So-called fake news and problematic information on social media assume an increasingly important roles in political debate. Focusing on the (early) run-up to and aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential elections, this study examines the extent of the problematic information in the most engaged-with content and most active users in ‘political Twitter’. We demarcated three time spans, the first surrounding Super Tuesday (March 2-22, 2020), the second providing a snapshot of the aftermath of the elections and the run-up to both the Senate run-off elections in Georgia (December 24, 2020 – January 4, 2021) and the (unforeseen) Capitol Hill riots on January 6, 2021. In the third time span (March 10-21, 2021), when election activities had ceased, we examine the effects of Twitter’s deplatforming (or so-called purge) of accounts after the Capitol riots in January, 2021. In order to shed light on the magnitude of problematic information, we mapped shared sources, labelled them and assessed the actors engaged in their dissemination. It was found that overall, mainstream sources are shared more often than problematic ones, but the percentage of problematic sources was much higher in December compared to both the March, 2020 and 2021 periods. Significantly, (hyper)partisan sources are close to half of all sources shared in the first two periods, implying a robust presence of them on social media. By March 2021, both the share of problematic and of (hyper)partisan sources had decreased significantly, suggesting an impact from Twitter’s deplatforming actions. Additionally, highly active, problematic users (fake profiles, bots, or locked/suspended accounts) were found on both sides of the political spectrum, albeit more abundantly from conservative users.
DOCUMENT
News media in The Netherlands show great variety in the extent and ways, in which they realize media accountability online in terms of actor transparency, product transparency and feedback opportunities online. It is suggested that even those news rooms that seem to adhere to transparency and public accountability still need to explore the functionality and application of media accountability instruments (MAI). Both in terms of potentials and pitfalls, news rooms need to consider about what they want to be transparent and in what ways. To the extent that online innovations are visible, traditional news media seem to experiment, as is the case with newsroom blogs or the project of hyper local journalism Dichtbij.nl, part of the Telegraaf Company. Various news media have on-going projects on audience participation, online applications and distribution models. However, since many projects merely aim at finding new applications, processes, platforms and business models, it remains to be seen assess whether projects are indeed reasonably innovative and feasible at the same time. The development of an online and therefore immediate, archived, personalized and interactive context, offers practical and ethical challenges to Dutch journalism. These challenges bring shifts in its role and responsibility to society. It means that changes occur in what journalists are accountable for, as well as ways in how they are accountable. The Dutch media landscape lodges various professional accountability instruments like the press council and both profession-wide and news media specific codes of ethics, but some of these instruments receive only moderate support. Proactive openness is more an exception than the rule and may well be a distinctive indicator for quality journalism. Although news media often acknowledge the importance of media accountability offline and online, they often lack the resources or courage to use them or have different priorities. This ambiguous position may indicate that in relation to media accountability online, Dutch news media are between hope and fear: that it will either improve their relationship with the public and fuel professional quality, or ask too much of resources with too little benefit.
DOCUMENT
