News Diaries Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

News Diaries Analysis Group 1 DISCLAIMER Heightened political news causes -American Inauguration -Women’s March Languages Allexa & Sage How often do students consume news? More than 80 % of the students consume time between 2pm till 10pm on social media. Leaving only 15 - 20 % to consume time between 12:00-10:00 am. This brings us to the point that the most repeated times consumed by students are the following: Morning: Afternoon: Evening: Night: 8:00 Am 2:00pm 6:00pm 8:00pm 9:00 Am 2:30pm 6:30pm 8:15pm 9:30 Am 5:00pm 7:15pm 8:30pm 10:00Am 9:00pm 10:00pm Fernanda & Malak News Sources - Social Media - FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, SNAPCHAT, TWITTER - News apps - The iPhone News app, Reddit, BBC, CNN, News Digest app - Specific Google searches - TV & Radio & Podcasts - Printed News Fiona & Margaret News Sources Graphs -- 1st Source Fiona & Margaret News Sources Graphs -- 2nd Source Fiona & Margaret Different National Sources US FR UK Forbes Le Monde The Guardian Huffington Post Vogue BBC NY Times Telegraph.co.uk CNN The Independent Washington Post Daily Mail National Geographic NBC Flipboard Buzzfeed News Georgia Cosmopolitan Boston Globe Talk show Vanity Fair Yahoo News (News Digest) The Atlantic Democracy Now CBS Vogue Hollywood Reporter Allexa & Sage National News Sources ● More than half of the news sources come from the United States ● 95% of the sources were online or television ● One print sources Allexa & Sage How are students alerted to news? Four main factors influence the way in which students are alerted to news: Social media presence and usage Accessibility to different media Reaction to images/image based media Apps on mobile phones Fernanda & Malak Tendencies and Trends: Hard News & Soft News -During this time period, more hard news was consumed than soft news in social media outlets -Effects of current events for the viewer -Current event leads shift in tendencies Allexa & Sage Awareness of Algorithms, Fake News, Bias Confirmation - Algorithms - Social Media & Search Engines, etc. and Algorithms - Fake news - Bias confirmation - Types of articles and news sources Fiona & Margaret & Emma Awareness -- Bias Confirmation Left-leaning Middle -- NA Right-leaning Independent Cosmopolitan Forbes Occupy Democrats Buzzfeed News The Guardian Boston Globe BBC Le Monde Vogue Vanity Fair Hollywood Reporter Huffington Post Birth Movies Death CBS Fiona & Margaret & Emma The End .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

(Totally Insane, Unintentionally Gigantic, Hyperpartisan) Political-Media Machine How a Strange New Class of Media Outlet Has Arisen to Take Over Our News Feeds
Inside Facebook’s (Totally Insane, Unintentionally Gigantic, Hy... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/magazine/inside-facebooks... http://nyti.ms/2bzePnO Inside Facebook’s (Totally Insane, Unintentionally Gigantic, Hyperpartisan) Political-Media Machine How a strange new class of media outlet has arisen to take over our news feeds. By JOHN HERRMAN AUG. 24, 2016 Open your Facebook feed. What do you see? A photo of a close friend’s child. An automatically generated slide show commemorating six years of friendship between two acquaintances. An eerily on-target ad for something you’ve been meaning to buy. A funny video. A sad video. A recently live video. Lots of video; more video than you remember from before. A somewhat less-on-target ad. Someone you saw yesterday feeling blessed. Someone you haven’t seen in 10 years feeling worried. And then: A family member who loves politics asking, “Is this really who we want to be president?” A co-worker, whom you’ve never heard talk about politics, asking the same about a different candidate. A story about Donald Trump that “just can’t be true” in a figurative sense. A story about Donald Trump that “just can’t be true” in a literal sense. A video of Bernie Sanders speaking, overlaid with text, shared from a source you’ve never seen before, viewed 15 million times. An article questioning Hillary Clinton’s honesty; a headline questioning Donald Trump’s sanity. A few shares that go a bit too far: headlines you would never pass along yourself but that you might tap, read and probably not forget.
[Show full text]
Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
[Show full text]
Many Fake News Stories Are Just Close Enough to the Truth to Seem
CHAPTER 8 HOW TO TELL FAKE NEWS FROM REAL NEWS any fake news stories are just close enough to the truth to seem Mlegitimate. In social media feeds, fake stories are there alongside legitimate stories. People you know and trust often share the phony stories. So do some cable news and talk radio programs. People in power also attack genuine news stories they don’t like as fake news. It’s becoming more and more difficult to distinguish the fake news from the factual news. So how do we do that? When you don’t know whom or what to believe, you have to do your own homework to separate fact from fiction. This means getting more involved with what you view online, see or hear on broadcast media, and read in print. You are the ultimate fact-checker. What Fake News Looks Like Fake news, when done well, looks a lot like real news. If you’re reading a story on a fake news website, it will have a headline, a main article, and sometimes an accompanying photo—just like a story on a hard news site. If you’re reading a fake post on Facebook or other social media, it will look like any other post. 82 How do you separate fact from fiction on social media? Do some basic research and use common sense to figure out what is reliable information and what is not. To determine if the story is fact or fiction, start by examining the fake news headline. Compared to news stories from reputable sources, fake news headlines tend to be sensational.
[Show full text]
Participatory Propaganda Model 1
A PARTICIPATORY PROPAGANDA MODEL 1 Participatory Propaganda: The Engagement of Audiences in the Spread of Persuasive Communications Alicia Wanless Michael Berk Director of Strategic Communications, Visiting Research Fellow, SecDev Foundation Centre for Cyber Security and International [email protected] Relations Studies, University of Florence [email protected] Paper presented at the "Social Media & Social Order, Culture Conflict 2.0" conference organized by Cultural Conflict 2.0 and sponsored by the Research Council of Norway on 1 December 2017, Oslo. To be published as part of the conference proceedings in 2018. A PARTICIPATORY PROPAGANDA MODEL 2 Abstract Existing research on aspects of propaganda in a digital age tend to focus on isolated techniques or phenomena, such as fake news, trolls, memes, or botnets. Providing invaluable insight on the evolving human-technology interaction in creating new formats of persuasive messaging, these studies lend to an enriched understanding of modern propaganda methods. At the same time, the true effects and magnitude of successful influencing of large audiences in the digital age can only be understood if target audiences are perceived not only as ‘objects’ of influence, but as ‘subjects’ of persuasive communications as well. Drawing from vast available research, as well as original social network and content analyses conducted during the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, this paper presents a new, qualitatively enhanced, model of modern propaganda – “participatory propaganda” - and discusses its effects on modern democratic societies. Keywords: propaganda, Facebook, social network analysis, content analysis, politics A PARTICIPATORY PROPAGANDA MODEL 3 Participatory Propaganda: The Engagement of Audiences in the Spread of Persuasive Communications Rapidly evolving information communications technologies (ICTs) have drastically altered the ways individuals engage in the public information domain, including news ways of becoming subjected to external influencing.
[Show full text]
Flip-Flops, Double Standards, and Other Political Sins: a Citizen’S Guide to Hypocrisy in Politics
ABSTRACT Title of dissertation: FLIP-FLOPS, DOUBLE STANDARDS, AND OTHER POLITICAL SINS: A CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO HYPOCRISY IN POLITICS Jason Port Stonerook, Doctor of Philosophy, 2020 Dissertation directed by: Professor Karol Soltan Department of Government and Politics People detest hypocrisy, and one of the reasons people hold politics in such low regard is that politics appears rife with hypocrisy. The proliferation of hypocrisy in politics can leave many feeling disenchanted and cynical about political affairs. Yet even those with a strong aversion to political hypocrisy are likely to admit there are occasions when an act that has been characterized as hypocritical is actually acceptable in politics. In some cases, the offense of hypocrisy may not be very serious, or conditioned by circumstances; in other cases, the accusation may not even be valid. This study examines the question of when hypocrisy is more or less acceptable in politics. This issue is explored through a series of case studies drawn from events that occurred in American politics between 2014-2016, an era characterized by high political polarization, high-stakes showdowns between congressional Republicans and the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama, the 2016 presidential primaries, and 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The study is organized by type, with a focus on basic violations of principle; logical inconsistencies; double standards involving partisan competition; discrepancies between the public affairs of public officials and their private lives; and flip-flops. The study finds that the most useful and powerful accusations of hypocrisy are those that effectively assert that a political figure has inappropriately prioritized narrow partisan concerns over a broader commitment to principles related to democratic norms, the exercise of civic virtue, and public-spiritedness.
[Show full text]
False, Misleading, Clickbait-Y, and Satirical “News” Sources
False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources Disclaimer 1: All of the contents in this document reflect the opinion of the author and are for educational purposes only. This resource was split into categories around 8:00pm EST on 11/15/16. CATEGORY 1: Below is a list of fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits. These websites are categorized with the number 1 next to them. CATEGORY 2: Some websites on this list may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information, or present opinion pieces as news, and they are marked with a 2. CATEGORY 3: Other websites on this list sometimes use hyperbolic or clickbait-y headlines and/or social media descriptions, but may otherwise circulate reliable and/or verifiable information. These websites are marked with a 3. CATEGORY 4: Other sources on this list are purposefully fake with the intent of satire/comedy, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news. I’m including them here, for now, because 1.) they have the potential to perpetuate misinformation based on different audience (mis)interpretations and 2.) to make sure anyone who reads a story by The Onion, for example, understands its purpose. If you think this is unnecessary, please see Literally Unbelievable. Note: I will be updating the categorizations and adding links gradually through the next couple of days.
[Show full text]
The Architecture of Our Discontent
45 2 The Architecture of Our Discontent Tens of thousands of entities form the complex ecosystem of American political media. Americans receive their political information from this diverse set of sources, which aim at a mix of broad and niche audiences. Although a growing proportion of the U.S. population uses Facebook and other social media as primary sources of news, a large portion, particularly those over 50 but even many who are younger, still rely on broadcast television and cable news.1 Talk radio remains an important source of information and ideology for many Americans. Although the number of people who read newspapers and news magazines is shrinking, it remains significant, and political news is also brought to our attention by many other means, including face- to- face conversations in offline social networks, email, campaign advertising, social media, and family dinners. To understand media and politics, we must understand the entire ecosystem: the outlets and influencers who form networks, the structure of networks, and the flow of information in networks. The increasing role of online platforms in shaping the media agenda is a challenge for political communications scholars and media observers. Researchers no longer have the convenience of simply looking at major news channels and newspapers to monitor the media agenda. And, conversely, a social- media- oriented strategy that only looks at Twitter or Facebook will miss much of what matters. We have to try to understand the interplay of broadcast news and newspapers with digital news outlets and blogs; of pundits, politicians, and personalities with large followings on social media, as well as the more distributed processes that occur in digital media.
[Show full text]
Slanted Images: Measuring Nonverbal Media Bias
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Munich Personal RePEc Archive MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Slanted images: Measuring nonverbal media bias Levi Boxell Stanford University 17 September 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/89047/ MPRA Paper No. 89047, posted 19 September 2018 01:06 UTC Slanted images: Measuring nonverbal media bias Levi Boxell, Stanford University⇤ September 2018 Abstract I build a dataset of over one million images used on the front page of websites around the 2016 election period. I then use machine-learning tools to detect the faces of politicians across the images and measure the nonverbal emotional content expressed by each politi- cian. Combining this with data on the partisan composition of each website’s users, I show that websites portray politicians that align with the partisan preferences of their users with more positive emotions. I also ﬁnd that nonverbal coverage by Republican-leaning web- sites was not consistent over the 2016 election, but became more favorable towards Donald Trump after he clinched the Republican nomination. ⇤E-mail: [email protected]. I thank Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro for their comments and suggestions. Funding was generously provided by the National Science Foundation (grant number: DGE-1656518) and the Institute for Humane Studies. 1 1 Introduction Nonverbal information is more memorable and more persuasive than verbal information (Sulli- van and Masters 1988; Graber 1990; Graber 1996). Furthermore, much of the media consumed today is nonverbal—political coverage is watched on television, images of politicians are posted alongside newspaper stories whether online or in print, and social media is littered with atten- tion grabbing photos on shared posts.
[Show full text]
Partisanship, Propaganda, & Disinformation
AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In this study, we analyze both mainstream and social media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election. We document that the majority of mainstream media coverage was negative for both candidates, but largely followed Donald Trump’s agenda: when reporting on Hillary Clinton, coverage primarily focused on the various scandals related to the Clinton Foundation and emails. When focused on Trump, major substantive issues, primarily immigration, were prominent. Indeed, immigration emerged as a central issue in the campaign and served as a deﬁning issue for the Trump campaign. We ﬁnd that the structure and composition of media on the right and left are quite different. The leading media on the right and left are rooted in different traditions and journalistic practices. On the conservative side, more attention was paid to pro-Trump, highly partisan media outlets. On the liberal side, by contrast, the center of gravity was made up largely of long-standing media organizations steeped in the traditions and practices of objective journalism. Our data supports lines of research on polarization in American politics that focus on the asymmetric patterns between the left and the right, rather than studies that see polarization as a general historical phenomenon, driven by technology or other mechanisms that apply across the partisan divide. The analysis includes the evaluation and mapping of the media landscape from several perspectives and is based on large-scale data collection of media stories published on the web and shared on Twitter.
[Show full text]
PARTISANSHIP, PROPAGANDA, & DISINFORMATION Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Rob Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research. Natalie Gyenes and Anushka Shah provided research insights and Media Cloud expertise. Rahul Bhargava, Linas Valiukas, and Cindy Bishop built the platform that made this work possible. John Kelly and Vlad Barash provided important insights into the role of social media in the election, leading us to new hypotheses and ideas that shaped the paper’s development. Matt Higgins helped lay a firm foundation of thought and hypotheses upon which this work was completed. Philipp Nowak provided valuable early research assistance. Participants of Data & Society’s Propaganda & Media Manipulation Workshop in May 2017 provided valuable feedback and critical cross-examination that helped steer this paper to its final version.
[Show full text]
The Relationship Between Political Affiliation and Beliefs About Sources
Michael and Breaux Cogn. Research (2021) 6:6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00278-1 Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access The relationship between political afliation and beliefs about sources of “fake news” Robert B. Michael* and Brooke O. Breaux Abstract The 2016 US Presidential campaign saw an explosion in popularity for the term “fake news.” This phenomenon raises interesting questions: Which news sources do people believe are fake, and what do people think “fake news” means? One possibility is that beliefs about the news refect a bias to disbelieve information that conficts with existing beliefs and desires. If so, then news sources people consider “fake” might difer according to political afliation. To test this idea, we asked people to tell us what “fake news” means, and to rate several news sources for the extent to which each provides real news, fake news, and propaganda. We found that political afliation infuenced people’s descriptions and their beliefs about which news sources are “fake.” These results have implications for people’s interpretations of news information and for the extent to which people can be misled by factually incorrect journalism. Keywords: Desirability bias, Fake news, Journalism, Politics Signifcance statement Te phrase “fake news” took center stage during the Advances in technology have made it easier than ever 2016 US Presidential election. Figure 1 displays data from for nefarious groups to launch and co-ordinate disinfor- Google Trends—a public web service showing the rela- mation campaigns. Concerns about the manipulation of tive frequency of search terms—and highlights the rise popular social media websites like Facebook, Twitter, and in popularity of the phrase (Google Trends 2018).
[Show full text]
How Did That Happen?: Making Sense of the 2016 US Presidential
University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk Faculty of Arts and Humanities Plymouth Business School 2017-09-01 How did that happen? Making sense of the 2016 US presidential election through the lens of the leadership moment Ladkin, DM http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/10895 10.1177/1742715017714841 Leadership SAGE Publications All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. How Did That Happen?: Making Sense of the 2016 US Presidential Election Result through the Lens of the ‘‘Leadership Moment’’ Donna Ladkin Professor of Leadership and Ethics Graduate School of Managementn Plymouth University [email protected] 1 How Did That Happen?: Making Sense of the 2016 US Presidential Election Result through the Lens of the ‘‘Leadership Moment’’ ABSTRACT This article analyses the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 US election through the lens of the ‘‘leadership moment’’. A phenomenologically based framework, the ‘leadership moment’ theorizes leadership as an event which occurs when context, purpose, followers and leaders align. Perception links these four parts of leadership, in particular the perceptions followers have of their context and the relative strengths competing leaders have to respond to that context. By considering how key voters perceived Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump in relation to their circumstances, the ‘leadership moment’ offers a way of making sense of the election result, as well as emphasising the importance of perceptions of context in the achievement of leadership more generally.
[Show full text]