Talked democratic creative destruction, filter bubbles, polarization, business of news, and media policy with @EvelynDouek and @QJurecic on the great @lawfareblog podcast - some links to underlying @risj_oxford in thread below
Here @dragz and I on “democratic creative destruction” challenging incumbent institutions, creates new ones, and in many ways empower individuals while also leaving both individuals & institutions increasingly dependent on large US-based tech companies cambridge.org/core/books/soc… 2/6
On filter bubbles, this is something @dragz and I have examined e.g.
Here a handbook chapter I've written on the business of news and how the move from low-choice (for news users)/high market power (for publishers) to high-choice (for news users)/low market power (for publishers) and rise of platforms is playing out routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/97… 5/6
Towards end we briefly discuss media policy. It's for citizens and elected officials to decide what policies they believe are right and command broad support (and think through the consequences and winners/losers). Here some options from a 2019 report reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/what-can-be-do… 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ask scientists about peer review, and you’ll get… a lot of things. Boundary work (the institution grounds all scholarship), appreciation (collegial quality control=more rigorous work), and many dark sides (ie it's unreliable, unfair, unpaid, unequal, and done by #reviewer2) 1/19
Let me start here-I've internalized the boundary work. I believe in peer review, for all its imperfections. I think it is among things setting science apart. I've also spend lots of time on it, including dealing with 600+ manuscripts as journal editor, based on ~1000 reviews 2/19
But while important, peer review is not the ONLY thing that define science. Many different norms and institutions together define us. As Ziman writes: “peculiarity of science is that knowledge as such is deemed to be its principle product and purpose” cambridge.org/core/books/rea… 3/19
US Congress yesterday hosted hearing on disinformation & extremism in the media
Journalists should want to interrogate these issue
As @farai writes as"we are questioning all the systems of society, journalism cannot be too prideful to examine itself" faraic.medium.com/its-bigger-tha… 1/5
One place to start is this (scathing) article: "What is being called our post-truth era [illustrates] the racial amnesia that plagues much of our contemporary post-truth criticism" in light of how e.g. media and politics often represent many minorities doi.org/10.1080/147914… 2/5
And this observation by some top-notch social scientists (which to my knowledge has largely been ignored by news coverage?)"Our analysis suggest that mainstream news media in fact play a significant and important role in the dissemination of fake news" doi.org/10.1080/238089… 3/5
Group discussion w/ @risj_oxford journalist fellows on which discussions are contentious in their newsrooms around 🌍, kicking off from some US journalists feeling dominant viewpoint limits their ability to speak up
Partial list (deep breath) of issues people identify as hard...
..including things that are hard to cover & write about such as
* Religion, esp dominant religious group or historically maligned religious groups
* Migration and refugees, esp in face of majoritarian backlash
* National security, esp in countries where military is very powerful
* Women's rights, esp in very patriarchal societies (and often patriarchal newsrooms)
* Sexuality, esp LGBT
* Tribalism, esp when interconnected with electoral politics and/or political violence
* Civil war (well yes that and the legacy it leaves is hard)
* Regionalism/separatism
There is (a) no conceptual clarity and (b) no substantial agreement on what exactly constitutes disinfo. This is not a philosophical point but defining feature of problems we face. It underlines inherently political nature of determining what does and does not constitute disinfo.
From the point of view of the public disinformation is to a large extent a problem associated with the behaviour of politicians and other domestic actors, especially on social media, and not more narrowly a problem of false information or actors with more unambiguously ill intent
First, 71% in Australia say they've used FB in the past week, 39% say they've engaged with news on FB digitalnewsreport.org
1/9
The 39% who have engaged with news on FB tend to be younger, women, more on the political left
Most access online news in many ways (direct,search,social,etc), but @dragz have run the numbers, and in 2020, 8% of 🇦🇺 internet news users say they ONLY get online news via social 2/9
That's maybe a million+ people? They can go elsewhere for news, but some won't. That's a big blow right there. As
we've shown, the effect of incidental exposure on e.g. Facebook is stronger for younger people and those with low interest in news. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14… 3/9
Major win for #metoo and speaking truth to power: Court finds "journalist Priya Ramani not guilty of criminal defamation in a case filed by former Union minister M.J. Akbar [noting] “right of reputation can’t be protected at the cost of right to dignity.”" m.thewire.in/article/law/de…
Here Priya Ramani's 2017 Vogue article (doesn't name Akbar) "To the Harvey Weinsteins of the world: “We’ll get you all one day.”" vogue.in/content/harvey…