The article, “The Effects of Digital Media on Political Knowledge and Participation in Election Campaigns: Evidence from panel data,” (Dimitrova, D. Shehata, A.; Strömbäck, J. & Nord, L., 2011) shows that digital media causes a negligible effect on political knowledge but has “appreciable effects” on political participation.
The study is useful in that it uses panel survey data which can more reliably establish causality, and that it was conducted during a period of high political importance—during the 2010 Swedish election campaign, when most people were expected to have a heightened interest in politics. I can see how at least on the surface, some of the conclusions of this study could be broadly generalized beyond the sample used in the study. One of the conclusions of the study was that the use of digital media leads to increased political activity among the public at large. According to some media reports and studies, (Ali, A., 2011) this is true, as seen during the recent revolutions in the Arab world. However, revolutions cannot happen through social media alone. I think what Dimitrova et all fail to account for in their study is the significant human intervention in the form of leadership and grassroots level organizing, that might have influenced offline participation.
Another conclusion, that the use of digital media has only limited effects on political knowledge and political participation is hard to prove and hard to measure because digital media—online news websites, social media networks and political websites—are not mutually exclusive. Almost all news sites have links leading to social media sites and social media sites have links that lead to news websites. A person could have heard about political information on a social media site and then clicked through links on a news website to read a story. Would it be fair to say then that the person got information only from the news website and not from the social media site?
Another problem I had with the study was in the methods section, where participants were asked to fill an online survey. A previous study (Prior, 2009) showed that when people were given an online survey about their exposure to television news, they tended to over-report their exposure, mostly because they could not remember the exact amount of time they spent watching television or because they did not properly understand the questions. I think the Dimitrova et all study could also suffer from the flaw of over-reporting because the survey was administered online.
In the measures section, for digital media, the researchers measure the use of political party web sites by a survey item tapping how often the respondents had visited a number of party web sites. However, I think this is not an adequate measure. In order to see if readers’ came away with any knowledge from the websites, there should have been a question about the average amount of time they spent on a website and the sections they looked at most.
In the study, Dimitrova et all conclude that the use of different forms of digital media, controlling for other factors, has little impact on political knowledge. This statement reminds me of a study (Prior, 2005) that said “despite dramatic increases in available political information through cable television and the Internet, political knowledge and turnout have not changed noticeably.” The study found that greater media choice allowed people to only seek information they liked. Thus, the more politically inclined watched political shows and got more knowledgeable about politics, while those who preferred entertainment-based shows, avoided political shows and were less likely to vote.
Similarly, from Dimitrova et all’s study it appears that though election campaigns and online news organizations try to reach out to people through digital media, they may only have limited success. Just as people can choose to watch political or entertainment programs on television, people can choose to use the Internet and social media to get political or educational information or spend time connecting with friends, surfing or playing games, watching movies and listening to music. With apps now becoming the norm, people can customize what they read and watch to suit their specific tastes. Thus, though it would appear that digital media empowers marginalized people and gives them a chance to express themselves on the same platform as elites, it doesn’t really matter, because there’s no one listening.
References:
Ali, A. (2011). The Power of Social Media in Developing Nations: New Tools for Closing the Global Digital Divide and Beyond. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 24(1), 185-219.
Dimitrova, D.; Shehata, A.; Strömbäck, J. & Nord, L. (2011) The Effects of Digital Media on Political Knowledge and Participation in Election Campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research. (online) 1-24.
Prior, M. (2005). News vs. Entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science. 49(3), 577-592.
Prior, M. (2009). Improving Media Effects Research through Better Measurement of News Exposure. The Journal of Politics. 71(3), 893–908.
The study is useful in that it uses panel survey data which can more reliably establish causality, and that it was conducted during a period of high political importance—during the 2010 Swedish election campaign, when most people were expected to have a heightened interest in politics. I can see how at least on the surface, some of the conclusions of this study could be broadly generalized beyond the sample used in the study. One of the conclusions of the study was that the use of digital media leads to increased political activity among the public at large. According to some media reports and studies, (Ali, A., 2011) this is true, as seen during the recent revolutions in the Arab world. However, revolutions cannot happen through social media alone. I think what Dimitrova et all fail to account for in their study is the significant human intervention in the form of leadership and grassroots level organizing, that might have influenced offline participation.
Another conclusion, that the use of digital media has only limited effects on political knowledge and political participation is hard to prove and hard to measure because digital media—online news websites, social media networks and political websites—are not mutually exclusive. Almost all news sites have links leading to social media sites and social media sites have links that lead to news websites. A person could have heard about political information on a social media site and then clicked through links on a news website to read a story. Would it be fair to say then that the person got information only from the news website and not from the social media site?
Another problem I had with the study was in the methods section, where participants were asked to fill an online survey. A previous study (Prior, 2009) showed that when people were given an online survey about their exposure to television news, they tended to over-report their exposure, mostly because they could not remember the exact amount of time they spent watching television or because they did not properly understand the questions. I think the Dimitrova et all study could also suffer from the flaw of over-reporting because the survey was administered online.
In the measures section, for digital media, the researchers measure the use of political party web sites by a survey item tapping how often the respondents had visited a number of party web sites. However, I think this is not an adequate measure. In order to see if readers’ came away with any knowledge from the websites, there should have been a question about the average amount of time they spent on a website and the sections they looked at most.
In the study, Dimitrova et all conclude that the use of different forms of digital media, controlling for other factors, has little impact on political knowledge. This statement reminds me of a study (Prior, 2005) that said “despite dramatic increases in available political information through cable television and the Internet, political knowledge and turnout have not changed noticeably.” The study found that greater media choice allowed people to only seek information they liked. Thus, the more politically inclined watched political shows and got more knowledgeable about politics, while those who preferred entertainment-based shows, avoided political shows and were less likely to vote.
Similarly, from Dimitrova et all’s study it appears that though election campaigns and online news organizations try to reach out to people through digital media, they may only have limited success. Just as people can choose to watch political or entertainment programs on television, people can choose to use the Internet and social media to get political or educational information or spend time connecting with friends, surfing or playing games, watching movies and listening to music. With apps now becoming the norm, people can customize what they read and watch to suit their specific tastes. Thus, though it would appear that digital media empowers marginalized people and gives them a chance to express themselves on the same platform as elites, it doesn’t really matter, because there’s no one listening.
References:
Ali, A. (2011). The Power of Social Media in Developing Nations: New Tools for Closing the Global Digital Divide and Beyond. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 24(1), 185-219.
Dimitrova, D.; Shehata, A.; Strömbäck, J. & Nord, L. (2011) The Effects of Digital Media on Political Knowledge and Participation in Election Campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research. (online) 1-24.
Prior, M. (2005). News vs. Entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science. 49(3), 577-592.
Prior, M. (2009). Improving Media Effects Research through Better Measurement of News Exposure. The Journal of Politics. 71(3), 893–908.
No comments:
Post a Comment