COVID-19 en YouTube:Debates y polarización en la esfera digital

  1. Oscar G. Luengo 1
  2. Javier García Marín 1
  3. Emiliana De Blasio 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

  2. 2 Guido Carli Free International University for Social Studies
    info

    Guido Carli Free International University for Social Studies

    Roma, Italia

    ROR https://ror.org/01q8b6q23

Revista:
Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación

ISSN: 1134-3478

Año de publicación: 2021

Título del ejemplar: Participación ciudadana en la esfera digital

Número: 69

Páginas: 9-19

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3916/C69-2021-01 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación

Resumen

Las redes sociales han transformado de forma muy significativa la forma en la que se produce el diálogo político, impulsando una configuración digital de la esfera pública. El presente artículo tiene como objetivo el análisis de la deliberación producida en las redes sociales, con un especial énfasis en la polarización. Tomando como referencia los comentarios observados en YouTube sobre la COVID-19 durante 2020 en España, Italia y Reino Unido, lo cual arroja una muestra de 111.808 comentarios, se aplicaron una serie de técnicas automáticas de análisis basadas en algoritmos, lo que supone una metodología cuantitativa novedosa en este ámbito de estudio. En línea con lo señalado por trabajos previos, la hipótesis que se plantea en este artículo es que el grado de polarización no se da con la misma intensidad en las esferas digitales de distintos casos. De esta manera, cabe esperar unos mayores registros de polarización en la esfera digital de los países del sur de Europa, adscritos a un modelo de pluralismo polarizado, que en países de otros modelos como el liberal. Los resultados confirman la hipótesis, verificando que no solo se observa mayor polarización en España e Italia que en Reino Unido, sino que, a nivel desagregado, los hallazgos apuntan a que la actividad más polarizante obtiene mayor aprobación en los países mediterráneos de nuestra muestra.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Grupo de Investigación en Ciencia Política y de la Administración (SEJ-113, Junta de Andalucía); Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología de la Universidad de Granada; Università LUISS (Roma).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Conover, M, Ratkiewicz, J, Francisco, M, Gonçalves, B, Menczer, F & Flammini, A . 2011. Political polarization on Twitter. In: Nicolov, N. & Shanahan, J.G. , eds. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. (pp. 89-96) The AAAI Press
  • Mason, L . 2014. ‘I disrespectfully agree’: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59(1):128–145.
  • Gidron, N, Adams, J & Horne, W . 2019. How ideology, economics and institutions shape affective polarization in democratic polities. [Conference]. Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, United States
  • López-García, G . 2005. Modelos de comunicación en Internet. Tirant Lo Blanch
  • Pariser, E . 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin
  • Gozálvez-Pérez, V . 2011. Education for democratic citizenship in a digital culture. [Educación para la ciudadanía democrática en la cultura digital] Comunicar 36:131–138.
  • Allgaier, Joachim . 2019. Science and environmental communication via online video: Strategically distorted communications on climate change and climate engineering on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication 4(36):1–18.
  • Spohr, D . 2017. Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review 34(3):150–160.
  • Olsson, E J . 2013. A Bayesian simulation model of group deliberation and polarization. In: F. Zenker , ed. Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability. (pp. 113-133) Springer
  • Sunstein, C R . 2008. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press
  • Blumler, J . 1995. The Crisis of Public Communication 1995-2017. Javnost – The Public 25:83–92.
  • Scheufele, D A . 2001. Democracy for some? How political talk both informs and polarizes the electorate. In: Hart, R.P. & Shaw, D. , eds. Communication and U.S. elections: New agendas. (pp. 19-32) Rowman and Littlefield
  • Hallin, D & Mancini, H . 2004. Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press
  • García-Marín, J & Calatrava, A . 2018. The use of supervised learning algorithms in political communication and media studies: Locating frames in the press. Comunicación & Sociedad 31(3):175–188.
  • Dahlberg, L . 2004. The Habermasian public sphere: A specification of the idealized conditions of democratic communication. Studies in Social and Political Thought 10:2–18.
  • I., Serrano-Contreras,, J., García-Marín, & O.G., Luengo, . 2020. Measuring online political dialogue: Does polarization trigger more deliberation? Media and Communication 8:63–72.
  • Allcott, Hunt & Gentzkow, Matthew . 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(2):211–236.
  • Schlesinger, Philip . 2020. After the post-public sphere. Media, Culture & Society 42(7-8):1545–1563.
  • Bruns, A . 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. Peter Lang
  • Rowe, I . 2014. Incivility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society 18(2):121–138.
  • Reese, S, Rutigliano, L, Hyun, K & Jeong, J . 2007. Mapping the blogosphere: Professional and citizen-based media in the global news arena. Journalism 8(3):235–261.
  • Bimber, Bruce . 1998. The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity 31(1):133–160.
  • Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil & Westwood, Sean J. . 2019. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22(1):129–146.
  • J.N., Druckman, & M.S., Levendusky, . 2019. What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly 83(1):114–122.
  • Fletcher, Richard, Cornia, Alessio & Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis . 2020. How polarized are online and offline news audiences? A comparative analysis of twelve countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics 25(2):169–195.
  • Dougan, M & Smith, A . 2016. The political environment on social media. Pew Research Center
  • Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. . 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348(6239):1130–1132.
  • Fletcher, R & Jenkins, J . 2019. Polarisation and the news media in Europe. European Parliamentary Research Service
  • Boxell, Levi, Gentzkow, Matthew & Shapiro, Jesse M. . 2017. Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(40):10612–10617.
  • Boxell, L, Gentzkow, M & Shapiro, J . 2020. Cross-country trends in affective polarization. National Bureau of Economic Research https://doi.org/10.3386/w26669
  • Rubio, R . 2000. Internet en la participación política. Revista de Estudios Políticos 19:285–302.
  • Valera-Orgaz, L . 2017. Comparing the democratic value of Facebook discussions across the profiles of Spanish political candidates during the 2011 General Election. Revista Internacional de Sociología 75(1):1–15.
  • Demsar, J, Curk, T, Erjavec, A, Gorup, C, Hocevar, T, Milutinovic, M, Mozina, M, Polajnar, M, Toplak, M, Staric, A, Stajdohar, M, Umek, L, Zagar, L, Zbontar, J, Zitnik, M & Zupan, B . 2013. Orange: Data mining toolbox. Python 14(1):2349–2353.
  • Oz, Mustafa, Zheng, Pei & G., Chen, . 2018. Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society 20(9):3400–3419.
  • Volkmer, I . 2014. The global public sphere: Public communication in the age of reflective interdependence. Polity
  • Sorice, M . 2020. La ‘piattaformizzazione’ della sfera pubblica. Comunicazione Politica 3:371–388.
  • Davis, A . 2019. Political communication: A new introduction for crisis times. Polity
  • Sunstein, C R . 2018. #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8xnhtd
  • Jaidka, Kokil, Zhou, Alvin & Lelkes, Yphtach . 2019. Brevity is the soul of Twitter: The constraint affordance and political discussion. Journal of Communication 69(4):345–372.
  • T.A., Letsche, & M.W., Berry, . 1997. Large-scale information retrieval with latent semantic indexing. Information Sciences 100(1-4):105–137.
  • Fuchs, C . 2017. Social media. A critical introduction. Sage
  • Feinerer, Ingo, Hornik, Kurt & Meyer, David . 2008. Text mining infrastructure. Journal of Statistical Software 25(5):1–54.
  • J., van-Dijck,, M., de-Waal, & T., Poell, . 2018. The platform society public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press
  • M., Arias-Maldonado, . 2016. La digitalización de la conversación pública: Redes sociales, afectividad política y democracia. Revista de Estudios Políticos 173(173):27–54.
  • Morlino, L & Sorice, M . 2021. Quello che abbiamo appreso. In: L’illusione della scelta. Come si manipola l’opinione pubblica in Italia. Luiss University Press
  • Margetts, H . 2009. Public management change and e-government: The emergence of digital-era governance. In: Chadwick, A. & Howard, P.N. , eds. The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. (pp. 119-131) Routledge
  • Fung, Archon, H.G., Gilman, & Shkabatur, Jennifer . 2013. Six models for the Internet and politics. International Studies Review 15(1):30–47.
  • Gruzd, Anatoliy & Roy, Jeffrey . 2014. Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet 6(1):28–45.
  • Berry, C, Kim, S & Spigel, L . 2010. Electronic elsewheres: Media technology and the experience of social space. University of Minnesota Press
  • Fleig, A & Scheve, C . 2020. Introduction: Public spheres of resonance - Constellations of affect and language. In: A. Fleig & C. von-Scheve , eds. Public spheres of resonance. Constellations of affect and language. (pp. 1-16) Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429466533-1
  • Stromer-Galley, J & Wichowski, A . 2011. Political discussion online. In: Ess, M.C. , ed. The handbook of Internet studies. (pp. 168-187) Wiley-Blackwell https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444314861.ch8
  • Prior, M . 2007. Post-broadcast democracy: How Media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press
  • Lee, J K, Choi, J, Kim, C & Kim, Y . 2014. Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication 64(4):702–722.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet