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/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/