News

Letter from the Director: August 2025

By ajk90August 11th, 2025in Homepage, Letters From the Director

Information Under Threat: Protecting Truth and Democracy in Uncertain Times

By: Michelle Amazeen

As a professor in higher education, I spent this summer advancing my research, planning new courses, and observing with growing concern the narrowing of public information in our society.

Last week, I attended the journalism and mass communication educators’ conference in San Francisco, themed “Leading in Times of Momentous Change: Individual and Collective Opportunities.” Among other activities, I reviewed a panel focused on correcting misinformation, an urgent issue amid escalating challenges posed by false information. Presenters examined interventions addressing social media influencers who promote harmful health remedies and the difficulties faced by professional fact-checkers operating in non-democratic environments. These discussions highlighted a troubling reality: the United States is increasingly exhibiting characteristics of democratic erosion.

Boston University Communication Research Center Fellows at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

These worrying trends are manifesting in various ways throughout society. For instance, book bans in public schools and libraries restrict access to diverse viewpoints. Federal agencies, under the Trump administration, removed COVID-19 signage and replaced critical health websites with pages such as the White House’s "Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19." Climate science data has also been distorted or censored. Such actions undermine scientific integrity, suppress dissent, and promote a controlled narrative that stifles independent thought, particularly among young people.

A
The White House “Lab Leak” Website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/

Independent media – essential for holding power accountable – have come under relentless pressure as well. In the lead-up to the 2025 presidential election, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times abruptly canceled planned endorsements of the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris. Since then, the Post narrowed its opinion page policy to emphasize “personal liberties and free markets.” Media outlets like CBS and ABC have settled multi-million-dollar lawsuits initiated by President Trump, signaling how legal tactics can chill critical reporting. Even conservative publications such as The Wall Street Journal have been targeted for their investigative work. Meanwhile, popular satirical programs, including Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show have been canceled, further shrinking spaces for dissent and critical commentary.

Two concerning indicators of democratic health are especially apparent today. First, the rise of independent fact-checking organizations – now numbering over 50 in the US – signals underlying democratic fragility rather than strength. Second, Congress’s recent defunding of public media, culminating in the dissolution of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, severely undermines public access to trustworthy information.

What do these developments mean for the future of American democracy and informed citizenship?

These questions will guide my students’ exploration during the fall semester as they engage with newly developed courses on information integrity. Beyond the classroom, revitalizing local public media is critical. Massachusetts should be considering the establishment of an independent nonprofit to channel public funds to reliable community news sources, an approach gaining momentum across the country. New Jersey, for example, has committed over $10 million since 2021 to bolster local journalism, while Pennsylvania is exploring similar initiatives.

These efforts demonstrate that supporting independent, well-funded local media is essential to restoring a healthy information ecosystem and safeguarding democracy.

As communication researchers and educators, it is our responsibility to study these challenges rigorously, prepare future media professionals, and actively support initiatives that promote the free and accurate flow of information—essential pillars for a healthy democracy.

Letter from the Director: June 2025

By ajk90June 24th, 2025in Homepage, Letters From the Director

The CRC at 66: A Legacy of Inquiry in a Changing Media Landscape

By: Michelle Amazeen

COM graduate students in the division of Emerging Media Studies hosted their annual #ScreentimeBU conference on June 23rd. This year’s theme was The Human Algorithm: Exploring Digital Behavior, AI Influence, & Inclusive Futures. I was honored to deliver the following welcoming address:

This year’s theme invites us to reflect on the evolving relationship between media, technology, and society—and to ask what it means to be human in an age increasingly shaped by algorithms.

To understand where we are, we must first look back. The field of communication research was born in the early 20th century, when scholars began to study the effects of film—the “new media” of the era—on children and young people. By the 1950s, television had become the focus of concern, prompting a wave of research into how media influences behavior, perception, and culture.

It was in this context that Boston University’s School of Public Relations and Communication (the precursor to COM) founded the Communication Research Center (CRC) in the summer of 1959. Under the leadership of Dr. Edward J. Robinson, and with the contributions of Professors Ralph Rosnow and Fred Powell, the CRC became a hub for rigorous, socially engaged scholarship. In the decades that followed, CRC fellows examined the effects of television on children (among other things), paralleling the work of George Gerbner and his Cultural Indicators Project, which introduced concepts like Cultivation Theory and the Mean World Syndrome—the idea that people who watch a lot of TV come to see the world as more dangerous than it actually is.

Over a half century later, today we face a new media landscape—one that is faster, more fragmented, and more immersive than ever before. Social media platforms have rewired childhood and adolescence, as scholars like Jonathan Haidt have argued, contributing to rising levels of anxiety and depression. Generative AI tools like Google Gemini and ChatGPT are reshaping how we create and consume content, often without sufficient public understanding or critical oversight. In the New York Times just this morning is the article, The AI Race Is Splitting the World Into Haves and Have-Nots, particularly between the Global North and the Global South. And in an era of “content confusion,” where misinformation spreads rapidly and trust in institutions is eroding, the stakes of communication research have never been higher.

We are also living through a turbulent time: government investment in science is shrinking, global alliances are under strain, and democratic norms are under threat. In this climate, the CRC remains committed to advancing research that is not only methodologically sound but also socially meaningful.
One of the most powerful—and accessible—ways to stay grounded in such times is by engaging critically with the information and technologies we consume and share. Communication research gives us the tools to do just that. It helps us decode media messages, understand their effects, and imagine more inclusive, ethical, and humane digital futures.

As we explore “The Human Algorithm” together over the next few hours, let us remember: the power of media is not just in the tools we build, but in the questions we dare to ask. And the most powerful algorithm of all… is the human one.
Thank you for being part of this community.

While this message began as a welcome to graduate students and scholars, its themes resonate far beyond the walls of academia. Whether you're a student, educator, policymaker, technologist, or simply a curious citizen, we all have a role to play in shaping the digital world we inhabit. The questions we ask—and the values we uphold—will determine the kind of future we create. Let us continue to engage critically, act ethically, and imagine boldly. Because in the end, the most powerful algorithm isn’t artificial—it’s human.

Survey: Plenty of skepticism of AI in dating apps, especially among women, survey finds

By ajk90May 30th, 2025in Homepage, Media & Technology Press Releases

By Burt Glass

More than twice as many people disagree with the idea that computer-powered artificial intelligence in dating apps will lead to more successful relationships than agree – and the gap is even larger among women.

That’s according to a new opinion survey designed by the Communication Research Center at Boston University’s College of Communication and conducted by Ipsos.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technology is playing a greater role in how dating apps find potential partners for users and is touted by their creators as a big step forward in the field. But Kathryn Coduto, an assistant professor of media science at Boston University and the survey’s designer, says that uncertainty around AI has been consistent over three years of opinion surveys.

“People still feel like they can find a soulmate on a dating app, and at the same time they still feel largely uncertain about AI,” Coduto says.

Only one in 10 (10%) women agree AI-powered dating apps lead to more successful relationships, half that of men (20%).

“Among those who follow the industry, there have been whisperings about this, and the difference is small but significant,” Coduto adds. “This is some of the first hard evidence that women differ from men in this arena, and it follows trends about men generally being more optimistic and present on dating apps.”

Read full story here.

Letter from the Director: May 2025

By ajk90May 28th, 2025in Homepage, Letters From the Director

The Spring 2025 Semester in Review

By: Michelle Amazeen

With the end of another semester, I have been reflecting upon the many activities in the CRC and among our fellows in 2025, thus far.

At a time when external research funding has been increasingly difficult to attain (and retain), the CRC continued its annual call for Faculty Research Seed Grant proposals with the aim of fostering inter-departmental, cross-disciplinary collaborations on communication-related issues to help society engage with modern challenges. Moreover, we expanded internal grant funding opportunities with our inaugural call for proposals for the Hugo Shong Misinformation Faculty Research Grants which seek to support research aimed at improving information quality and protecting democratic institutions. You can read about the awardees and their projects in the pages that follow.

For assistance in identifying external funding opportunities, fellows are encouraged to engage with Agnes Burt (agnesb@bu.edu) of BU Foundation Relations and Jennifer Grodsky (grodsky@bu.edu) of BU Federal Relations. For grant pre- and post-award processes, COM’s Amanda King and team offer support. Contact Amanda (ajk90@bu.edu) for more details.

Dr. Ejae Lee framed in the center mid-sentence, with a camcorder out of focus to the left recording her lecture. In the background sits a slideshow.
Dr. Ejae Lee stands before a crowd presenting 'Communicating Authenticity in Corporate Social Advocacy'.

Our Colloquium Series consists of monthly research presentations that highlight the original research of our CRC fellows and, on occasion, special guests. I would like to thank our 2025 spring Colloquium speakers which included special guest, Dr. Mara Einstein, Professor of Media Studies at City University of New York, who gave a talk in February on her recent book, Hoodwinked. In March, we heard from Dr. April Yue, Assistant Professor of Public Relations, about internal organizational communication.

Dr. April Yue -holding a microphone- facing someone out of the frame, standing next to a podium with Boston University on the front.
Dr. April Yue answers an attendee's question at her March Colloquium lecture.

And in the month of April, Dr. Ejae Lee, Assistant Professor of Public Relations, shared her research on how individuals form opinions about a corporation’s authenticity. You can read about and see recordings of these presentations as well as those from many of our past Colloquium speakers on our website.

In addition to our Colloquium Series, every semester our fellows nominate a distinguished scholar from outside the university to share their outstanding scholarship, expertise, and experience with the BU community. Our distinguished lecture series is a tribute to Dr. Melvin L. DeFleur, a past colleague, to honor his contributions to the fields of communication and media research. This spring, we were honored to host Dr. Seth Lewis (University of Oregon) as our DeFleur Distinguished Lecturer who spoke about “Humans, Machines, and News: Research Approaches for Making Sense of Generative AI and Journalism.” A recording of his talk is accessible on our website, as well.

Dr. Seth Lewis, engaged, leaning on a table while speaking with a faculty member whose back is to the camera.
Distinguished DeFleur lecturer Dr. Seth Lewis engages with a faculty member at the lecture reception.

In promoting a culture of research and collaboration, our fellows had opportunities throughout the semester to gather in person. Our monthly Work-In-Progress meetings enabled fellows to informally discuss their research with the intent of idea exchanges surrounding any aspect of research efforts (collaboration, theoretical premises, study design, methods, resources, analysis issues, literature searches, conference presentations, etc.). While we will continue these meetings in the future, please let me know if you have ideas for improvement or other ways to foster opportunities for intellectual inquiry.

The CRC has two formal outreach programs designed to enhance public access to the work of our faculty fellows: the Media & Technology Public Opinion Poll and “The COMversation” podcast. Since its inception in January 2022, the COM/CRC Media & Technology Public Opinion Poll has enabled faculty fellows to advance their thought leadership on a variety of information integrity topics. This past semester, our polls involved social media content moderation (January) and dating apps (February) leading to media coverage in BU’s The Brink, Forbes, Poynter, Culture Vulture, and in Sherwood News. Although the polling has been paused in light of budget reduction requests by BU leadership, we hope the suspension is temporary. Faculty members with ideas for a future poll can get involved by completing this Google Form.

Dr. Mara Einstein sits at a table, her head bowed towards her book as she signs it for a lecture attendee. She is bookended by other copies of her book, Hoodwinked.
Dr. Mara Einstein signs a copy of her book Hoodwinked following her lecture.

To make communication research even more accessible to the public, the CRC launched The COMversation, a podcast that connects academic insights with current events. Hosted by Dr. Charlotte Howell – who was a 2025 Dean’s Award recipient for her work on the podcast – three new episodes were released this spring. Our March episode was about the 2025 Oscars, featuring Dr. Deborah Jaramillo (COM) and Prof. Betsy Walters (CAS). April featured an interview with Dr. Mara Einstein (CUNY) about her new book Hoodwinked. Our May episode is about Youth in Media featuring Dr. Bruno Guaraná (COM) and Dr. AnneMarie McClain (COM). More episodes are being prepared for release over the summer, so be sure to follow The COMversation on Spotify or iTunes and give us a listen!

Given the University’s commitment to engaging students in research, the CRC continued to facilitate fellows’ efforts to recruit students as research participants via our SONA research participant management system. The SONA system gives both graduate and undergraduate students an opportunity to become involved with various research activities across COM while earning course credit for doing so. This semester, 83 research studies were available to over 600 students from 39 different COM courses. 11,841 data points across all studies were collected. I hope you will consider registering your courses for the fall 2025 semester. For more information about how our SONA program works, please visit our website or email comsona@bu.edu.

Last but not least, I am incredibly grateful for the commitment and hard work of our staff this spring. Many thanks to our Lab and Research Manager, Amanda King, who has made our facilities a welcoming place for scholarly activities and has skillfully trained both experienced and emerging researchers on the technologies offered by the CRC. I would also like to thank our wonderful student assistants who helped to keep the Center running. Yelena Rodolitz (EMS) was our SONA administrator assisting with the behind-the-scenes work on our research participant management system and also assisted with research projects in the Center. Yifang “Violet” Li (MCR) was our Communications Assistant writing about, filming, and promoting our activities and our fellows. And Abby Bonner (FTV) and Eliza Lakritz (MS) were our Podcast Assistants developing the protocols and processes for our podcasting efforts and editing and producing the episodes. Thanks to you all!

To our CRC community of fellows, I wish you a wonderful summer with time to relax and recharge. I look forward to seeing you in the fall.

Faculty Spotlight: Ayse Lokmanoglu

By Michelle AmazeenApril 23rd, 2025in Homepage

By Yelena Rodolitz

We recently had the pleasure of chatting with Dr. Ayse Lokmanoglu, the first of our newly-appointed faculty to be featured in our Spotlight series. Ayse is an Assistant Professor in the Emerging Media Studies program, and conducts interdisciplinary research that engages the fields of communication, computational social science, and the digital humanities.

Ayse Lokmanoglu is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including the IEEE VIS 2023 Best Paper Award and two top paper awards from the National Communication Association’s Division. Prior to joining the EMS faculty body, Lokmanoglu was an Assistant Professor at Clemson University, where she served as a core faculty member of the Media Forensics Hub.

Yelena: Can you tell us a bit about the nature of your previous research?

Dr. Lokmanoglu: Of course I can! My ongoing research looks at how we can understand visuals in big data; basically, in social media, or news media, how can we develop new tools to analyze them similar to how we analyze text? Can we semantically categorize and cluster visuals? My ongoing project is more methodological, but I'm very interested specifically in two types of images; in my first one, images that are used to distort reality. It's very hard to detect misinformation, disinformation, and malicious information in images. So how can we find ways to detect them and cluster them, and how then do we deal with these images? What are some of those ways?

And the second thing I'm interested in, which I've been working on for a long time, is altered images such as memes. How do we examine generated images on large scale? How is it that when an altered image becomes an icon, can it have more lasting meaning than a still photograph? Those are the two things that I've been trying to understand and to develop a visual method for large-scale analysis, which is going to be live very soon!

Yelena: That's fascinating! What are some of the most interesting or salient findings from your project so far?

Dr. Lokmanoglu: One of the big findings for our project is that visuals do matter. Dr. Grabe, one of the leading names in visual communication, established the importance of visuals in political communication. Visuals are tools of messaging, and can be very persuasive. When we cluster visuals semantically, we can see patterns and themes that are very intuitive and also very fascinating. So when we look at news images, we can see how, for example, climate and disaster are clustered together semantically and visually, and holding to visual communication theories.

Yelena: What brought you to where you are now in your research, and how has your academic background influenced your interests?

Dr. Lokmanoglu: I will say it's passion, but also life and the world. I started my undergrad doing Middle Eastern studies in Economics because in the early 2000s, everyone was interested in economic development. So I was also one of those, thinking that we're all gonna go into banking and help the world become a better place. But then the 2008 crisis happened. So, every job offer I had got rescinded, and I was like, "Okay, I need to find something else to do", because I don't have a career path in banking at this moment in time. I had already double majored in Near Eastern Studies and was very passionate about political communication. Growing up as a minority in Turkey, I was very interested in the education system and what was in it. I was specifically interested in religious education in Turkey because I was exempt from it.

I was very lucky at Harvard that I had amazing advisors who were all like, "Go for it, research this". I was trained in qualitative research methods in my master's. The Arab Spring happened and we had the social media awakening, so I went back to work as a political consultant, where most of my work was people asking about what's going on in social media. Can you look at social media? Can you tell us about trends in social media? So I started developing my computational skills and working and building upon the computational skills from undergrad, which helped. Not the development Econ part, but the computational, the quantitative classes.

So when I was applying for a PhD, everything led me to communication because communication was the most welcoming field. I wanted to look at the internet and combine interdisciplinary methods. As a field, it gave me the flexibility to do what I wanted, but it also taught me the theory to ground, challenge, and methodological advancement. So I was very, very fortunate to end up where I am.

I am and have always been interested in text and visuals targeting people and excluding people. Why is it out there? And how can we understand it and try to minimize it? Also, what relationship do we have, online or offline?

Yelena: Absolutely, I completely agree. I think it's important to be adaptable, and let your research interests guide you. How do you see your field of research being shaped by emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence?

Dr. Lokmanoglu: The good thing about emerging media studies is that we've been dealing with emerging media for a very long time. So everything that comes new is emerging, and everything brings with it certain risks, certain excitement, certain opportunities, and certain disadvantages. AI helped me a lot in visual clustering, as it is a part of the methodology. AI is a very useful tool, as long as we use it for ourselves, but we don't let it dictate to us, our research, or our thinking. But learning how to use this new, emerging technology is important, and it brings a lot of advantages to our field. It is essential to know how to use these emerging technologies, and be open to them, but not lose our critical thinking skills.

Yelena: With AI bots proliferating the social media sphere, how does this affect your research?

Dr. Lokmanoglu: We have always had bots in different ways. AI bots are more advanced than the bots that we're used to, but the social media sphere has changed a lot as well.

The thing to keep in mind is we don't have the same research, we're not using the same research tools that we did before, with AI, now we're using very different research tools. We're looking at different phenomena, and we're also dealing with different social media. We no longer have the unlimited access that academics used to have, and we have on the other hand much more advanced methods and tools to analyze the data.

Yelena: As we dive further into the digital age. Why do you feel that it's important for researchers across various disciplines to learn computational techniques?

Dr. Lokmanoglu: So I think interdisciplinary research is very important, and it's integral to social media studies. Because there are ways that digital anthropologists could look at the results and understand something, versus the ways I can look versus as a political scientist versus as a computer scientist; but bringing everyone to the table and discussing things and working through projects together is where we get the best research, where we get the most robust results, where we also get the most understanding into this phenomenon.

My dissertation advisor is a rhetorician, and she used to always tell me to explain computational methods like I'm explaining them to my dad over the dinner table. And I think that was a great way to think about it, because you're like, okay, I would explain things differently, but her point was, don't just say to people ‘I did this’ and show graphs. Actually, explain to people what you did. I always say that's what makes research better, because getting questions and criticism and input from different fields makes you question things you take for granted, which is very important.

Yelena: Can you share any specific instances where the CRC’s resources or guidance were particularly beneficial?

Dr. Lokmanoglu: I love CRC. The CRC has been very, very helpful and supportive! Helping me work through the grant processes, helping me advise, but also, whenever you need it, it's always great to have a group of researchers that do similar things. Still, like you said, it has researchers from all across who take very different research approaches. I love that composition about the CRC because I can ask my colleagues in public relations about something, and they'll tell me to look at a problem from a different angle. And it's that collaboration of minds that brings forth very strong research. And the feeling of being supported in the community. But also, there are incredible people who, whenever you have any question, go above and beyond to help and walk you through things. A supportive research environment is very important, and the CRC makes you feel supported and makes you feel like your research means something and that you should go on with it. I love being a part of the CRC community.


We thank Ayse for taking the time to chat with us, and look forward to the invaluable contributions that she will make to the field of communication and interdisciplinary research. More information regarding Dr. Lokmanoglu's professional history and research publications can be found on her LinkedIn and personal website, which is accessible through her faculty profile on the College of Communication website.

Letter from the Director: April 2025

By ajk90April 7th, 2025in Homepage, Letters From the Director

Do Something...

By: Michelle Amazeen

In February, I joined a panel hosted by Boston University’s Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies titled “Politics by Non-Politicians: Elon Musk, Social Media, and the 21st-Century Election Landscape.”

Banner in the style of 1940's Rosie the Riveter with a woman holding a megaphone beneath the text Do Something...

During the Q&A, a student named Aiden asked a question that has stayed with me ever since:

“I was born in 2002. I was six years old in 2008, so I don’t remember the financial crisis. I don’t remember Occupy Wall Street. When I was 13 or 14, I was entering high school when Trump was elected. And so, all I’ve known of this country is instability and horror. It seems like a fallacy that we have any power as young people…what is the point of continuing to care, and if we continue to care, does that mean we have power, and if so, where can we actually apply it, because to me, it doesn’t seem like we do.”

Aiden’s question was raw, honest, and, sadly, not unique. I’ve heard many variations of this from students over the past few months—bright, thoughtful young people who are wondering whether their voices matter in a world that feels like it’s spiraling.

So to Aiden—and to everyone who has asked a similar question—let me start with this:
Your voice absolutely matters.

Context: Yes, Things Are Bad. But This Isn’t the First Time.

There’s no question we’re in a turbulent time. Government investment in scientific research is being slashed, tariffs are straining relationships with allies, and the U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. Misinformation is rampant. Political polarization is deepening. There are real threats to democratic norms.

But this isn’t the first time young Americans have lived through chaos—or shaped what came next.

During the U.S. Civil War, young people served as soldiers, nurses, and supporters on the home front. In the Industrial Revolution and Progressive Era, they pushed for labor reforms, women’s suffrage, and education rights. Students led protests during the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and the fight against apartheid in South Africa.

Today’s world may feel unprecedented, but history reminds us: young people have always been at the forefront of change.

Today’s Changemakers

Greta Thunberg began striking for climate action outside the Swedish parliament at age 15. She has since galvanized a global youth movement, reshaped public discourse, and pressured governments to act.
And in December 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the rights of 16 young plaintiffs who argued that the state’s support for fossil fuels violated their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. They won.

These aren’t anomalies. They’re proof that passion and persistence—especially from young people—can make a tangible difference.

Yes, There Are Risks

Getting involved isn’t always safe. History is full of reminders of this—from the students beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge during the Civil Rights Movement, to those killed at Kent State protesting the Vietnam War. Today, some international students who’ve attended pro-Palestinian protests are facing deportation.

But not getting involved carries a risk, too: the risk of leaving the future in someone else’s hands.

Cynicism and apathy don’t just arise from despair—they’re often the goal. Chaos breeds confusion. Confusion breeds disengagement. And disengagement leaves power unchallenged.

Understanding Media Power

One of the most powerful—and accessible—ways to push back is by engaging critically with the information we consume and share.

Young people today are increasingly getting their news from social media, especially TikTok. But much of that content is shaped by influencers—often male and conservative—and lacks the journalistic standards of verification, context, and accountability.

Foreign state actors are creating fake news sites and paying influencers to subtly shift public opinion. This is not conspiracy; it’s a documented strategy.

Want to make a difference? Start by protecting the integrity of our media ecosystem:

Other Ways to Take Action

There are many entry points. One great resource is Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on preventing authoritarianism and strengthening democratic institutions. Their guide outlines tangible ways you can get involved—at any level and any age—including:

  • Staying informed
  • Voting (and helping others register and vote)
  • Running for local office
  • Educating your peers
  • Practicing self-care and building community

Final Word: To All the Aidens Out There

Your voice and actions do matter. And they always have.

You don’t need to change the world overnight. But by staying informed, standing up for your values, and supporting others who are doing the same, you’re already reshaping the world around you.

Use your voice. Use your tools. Use your power.

Because despite the noise, despite the fear, despite the cynicism—you do have it.
And we need it now more than ever.

 

###

Image Credit: ChatGPT

Faculty Spotlight: Fulbright Scholar Roy Grundmann on Ocean Liners & His Upcoming Publication

By Michelle AmazeenMarch 3rd, 2025in Homepage

By Yelena Rodolitz

Dr. Roy Grundmann is the most recent recipient of the Fulbright Scholar Award, a grant awarded to distinguished faculty members across the nation to further their scholarship through exposure to foreign academic and cultural environments. Grundmann is an esteemed faculty member of Boston University, and is the co-founder of the Film Studies program. Alongside his instruction in this discipline, Grundmann is the contributing editor of Cineaste Magazine, and a member of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies. Some of his most notable publications include Andy Warhol’s Blow Job, The Wiley-Blackwell History of American Film, and A Companion to Michael Haneke. Dr. Grundmann has been kind enough to answer a few of our questions about his post-award plans prior to leaving for his sabbatical overseas.

Yelena: What do you hope to accomplish during your Fulbright experience?

Dr. Grundmann: I want to use my fellowship to jumpstart my new research project. I just finished a book (due out with State University of New York Press this year) and am now seeking to develop my follow-up project.

Yelena: Can you tell us a bit about the nature of your previous research?

Dr. Grundmann: Over my 26 years as a full-time academic, I have researched and published on various aspects of American and global film history as well as on questions of film and media theory, cinema aesthetics, queer studies, and cultural studies. In 2019, I decided to make my research even more interdisciplinary by exploring how film and media intersect with certain subfields of history, such as maritime history and, related to that, the history of how and why people have moved around the globe from the nineteenth century into the present period. More concretely, I research the representation of ocean liners as emblems of modernity in literature, film, and visual culture.

Yelena: What about this particular area interests you?

Dr. Grundmann: What interests me is how ocean liners have shaped modernity and postmodernity’s cultural imaginaries about migration, encampment, de/colonization, and tourism. The book due out next year, On Shoreless Sea: The MS St. Louis Refugee Ship in History, Film, and Popular Memory, explores the history and cultural memory of what has often been called “the ship of Jews,” which left Nazi Germany for Cuba in 1939 with over 900 Jewish migrants and which, after Cuba and the U.S. refused to accept those refugees, was headed back for Germany before it received last-minute permission to dock in Belgium. I am now embarking on my next, more expansive research project, tentatively titled Floating Signifiers: Ocean Liners in Literature, Film and Popular Culture.

Yelena: Why have you chosen Austria to study ocean liners?

Dr. Grundmann: The answer is that Austria was not always landlocked. During the peak period of European migration between the 1880s and 1920, Austria was a maritime power that had access to the Mediterranean via the Adriatic. Part of the Austrian's migration to the U.S. proceeded through that route. Austrian culture is rich with literary, cinematic, and other visual documents about that phenomenon. My stay in Austria will also afford me the opportunity to visit several archives in other European countries to explore sea-borne migration as a phenomenon and to research cinematic documents (non-fiction and fiction) that cover it. I am also interested in hearing from BU colleagues, whose parents, grandparents, and great grandparents have come to the U.S. on an ocean liner.

Yelena: How would you like your research to impact the academic and broader communications communities?

Dr. Grundmann: I want my research to impact how the communications community and lay people perceive such phenomena as migration (both deliberate and forced) and tourism through media representations of ocean travel. In my completed book, I explore, among other things, how U.S. press coverage of the plight of the St. Louis passengers shaped how the American public viewed the Jewish refugee crisis before World War II and how subsequent films, plays, novels, and cartoons have shaped our cultural memory of the St. Louis incident. But the epilogue to my book on the St. Louis is about the present: I discuss an experimental film that uses a recent cell phone video that was shot by a Mediterranean cruise tourist and that shows a dinghy with African migrants floating on the open ocean. How does this film differ from mainstream media representations of the Mediterranean migrant crisis? And what role does the cruise ship play, from which the video featured in this film was shot? I try to give my research concrete cultural and political relevance by discussing how current representations of ocean travel shape the way we learn and think about some of the most challenging crises currently affecting our globe.

Grundmann’s upcoming research marks a departure from his previous work, in both a literal and figurative respect. As he embarks on his Fulbright journey overseas, his work invites us to consider the ways in which media representations shape our understanding of historical events. His newest publication, On Shoreless Sea: The MS St. Louis Refugee Ship in History, Film, and Popular Memory, is anticipated for release this year and will explore this theme in more detail. However, readers should also expect his publication based on his ongoing research to hit the market at some point in 2026. More information regarding Dr. Grundmann’s publication history and academic background can be found on his personal website, which is accessible through his faculty profile on the College of Communication website.

Survey: Across parties, Americans accept removal of false health info by social media companies, survey says

By ajk90February 17th, 2025in Homepage, Media & Technology Press Releases

By Burt Glass

An overwhelming majority (72%) of Americans across political parties believe it is acceptable for social media platforms to remove inaccurate information about public health issues, according to a new opinion survey from Boston University.

The survey, designed by researchers at the Communication Research Center at the university’s College of Communication, found that Americans agreed on this across political divides, with 85% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans approving of companies removing this kind of false content.

The same poll reveals that nearly two in three adults (63%) believe if social media posts spread unverified information about a public health issue, it is acceptable for independent fact-checking organizations to verify social media content. About the same percentage (65%) of Americans believe it’s acceptable for social media companies to lower the visibility of inaccurate information about public health issues on their apps and websites, known as “downranking.”

The integrity of public discourse is at risk as political leaders push the boundaries of truth,” says Michelle Amazeen, an associate professor at Boston University’s College of Communication and director of the Communication Research Center. “With social media companies abandoning their fact-checking programs, it is more urgent than ever for these platforms to take meaningful action, given their pivotal role in shaping the national conversation.”

In contrast, less than half (48%) of those surveyed support the “community notes” model where users write and rate notes that appear next to specific posts. Although there are some partisan differences—73% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 55% of Republicans favor a fact-checking model—the lukewarm reception of community notes crosses party lines.

“The results so far of social media platforms relying on users to rate the accuracy of posts are sobering,” Amazeen says. “Despite the presence of the community notes programs, social media platforms that use this model remain rife with misinformation.”

Read full story here.

Survey: Despite Election Results, Americans Held More Negative Feelings About Trump Than Harris, Survey Finds

By ajk90February 17th, 2025in Homepage, Media & Technology Press Releases

By Burt Glass

Americans surveyed just before the presidential election held stronger negative emotions about Donald Trump than Kamala Harris, running counter to the results days later, according to the latest survey by Boston University’s College of Communication.

Nearly half of respondents said they would describe their feelings about Trump as “disgusted” (48%) or “repulsed” (45%). In contrast, about a third said they would describe their feelings about Harris as “disgusted” (34%) or “repulsed” (32%). The gap was similar when respondents considered other emotions such as anger and fear.

Neither candidate seemed to elicit enthusiasm among respondents. Only 40% felt enthusiastic, strongly other otherwise, about Harris, and 31% felt that way about Trump.

Yet four days after the survey was completed, Trump won nearly 50% of the popular vote compared to slightly more than 48% for Harris.

“In general, Americans were slightly more enthusiastic toward Harris and more angry, afraid, and disgusted by Trump,” said H. Denis Wu , a professor at Boston University’s College of Communication and author of the survey questions. “Partisan difference of emotions in candidate evaluations is predictable and self-clarifying.

“However, the emotions voters had right before the election did not necessarily align well with their party memberships, as some Democrats were angry and disgusted by Harris,” he added.

Read full story here.

Letter from the Director: January 2025

By ajk90January 28th, 2025in Homepage, Letters From the Director

Americans Expect Social Media Content Moderation

By: Michelle Amazeen

In an age where misinformation spreads at the speed of a click, the announcement by Meta—formerly Facebook—to abandon its partnership with independent fact-checking organizations raises urgent questions. Meta’s decision comes at a critical juncture, as the U.S. faces an era where disinformation campaigns—often amplified by political figures—threaten democratic discourse and public trust. How will this shift affect the quality of content on its platforms? And, as Meta is the largest funder of fact-checkers globally, what does this mean for the future of fact-checking itself?

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg justified the decision by claiming that the company’s fact-checking program “too often became a tool to censor.” Yet, a recent poll from Boston University’s College of Communication paints a very different picture of public sentiment. A majority (72%) of Americans believe it is acceptable for social media platforms to remove inaccurate information about public health issues. Support spans political divides, with 85% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and even 61% of Republicans agreeing that such content moderation is necessary.

Instead of relying on independent fact-checkers, Meta is pivoting to a “community notes” model. In this approach, users write and rate notes that accompany posts containing dubious claims. This model mirrors the approach Elon Musk has implemented on Twitter, now rebranded as X.

But Americans remain skeptical. The same poll reveals that nearly two in three adults (63%) believe independent fact-checking organizations should verify social media content. In contrast, less than half (48%) support the “community notes” model. Although there are some partisan differences—73% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 55% of Republicans favor a fact-checking model—the lukewarm reception of community notes crosses party lines.

Is there any evidence that crowdsourcing claim verification works? The academic literature is mixed. In certain contexts, crowdsourcing can rival expert verification. However, other research highlights its inconsistencies. Crowdsourcing is generally effective at assessing the credibility of news sources but struggles to reliably identify disinformation. Partisanship often undermines its efficacy, influencing which claims are selected for verification. Moreover, distinguishing verifiable claims from unverifiable ones is a skill that typically requires training.

Black and white photo of a hand dropping a ballot into a ballot box.

In practice, the results are sobering. Despite the presence of the community notes program, X remains a platform rife with misinformation on elections, climate change, and other critical topics. Offloading content moderation responsibilities onto users is yet another example of platforms shirking their duty to ensure the safety of their digital products. By abandoning content moderation, social media platforms risk enabling disinformation from those in power. Accountability measures are essential, especially as a new administration with a history of weaponizing disinformation takes office.

Still, paying independent fact-checkers has its own complications. Under Meta’s program, the platform itself determined which claims were submitted for review. This approach often resulted in fact-checkers debunking viral but non-political content, while more politically charged claims that could influence democratic processes went unaddressed. Additionally, Meta did not disclose what happened to posts flagged as inaccurate, leaving fact-checkers in the dark about the impact of their work.

Thus, the silver lining in Meta’s rejection of fact-checkers may be that the commercial imperatives of the company will no longer influence fact-checker claim selection process. Freed from Meta’s influence, fact-checkers might return their focus to democratic priorities. However, the financial loss will undoubtedly strain these organizations.

There is a potential bright side: the public could play a pivotal role in sustaining independent fact-checking. According to the Boston University poll, one-third of U.S. adults would donate $1 to fund these initiatives through crowdfunding campaigns. Such efforts could restore some of the financial resources that fact-checking organizations need to thrive.

The question of who should moderate social media content—and how—is a critical challenge of the digital age. As political leaders test the limits of truth, the integrity of public discourse hangs in the balance. Social media platforms must rise to the occasion, for their role in shaping the national conversation has never been more consequential.

Michelle A. Amazeen is Associate Professor of Mass Communication at Boston University, Associate Dean for Research at the College of Communication and directs the Communication Research Center.