Advertisement

Ideological Views, Social Media Habits, and Information Literacy

  • Stjepan LackovićEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 676)

Abstract

According to liberal political theory, democracy can flourish only to the extent to which its citizenry have free access to information, are able to reason well, and, consequently, are able to make reasonable choices. The advent of Web 2.0 had opened up new ways to access, share and publish information about politics. Hence, many have argued how Web 2.0 represents the ultimate realization of participatory democracy. On the other hand, new information technologies have enabled consumers to filter and select content they want to be exposed to, thus making it possible for people to deprive themselves of “cross cutting” content. This could lead to group fragmentation and political polarization which is in contradiction with the republican ideal of deliberative democracy. By conducting a survey on social media habits on Facebook, the author tested this thesis about polarization in the case of Croatian students.

Keywords

Deliberative democracy Ideological views Information literacy Political polarization Social media habits 

References

  1. 1.
    McNair, B.: An introduction to political communication. Fakultet političkih znanosti Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nussbaum, M.: Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. AGM, Zagreb (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersen, J.: The public sphere and discursive activities. Information literacy as sociopolitical skill. J. Documentation 62(22), 213–228 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Correia, A.M.R.: Information literacy for an active and effective citizenship. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228765129_Information_literacy_for_an_active_and_effective_citizenship
  5. 5.
    Jacobs, H., Berg, S.: Reconnecting information literacy policy with the core values librarianship. Libr. Trends 60, 383–394 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bawden, D.: Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. J. Documentation 57(2), 218–259 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rheingold, H.: The Great Equalizer. Whole Earth Review, Summer (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dahl, R.A.: Democracy and its Critics. Politička Kultura, Zagreb (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitchel, A., Gotfried, J., Killey, J., Matsa, K.E.: The role of news on Facebook. Common, yet Incidental. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/section-2-social-media-political-news-and-ideology/
  10. 10.
    Sunstein, C.R.: Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerra, P.H.C., Wagner, M.J., Cardie, C., Kleinberg, R.A: Measure of polarization on social media networks based on community boundaries (2013). www.aaai.org
  12. 12.
    Meyer, T.: Media democracy: how the media colonize politics. Fakultet političkih znanosti Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herman, E.S., Chomsky, N.: Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dahlgren, P.: The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Polit. Commun. 22, 147–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Dijk, J.A.G.M.: Digital democracy: vision and reality. http://www.doc88.com/p-8905287751229.html
  16. 16.
    Breindl, Y.: Critique of the democratic potentialities of the Internet: a review of current theory and practice. Triple 8(1), 43–59 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke, A.: Exploiting the Web as a tool for democracy: new ways forward in the study and practice of digital democracy. World Forum for Democracy 2013. Issue Paper (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Putnam, R.D.: Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Mediteran Publishing, Novi Sad (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tilly, C., Tarrow, S.: Contentious Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Norris, P.: Digital Divide, Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Castells, M.: The Internet galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, business and society. Naklada Jesenski i Turk, Zagreb (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hargitai, E., Gallo, J., Kane, M.: Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice 134, 67–86 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holmes, J.W., McNeal, R.S.: Social media, participation, and attitudes: does social media drive polarization? In: Deželan, T., Vobić, I. (eds.) (R)evolutionizing Political Communication Through Social Media. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim, Y.: The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: the relationship among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 971–977 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Pew Internet & American Life Project: The Internet and Democratic Debate (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Conover, M.D., Ratkiewicz, J., Goncalves, F.B., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: Political polarization on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitchel, A., Killey, J., Gottfried, J., Guskin, E.: Social media, political news and ideology. Pew Research Center (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gottfried, J., Barthel, M.: How Millennials political news habits differ from those of Gen Xers and Baby Boomers. Pew Research (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitchel, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J. Matsa, K.E.: Political polarization & media habits. Pew Research (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bakhsy, E., Messing, S., Adamic, L.: Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. www.sciencemag.org
  32. 32.
    McPherson, M., Lovin, L.S., Cook, J.M.: Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27(1), 415–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Douglas, S., Raine, R.B., Maruyama, M., Robertson, S.P.: Community matters: how young adults use Facebook to evaluate political candidate. Inf. Polity 20(2, 3), 135–150 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R.M., Pingree, R.J.: News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: effect on media trust and information seeking. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 20, 520–535 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Knoblach, M.: Millennials trust user-generated content 50% more than other media. http://mashable.com/2014/04/09/millennials-user-generated-media/#pJXf0X4tIgq1
  36. 36.
    Vilović, G.: Ethical contoveries in globus and nacional. Politička misao, Zagreb (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ilišin, V.: Political participation of youth and politics toward youth: Croatia in European context. Politička misao 40(3) (2004) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences “Baltazar” ZaprešićZaprešićCroatia

Personalised recommendations