The hybridization of older and newer media systems has given rise to new complications in political information cycles. The term “news cycle” used to refer to the period of time between a newspapers latest and next issue (Chadwick, 2017). It was a time for “gathering, writing, editing, compiling, selecting, and presenting new material or new developments related to recent coverage” (Chadwick, 2017). This period of time has been compressed into what is now referred to as the 24-hour news cycle. The hybrid media system with “the emergence of ‘rolling’ broadcast television and the internet” has generated this new, accelerated information cycle (Chadwick, 2017). This speed with which information is created and distributed, as well as its hybrid media form—incorporating older and newer media systems—is resulting in the further development of existing problems in the field of information dissemination. Fake news, bots and filter bubbles are three of the top challenges facing the political information cycle today.
“Ideological bias, sensationalism, exaggeration, satire, and even simple fabrication have always been a part of the professional news industry and the internet more broadly” (Chadwick, 2017). However, the hybrid media system is enabling these aspects of the news industry, while the speed with which fabricated news emerges makes it harder than ever to extrapolate it from the cycle of information. The fabrication of information is now often referred to as “fake news”. Political scientist, Andrew Chadwick, defines fake news as “the exploitation of the technological affordances and incentive structures of social media platforms, online search engines, and the broader news media industry to spread fabricated information for financial and/or political gain” (Chadwick, 2017). Before the emergence of fake news as we know it today, there was a system in place to identify and contest false information. This system is called fact-checking. While fact-checking can now be done more quickly and cheaply than ever, it still cannot keep up with the amount of false information being circulated. The hybrid media system is “enabling the rise” of fake news now more than ever as professional journalists are no longer the only ones disseminating information (Chadwick, 2017). As social media users have now secured their place in the digital world of information, any event, such as Trump’s inauguration for example, can be “broadcast, web streamed, tweeted, Facebooked, Instagrammed, and Snapchatted live across America and far beyond” (Chadwick, 2017). Anyone with any amount of knowledge can now report on and join in on the political information cycle. The hybrid media system has allowed for a greater creation and more widespread dissemination of misinformation than ever before.
Political bots have joined professional journalists and social media users in the news cycle as new sources of information. “Bots are automated and semi-automated social media accounts that engage social media users to try to influence journalists’ and citizens’ perceptions of events, and, in the longer term, the formation of public opinion and behavior” (Chadwick, 2017). Bots are allowing for a new form of propaganda as they extend across social media platforms and touch users around the world. The potential impact of bots is immeasurable if we consider their scalability and the momentum of their activity. “Like the fake news phenomenon, the growth of political bots had been produced by a confluence of specific social media platform affordances” (Chadwick, 2017). Twitter is the “social media platform most susceptible to bots” (Chadwick, 2017). Here, we can see any number of accounts programmed to disseminate information in order to push political agendas. The 2016 presidential election demonstrated how bots around the world could effectively work to promote certain ideas and attitudes among populations within one country.
Filter bubbles are where “individuals intentionally or unintentionally self-select into media coverage that is ideologically monolithic, patently false, or a combination of both” (Groshek and Koc-Michalska, 2017). Social media use has increased the significance of filter bubbles as they now have the power to influence political events, such as Trump’s victory in the 2016 election (Groshek and Koc-Michalska, 2017). The filtering of information is now more efficient than ever with the emergence of a hybrid media system. Recipients of information can be more selective and easily find views and opinions in line with their own with a limited search. Oftentimes, filter bubbles can even begin forming around individuals without their realization. We no longer need to seek out information, as it will always find us. The most problematic type of filter bubble is “selective exposure to misinformation”. These bubbles have significant influence in the political information cycle and could ultimately shape collective views and attitudes as they propel fake news “from their echo chambers to widespread visibility, potentially intensifying polarization and negative affect toward opposing candidates” (Guess, Nyhan and Reifler, 2018). According to Guess, Nyhan and Reifler, this a pattern repeating itself in the political information cycle. However, as stated in Jacob Groshek’s and Karolina Koc-Michalska’s study, social media use does not ensure that an individual will fall into a filter bubble. In fact, many individuals who use social media have a diverse social network (Groshek and Koc-Michalska, 2017).
There are many challenges facing the political information cycle and the hybridization of our media system is intensifying these challenges. However, if we can identify each challenge and its potential effects in our merging digital and physical worlds, we can begin considering possible solutions. Social media platforms and users, now aware of the spread of fake news, bots and filter bubbles, can now work to eliminate these potential threats.
Chadwick, Andrew. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford University Press., 2017.
Groshek, Jacob, and Karolina Koc-Michalska. “Helping Populism Win? Social Media Use, Filter Bubbles, and Support for Populist Presidential Candidates in the 2016 US Election Campaign.” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 20, no. 9, 2017.
Guess, Andrew, Reifler, Jason, and Nyhan, Brendan. “Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.” European Research Council, 2018.