There is a study of the 2004 elections that might be useful while we wait for the dust to settle from 2016. Carlson, M. (2007). Blogs and journalistic authority. Journalism Studies, 8(2) <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616700601148861>, 264–279. doi:10.1080/14616700601148861 This paper asserts that the role of blogs cannot be adequately understood without examining the established media context in which they appear. Blogs operate along side, in conjunction with, and in opposition to established vehicles for political information, which creates tension among journalists seeking to preserve their authority. As a site to observe the blog-traditional journalism relationship, this article examines the reaction by journalists and others to blogs’ role in US Election Day 2004 coverage. Much of the attention by journalists focuses on assessing the well-publicized decision by some blogs to release incomplete exit polls erroneously predicting a victory for Democratic candidate John Kerry. This discourse works to make sense of the status and credibility of blogs while simultaneously allowing journalists to negotiate their role as authoritative providers of political news. Ultimately, the discourse underlines the dynamism of news in a contemporary media environment marked by new forms of complexity and competitiveness. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616700601148861 <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616700601148861>
On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Yosem Companys <companys@stanford.edu <mailto:companys@stanford.edu>> wrote:
Exactly. I was wondering whether anyone has studied whether news -- fake or real -- had any tangible effect on the 2016 election outcome. Wouldn't Lazarsfeld et al. say "no," at least not directly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lazarsfeld <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lazarsfeld> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-step_flow_of_communication
There is a long tradition of studying the effects of news on people's attitudes (or attitude change). My recollection is that news in and of itself has little influence on people's attitudes unless mediated by an influencer (i.e., hence Lazarsfeld 2-step flow of communication). But experiments show the opposite: News has a strong effect on people's attitudes, though the effect wanes over time.
Anyone studied 2016 from this perspective?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Ronald E. Rice <rrice@comm.ucsb.edu> wrote:
Perhaps more important and interesting: anyone have any studies showing that real (accurate, true) news influenced the 2016 presidential election outcome? ;=) -- Ronald E. Rice Arthur N. Rupe Professor in the Social Effects of Mass Communication International Communication Association President 2006-2007 Dept. of Communication, 4005 Social Sciences & Media Studies Bldg (SSMS) University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020 Ph: 805-893-8696; Fax: 805-893-7102 rrice@comm.ucsb.edu; http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/people/ronald-e-rice
Quoting Yosem Companys <companys@stanford.edu>:
Anyone know of any academic studies showing that fake (social media) news
influenced the 2016 presidential election outcome?
Thanks, Yosem _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
<----------------------------------------------------> Jeanine Finn, PhD Researcher School of Information University of Texas at Austin jefinn@utexas.edu <mailto:jefinn@utexas.edu> http://jeaninefinn.me <http://jeaninefinn.me/>