/1940161210384730.
  • Colleoni, E.; Rozza, A. & Arvidsson, A. (2014): “Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data”, Journal of Communication, 64 (2), pp. 317–332. Doi: 10.1111/ jcom.12084.
  • Couldry, N. & Hepp, A. (2017): The Mediated Construction of Reality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  • Donsbach, W. (2011): “Weimar 2.0. Acerca de la pérdida del espacio público”. Diálogo político, 28 (2), pp. 123-135.
  • Dubois, E. & Blank, G. (2018): “The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media”, Information, Communication & Society, 21 (5), pp. 729-745. Doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656.
  • Erdelez, S. (2005): “Information Encountering”. In Karen E. Fisher, Sanda Erdelez & Lynne E.F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 179-185), Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
  • Feezell, J. T. (2017): “Agenda Setting through Social Media: The Importance of Incidental News Exposure and Social Filtering in the Digital Era”, Political Research Quarterly. 71 (2), pp. 482-494. Doi: 10.1177/1065912917744895.
  • Fernández, C. B. & Rodríguez-Virgili, J. (2017): “El consumo de información política de los públicos interesados comparado con el del electorado general. Los casos de las elecciones de Argentina, España y Venezuela de 2015”, Revista de Comunicación, 16 (2), pp. 60-87. Doi:10.26441/RC16.2-2017-A3.
  • Fletcher, R. & Nielsen, R.K. (2017): “Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis”. New Media and Society 20 (7), pp. 2450-2468. Doi: 10.1177/1461444817724170.
  • Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., Katz, J. (2017): “We face, I tweet: How different social media influence political participation through collective and internal efficacy”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, pp. 320-336. Doi:10.1111/ jcc4.12198.
  • Hjarvard, S. (2017): “Mediatization”. In Rössler, P; Hoffner, C.A. & van Zoonen, L. (eds.) The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, vol. III. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1221–124.
  • Hallin, D. & Mancini, P. (2004): Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hermida, A. (2014): Tell everyone: Why we share and why it matters. Toronto, Canada: Anchor Canada.
  • Hindman, M. (2008): The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Jansson, A.; Lindell, J. (2015): “News Media Consumption in the Transmedia Age”, Journalism Studies 16 (1), pp. 79–96. Doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2014.890337.
  • Kim, Y., Chen. H.-T., Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013): “Stumbling upon news on the Internet: Effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement”, Computers in Human Behavior, 29, pp. 2607–2614. Doi: 10.1016/j. chb.2013.06.005.
  • Krotz, F. (2007): “The Meta-Process of ‘Mediatization’ as a Conceptual Frame”, Global Media and Communication, 3(3), pp. 256–260. Doi: 10.1177/17427665070030030103.
  • Kümpel AS, Karnowski V, Keyling T (2015): “News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks”, Social Media + Society, 1(2), pp. 1–14. Doi:10.1177/2056305115610141.
  • Lee, J. K. (2009): Incidental Exposure to News: Limiting Fragmentation in the New Media Environment. Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
  • Lee, J. K. & Kim, Y. (2017): “Incidental exposure to news: Predictors in the social media setting and effects on information gain online”, Computers in Human Behavior, 75, pp. 1008–1015. Doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.018.
  • López, G.; Gamir, J. & Valera, L. (2018). Comunicación política. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Martín Algarra, M. (2005): “Medios de comunicación de calidad son medios de comunicación con responsabilidad”, Comunica, 3, pp. 21-30.
  • Martín Algarra, M; Torregrosa, M. y Serrano-Puche, J. (2013): “Un periodismo sin períodos: actualidad y tiempo en la era digital”. En García, A. (coord): Periodística y web 2.0: hacia la construcción de un nuevo modelo. Estudios de Periodística XVII. Madrid: CEU Ediciones, pp. 73-83.
  • Masip, P.; Suau-Martínez, J.; Ruiz-Caballero, C. (2018): Questioning the Selective Exposure to News: Understanding the
  • Impact of Social Networks on Political News Consumption. American Behavioral Scientist 2018, Vol. 62(3), pp. 300–319. Doi: 10.1177/0002764217708586.
  • Mazzoleni, G. & Sfardini, A. (2009): Politica pop. Da “Porta a porta” a “L’isola dei famosi”. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  • Meilán, X. (2010): Causas y consecuencias del consumo de información política en España (2000-2009). Madrid: CIS.
  • Mitchelstein, E. & Boczkowski, P. (2018): “Juventud, estatus y conexiones. Explicación del consumo incidental de noticias en redes sociales”, Revista Mexicana de Opinión Pública, 13 (24), pp. 131-145. Doi: 10.22201/fcpys.24484911e.2018.24.61647
  • Millaleo, S. & Cárcamo, P. (2014): Mediaciones del sistema político frente al activismo digital. Santiago de Chile: Fundación Democracia y Desarrollo.
  • Nechushtai E. & Lewis S.C. (2018): “What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations”, Computers in Human Behavior (2018). Doi: 10.1016/j. chb.2018.07.043
  • Pariser, E. (2011): The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.
  • Peters, C. (2015): “Introduction. The places and spaces of news audiences”, Journalism Studies, 16(1), pp. 1-11. Doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2014.889944.
  • Picone, I., Courtois, C. & Paulussen, S. (2015): “When News is Everywhere. Understanding Participation, Cross Mediality and Mobility in Journalism for a Radical User Perspective”, Journalism Practice, 9(1), pp. 35-49. Doi: 10.1080/17512786.2014.928464.
  • Purcell, K., Raine, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., & Olmstead, K. (2010): “Understanding the participatory news consumer”,
  • Pew Research Center. Recuperado de: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News.aspx
  • Rodríguez Polo, X. R. & Martín Algarra, M.l (2008): “Medios y democracia: la Teoría de la Responsabilidad Social”, Revista de Comunicación, 7, pp. 154-166.
  • Salaverría, R. (2018): “Allá donde estés, habrá noticias”, Cuadernos de Periodistas, 35, pp. 15-22.
  • Serrano-Puche, J. (2017): “Metaanálisis del consumo digital en el ecosistema mediático contemporáneo: factores distintivos e implicaciones emocionales”. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 8(1), pp. 75-85. Doi: 10.14198/MEDCOM2017.8.1.6.
  • Sunstein, C.R. (2002): Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2017): #Republic. Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
  • Tewksbury, D., Weaver, A. J., & Maddex, B. D. (2001): “Accidentally Informed: Incidental News Exposure on the World Wide Web”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 78 (3), pp. 533-554.
  • Toff, B. & Nielsen, R. K. (2018): “‘I Just Google It’: Folk Theories of Distributed Discovery”, Journal of Communication, 68 (3), pp. 636–657. Doi: 10.1093/joc/jqy009.
  • Valeriani, A. & Vaccari C. (2016): “Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom”, New Media & Society 18, pp. 1857–1874. Doi: 10.1177/1461444815616223.
  • Yadamsuren, B. & Heinström, J. (2011): “Emotional reactions to incidental exposure to online news”. Information Research, 16(3) paper 486. Recuperado de: http://www.informationr.net/ir/16-3/paper486.html
  • Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.; Trilling, D.; Möller, J.; Bodó, B.; de Vreese, C. & Helberger, N. (2016): “Should we worry about filter bubbles?, Internet Policy Review, 5(1). Doi: 10.14763/2016.1.401.
Data source: Dialnet