276°
Posted 20 hours ago

The Echo Chamber: John Boyne

£9.9£99Clearance
ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
ZTS2023
Joined in 2023
82
63

About this deal

Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551–569. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. In this review, we have examined evidence concerning the existence, causes, and effects of online echo chambers and have considered what related research can tell us about scientific discussions online and how they might shape public understanding of science and the role of science in society. Painter, J., & Ashe, T. (2012). Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), 044005.

Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33(2), 283– 301. Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592.

Recent Posts

Each family member has their own storyline, but the key one is an offensive tweet sent by George. It’s never quite clear whether George was thoughtless or deliberately set out to offend (although there was a conversation shortly before said tweet which leads the reader to infer he knew what he was doing). In general, much of this research has documented a tendency for social media groups that actively discuss scientific issues to be made up of somewhat homogenous, segregated, and often polarised communities of interest with limited intersections between groups holding opposing views, and the vast majority of users on any given platform not taking any active role in any of these discussions of science. This is similar to broader dynamics online where communities of interest tend to coalesce, often around perfectly benign shared interests but sometimes around more ambiguous activities and, of course, in some instances, around shared interest in views that are demonstrably false and activities that are potentially harmful (Philips and Milner 2017).

In the UK, the proportion of people estimated to be in a left-leaning echo chamber is around 2% and the proportion in a right-leaning echo chamber is around 5% (Fletcher et al. 2021b). This is slightly lower than in most of the other countries covered in the study. In most other cases, a minority of around 5% of people only use news sources with ideological slants in one direction. The US is the main outlier among the seven and the only one where more than 10% of the respondents are estimated to rely only on partisan news sources. In every country covered by this study, many more internet users consume no online news at all on a regular basis than inhabit politically partisan echo chambers. Nelson, J. L., & Webster, J. G. (2017). The myth of partisan selective exposure: A portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media + Society, 3(3).

Though a large number of empirical studies from different countries and relying on various kinds of data find that echo chambers are smaller and less prevalent than often assumed, it is still important to consider who might end up in echo chambers and why. JB. Joseph Knox’s True Crime Storyis a hugely original piece of work. The reader is never entirely sure whether it’s fiction or non-fiction. It will certainly be among my favourites of 2021. I’ve also recently discovered Elizabeth Jane Howard’s Cazalet Chronicles, five long novels about a family that starts just before the outbreak of the Second World War, and I’m enjoying them immensely. Commentators and analysts typically worry about echo chambers and filter bubbles because they fear they will fuel polarisation, diminish mutual understanding, and ultimately lead to a situation where people are so far apart that they have no common ground – effectively inhabiting different realities. Polarisation can take substantially different forms. The most important forms for the purposes of this review are the following. First, ideological polarisation, which refers to the degree to which people disagree about political issues. Second, affective polarisation, which refers to people’s feelings about the ‘other side’ – those they disagree with on a given issue. Third, news audience polarisation, which refers to the degree to which audiences for news outlets in a given country are generally more politically partisan or politically mixed. The difference between the two terms is important. 2 An echo chamber is a form of bubble, but the term does not prejudge why some people might live in such bubbles – it is possible, for example, that some actively chose to, that the situation is a result of demand more than distribution or supply. A filter bubble, on the other hand, is an echo chamber primarily produced by ranking algorithms engaged in passive personalisation without any active choice on our part, a possible outcome of specific aspects of how news and information is distributed online. Webster, J. G. (2014). The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dahlgren, P. M. (2019). Selective exposure to public service news over thirty years: The role of ideological leaning, party support, and political interest. International Journal of Press/Politics, 24(3), 293–314. Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2017). The ambivalent internet: Mischief, oddity, and antagonism online. Cambridge, and Malden, MA: Polity Press. Scheufele, D. A., Jamieson, K. H., & Kahan, D. M. (2017). Conclusion – on the horizon: The changing science communication environment. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (eds.), The Oxford handbook on the science of science communication, 461–467. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Echo Chamber is an easy-enough read but the targets feel too easy and predictable – woke Gen Z, oversexed reality stars, entitled BBC ‘talent’. There’s a recurring joke about young people not knowing any history which gets wearing. Some of the dialogue scenes go on far too long. The ending feels like a cop-out. Trilling, D., van Klingeren, M., & Tsfati, Y. (2017). Selective exposure, political polarization, and possible mediators: Evidence from the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(2), 189–213.Together they will go on a journey of discovery through the Hogarthian jungle of the modern living where past presumptions count for nothing and carefully curated reputations can be destroyed in an instant. Along the way they will learn how volatile, how outraged, how unforgiving the world can be when you step from the proscribed path. PP. There are a lot of contemporary issues that you cover in the book – addiction, gender identification, ‘woke’ culture – is there one thing, in particular, which you hope your readers will take away from the book? Abramowitz, A. I. (2011). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. Illustrated edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729–745. Social scientists examine a range of different kinds of polarisation of the public, including ideological polarisation, affective polarisation, and news audience polarisation. As with any attempt to measure a change over time, decisions about what time frame to consider will influence conclusions, and often, there is little consistent data allowing for rigorous longitudinal analysis.

This is a reminder that, while of great interest to politicians and political scientists, politics is not the only, or even main determinant of news and media use. Media use is often more shaped by habits that in turn reflect a mix of instrumental uses and preferences anchored in social contexts that often exhibit more significant homophily in terms of social class than in terms of politics (Bos et al. 2016; Dahlgren 2019; Dubois and Blank 2018; Garrett et al. 2013; Johnson et al. 2011; Skovsgaard et al. 2016; Van Aelst et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2020).Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018b). Automated serendipity: The effect of using search engines on news repertoire balance and diversity. Digital Journalism, 6(8), 976–989.

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment