Echo Chambers or greater Pluralism? Twitter and the diversification of presidential debates in Chile
Article Sidebar
Keywords:
Issue
Section
Main Article Content
Abstract
We present here the results of an inquiry about the role of new information technologies in the political events of a nation. For this, the study of a significant sample of twits generated around the last presidential campaign in Chile was taken as a case. The moments of capturing the messages by supporters of the different candidates, corresponded to several of the debate meetings that took place in the months prior to the 2017 election event. From the results obtained, we can point out that the role of the Twitter fails to escape the communicational intent of the campaign's own spokesmen without the citizens, seeing in the electronic resource, a valid option for debate and democratic expansion.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Barberá Pablo, Jost John, Nagler Jonathan, Tucker Joshua, Bonneau Richard (2015), Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?, Psychological Science, Vol 26, Issue 10, pp. 1531 – 1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
Bennett WL and Iyengar S (2008) A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication 58(4): 707–731.
Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “Difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680–700. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x.
Colleoni Elanor, Rozza Alessandro & Arvidsson Adam (2014), Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data, Journal of Communication, 65, pp.317-332.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.
Dubois Elizabeth & Blank Grant (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media, Information, Communication & Society, 21:5, 729-745, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.142865
Garrett RK (2009) Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication 59(4): 676–699.
Gronemeyer, M.E., Porath, W. (2017), Tendencias de la posición editorial en diarios de referencia en Chile. El arte de dosificar la crítica frente a la actuación de los actores políticos, Revista de Ciencia Política, vol.37, pp.177-202.
Holbert RL, Garrett RK and Gleason LS (2010) A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication 60(1): 15–34.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038.
Justwan Florian, Baumgaertner Bert, Carlisle Juliet E., Clark April K. & Clark Michael (2018) Social media echo chambers and satisfaction with democracy among Democrats and Republicans in the aftermath of the 2016 US elections, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2018.1434784
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Kleinman, S. (2012). Preelection selective exposure confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39(2), 170–193.
Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. (2009). Origins of homophily in evolving networks. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2), 405–450.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063
Navia, Patricio, & Ulriksen Lira, Camilla Paz. (2017). Tuiteo, luego voto. El efecto del consumo de medios de comunicación y uso de redes sociales en la participación electoral en Chile en 2009 y 2013. Cuadernos.info, (40), 71-88. https://dx.doi.org/10.7764/cdi.40.1049
Prior M (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Santander, Pedro, Elórtegui, Claudio, González, Cristián, Allende-Cid, Héctor, & Palma, Wenceslao. (2017). Redes sociales, inteligencia computacional y predicción electoral: el caso de las primarias presidenciales de Chile 2017. Cuadernos.info, (41), 41-56. https://dx.doi.org/10.7764/cdi.41.1218
Scheufele, D. A., Hardy, B. W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I. S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56, 728–753. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00317.x
SERVEL. Manual de Propaganda. En: https://www.servel.cl/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/Manual_de_Propaganda_Electoral_21-08-2017.pdf
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
Sunstein, C. (2002). The Law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195
Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1041–1061.
Vaccari Cristian (2012), From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role of the Internet in campaigns, New Media & Society, pp.1-19.
Wojcieszak M and Mutz D (2009) Online groups and political discourse: do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication 59(1): 40–56.
Zaller JR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.