Search results

This book provides a critical study of the power, trust, and legitimacy of algorithmic gatekeepers.

The news and public information which citizens see and hear is no longer solely determined by journalists, but increasingly by algorithms. Van Dalen demonstrates the gatekeeping power of social media algorithms by showing how they affect exposure to diverse information and misinformation and shape the behaviour of professional communicators. Trust and legitimacy are foregrounded as two crucial antecedents for the acceptance of this algorithmic power. This study reveals low trust among the general population in algorithms performing journalistic tasks and a perceived lack of legitimacy of algorithmic power among professional communicators. Drawing on case studies from YouTube and Instagram, this book challenges technological deterministic discourse around ""filter bubbles"" and ""echo chambers"" and shows how algorithmic power is situated in the interplay between platforms, audiences, and professional communicators. Ultimately, trustworthy algorithms used by news organizations and social media platforms as well as algorithm literacy training are proposed as ways forward towards democratic algorithmic gatekeeping.

Presenting a nuanced perspective which challenges the deep divide between techno-optimistic and techno-pessimistic discourse around algorithms, Algorithmic Gatekeeping is recommended reading for journalism and communication researchers in related fields.

The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons [Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND)] 4.0 license.

Hvad folk ser og læser i medierne, bestemmes ikke længere kun af journalister, men i stigende grad af algoritmer. Disse algoritmer vælger, sorterer og prioriterer vores information. Automatiserede processer, som fx YouTubes anbefalingsalgoritme, påvirker den måde, vi ser verden på. Et vigtigt demokratisk spørgsmål er derfor, om YouTubes anbefalingsalgoritme eksponerer publikum incidentalt for politisk information, efter at man har set underholdningsindhold, og om algoritmen skaber en filterboble ved primært at anbefale indhold med et lignende politisk perspektiv. Under det danske folketingsvalg i 2019 var anbefalingsalgoritmen mere tilbøjelig til at føre seere væk fra end hen imod nyheder med politisk indhold. Når folk havde set en video, der var uploadet af de politiske partier Venstre eller Stram Kurs, blev de af algoritmen primært anbefalet videoer fra de samme partier, hvilket kan medføre, at de bliver bekræftede i forudindtagne holdninger (bekræftelsesbias). For andre partier var dette mindre tilfældet. Kun i begrænset omfang fører anbefalingsalgoritmen seere fra mainstream til ekstremt højreorienteret indhold.

What people see and read in the media is no longer only determined by journalists, but increasingly by algorithms. These algorithms select, sort, and prioritize our information. Automatic processes like YouTube's recommendation algorithm influence our views of the world. An important democratic question is whether YouTube's recommendation algorithm incidentally exposes the audience to political information after watching entertainment content and whether the algorithm creates a filter bubble by primarily recommending content with a similar political perspective. During the Danish parliamentary elections 2019, the recommendation algorithm was more likely to lead viewers away from news and public affairs than towards political content. After watching a video posted by political parties Venstre or Stram Kurs, the algorithm primarily recommends videos from these same parties, which could strengthen confirmation bias and reinforce political beliefs. For other parties, this was less the case. Little evidence was found that the recommendation algorithm leads viewers from mainstream content to extreme right content.

What people see and read in the media is no longer only determined by journalists, but increasingly by algorithms. These algorithms select, sort, and prioritize our information. Automatic processes like YouTube's recommendation algorithm influence our views of the world. An important democratic question is whether YouTube's recommendation algorithm incidentally exposes the audience to political information after watching entertainment content and whether the algorithm creates a filter bubble by primarily recommending content with a similar political perspective. During the Danish parliamentary elections 2019, the recommendation algorithm was more likely to lead viewers away from news and public affairs than towards political content. After watching a video posted by political parties Venstre or Stram Kurs, the algorithm primarily recommends videos from these same parties, which could strengthen confirmation bias and reinforce political beliefs. For other parties, this was less the case. Little evidence was found that the recommendation algorithm leads viewers from mainstream content to extreme right content.

The relation between journalists and politicians in liberal democracies is traditionally conceptualized as highly institutionalized, based on mutual dependence, and grounded in a shared culture of jointly respected role relations. While this conceptualization provides a fruitful framework to understand the relation between mainstream journalists and politicians, it falls short in explaining the way outsider politicians such as Beppe Grillo, Donald Trump, Thierry Baudet, or Nigel Farage address the mainstream media. Thus, this article rethinks the relation between journalists and politicians in the light of the Western political-media environment in the 2010s, where the rise of authoritarian populism, the fragmentation of media audiences, and the fading boundaries around the journalistic profession have substantially changed media–politics relations. This article aims to make a theoretical contribution by conceptualizing the relation between outsider politicians and mainstream journalists as an ongoing negotiation over legitimacy. Central in this conceptualization is a classification of five strategies which outsider politicians use to delegitimize mainstream journalists: attacking their character, connecting them with other institutions which are seen as illegitimate, attacking their ethical standards, challenging the claim that journalists work in the public interest, and questioning the beneficial consequences of their work. The consequences of these delegitimation strategies are discussed.

Partisan identities do not only shape people's political attitudes, but also their perceptions of real-world developments. This is evident from the partisan economic perception gap: Government supporters have more positive economic perceptions than opposition supporters, especially when the economic situation is ambiguous. Recent research has shown that the size of this partisan gap varies across different contexts and that the state of the economy and working of political institutions are important moderators. Still, little is known about the influence of another important contextual variable: the degree of partisanship in the media system. Based on a theoretical discussion of partisan-motivated rationalization and the information environment, the paper tests the hypothesis that, due to selective exposure and exposure to more partisan content, people in partisan media systems have more polarized economic perceptions. A multilevel analysis of representative surveys in twenty-six European countries in 2014 shows that the partisan perception gap is, indeed, larger in countries with more polarized media systems, after controlling for other relevant country characteristics. People with the highest level of media consumption are most affected by media-party parallelism. The findings are relevant for worldwide discussions about posttruth politics, as they show that the media environment influences gaps in people's perceptions of real-world developments.

What role do personal values play in the practice of economists? By means of a survey among economists working inside and outside academia in the Netherlands, we present novel insights on their personal values, how these differ from the average citizen, and how values impact their economic views and their methodological choices. Three overarching values summarize the value structure of economists: achievement, serving the public interest, and conformity to rules. Subsequent tests are performed to see whether these values affect (1) their opinion on economic propositions and (2) their attitudes towards methodological principles in economics. For the majority of economic propositions, personal values matter. Especially the value of serving the public interest has a strong effect on their economic view. Furthermore, it seems that economists who value achievement are the ones who are more likely to embrace mainstream methodological principles: thinking predominantly in terms of efficiency, rationality, and competition, believing that economic knowledge is objective and transparently produced and in agreement with Milton Friedman's view on positive economics. Female economists are at some notable points less convinced of market solutions and have more trust in the government in serving the public interest.

What role do personal values play in the practice of economists? By means of a survey among economists working inside and outside academia in the Netherlands, we present novel insights on their personal values, how these differ from the average citizen, and how values impact their economic views and their methodological choices. Three overarching values summarize the value structure of economists: achievement, serving the public interest, and conformity to rules. Subsequent tests are performed to see whether these values affect (1) their opinion on economic propositions and (2) their attitudes towards methodological principles in economics. For the majority of economic propositions, personal values matter. Especially the value of serving the public interest has a strong effect on their economic view. Furthermore, it seems that economists who value achievement are the ones who are more likely to embrace mainstream methodological principles: thinking predominantly in terms of efficiency, rationality, and competition, believing that economic knowledge is objective and transparently produced and in agreement with Milton Friedman's view on positive economics. Female economists are at some notable points less convinced of market solutions and have more trust in the government in serving the public interest.

The battle for media attention is an integral part of political conflicts. Because of structural bias in the news, government generally dominates this battle for media attention. This article argues, first, that the attention for government and parliament in the news reflects the power balance in the political system and, second, that this relation is moderated by cross-national differences in journalistic cultures, in particular the importance of conflict framing. Content analysis of newspaper and television coverage in Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain (N = 1,306 stories) shows that because of the universal news value of political power, attention for government and parliament reinforces differences of political power of these institutions, both within countries and cross-nationally. However, in pragmatic journalistic cultures, the dominance of government is weakened by journalists' search for conflict. In countries where the news value of conflict is more important (Denmark and the United Kingdom), stories about government more often include oppositional voices than in countries where conflict is a less important news value (Spain). [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Inc.]

The battle for media attention is an integral part of political conflicts. Because of structural bias in the news, government generally dominates this battle for media attention. This article argues, first, that the attention for government and parliament in the news reflects the power balance in the political system and, second, that this relation is moderated by cross-national differences in journalistic cultures, in particular the importance of conflict framing. Content analysis of newspaper and television coverage in Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain ( N = 1,306 stories) shows that because of the universal news value of political power, attention for government and parliament reinforces differences of political power of these institutions, both within countries and cross-nationally. However, in pragmatic journalistic cultures, the dominance of government is weakened by journalists' search for conflict. In countries where the news value of conflict is more important (Denmark and the United Kingdom), stories about government more often include oppositional voices than in countries where conflict is a less important news value (Spain).