Political debate on YouTube: revitalization or degradation of democratic deliberation?

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Profesional De La Informacion Pub Date : 2021-02-08 DOI:10.3145/EPI.2020.NOV.38
Marta Gil-Ramírez, Ruth Gomez-de-Travesedo-Rojas, A. Almansa-Martínez
{"title":"Political debate on YouTube: revitalization or degradation of democratic deliberation?","authors":"Marta Gil-Ramírez, Ruth Gomez-de-Travesedo-Rojas, A. Almansa-Martínez","doi":"10.3145/EPI.2020.NOV.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It seems to be an established fact that social media multiplies the possibilities for civil society to express its points of view and intervene in the debate about matters of public interest. However, this greater social participation in political discourse through such platforms does not always translate into an improvement in the quality of democratic deliberation. The aim of this research is to examine the characteristics of comments and conversations on YouTube in a pre-election period to determine whether such discursive interaction contributes to strengthening the democratic system or if, on the contrary, is detrimental to it. Adopting a quantitative–qualitative approach, content analysis and critical discourse analysis are combined to examine 471 comments collected from the most viewed videos on YouTube in the month before the Andalusian elections held on 2 December 2018. Various aspects are considered, including the theme and typology of opinions, the use of foul language, and the modes that the conversation adopts. The results indicate a social discourse in which the exchange of opposing positions prevails, including comments with a strong emotional burden that tend to attack or criticize the ideology of the protagonists in the videos, and where rudeness is present (although there are exceptions), mainly as personal insults among the participants. The characteristics of the conversation taking place on this online video platform in the pre-election period do not meet the minimum standards for argumentation and civil behavior in digital political debate, thus far from contributing to an improvement in the quality of deliberative processes, it is deteriorated.","PeriodicalId":20684,"journal":{"name":"Profesional De La Informacion","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Profesional De La Informacion","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3145/EPI.2020.NOV.38","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It seems to be an established fact that social media multiplies the possibilities for civil society to express its points of view and intervene in the debate about matters of public interest. However, this greater social participation in political discourse through such platforms does not always translate into an improvement in the quality of democratic deliberation. The aim of this research is to examine the characteristics of comments and conversations on YouTube in a pre-election period to determine whether such discursive interaction contributes to strengthening the democratic system or if, on the contrary, is detrimental to it. Adopting a quantitative–qualitative approach, content analysis and critical discourse analysis are combined to examine 471 comments collected from the most viewed videos on YouTube in the month before the Andalusian elections held on 2 December 2018. Various aspects are considered, including the theme and typology of opinions, the use of foul language, and the modes that the conversation adopts. The results indicate a social discourse in which the exchange of opposing positions prevails, including comments with a strong emotional burden that tend to attack or criticize the ideology of the protagonists in the videos, and where rudeness is present (although there are exceptions), mainly as personal insults among the participants. The characteristics of the conversation taking place on this online video platform in the pre-election period do not meet the minimum standards for argumentation and civil behavior in digital political debate, thus far from contributing to an improvement in the quality of deliberative processes, it is deteriorated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
YouTube上的政治辩论:民主审议的复兴还是退化?
社交媒体增加了公民社会表达观点和介入公共利益辩论的可能性,这似乎是一个既定的事实。然而,通过这种平台对政治话语的更大的社会参与并不总是转化为民主审议质量的提高。本研究的目的是研究在选举前YouTube上的评论和对话的特征,以确定这种话语互动是否有助于加强民主制度,或者相反,对民主制度有害。采用定量定性方法,内容分析和批评话语分析相结合,研究了在2018年12月2日安达卢西亚选举前一个月从YouTube上观看次数最多的视频中收集的471条评论。包括观点的主题和类型,粗俗语言的使用,以及对话所采用的模式等各个方面。研究结果表明,在一个社会话语中,对立立场的交换盛行,包括带有强烈情感负担的评论,这些评论倾向于攻击或批评视频中主角的意识形态,并且存在粗鲁行为(尽管也有例外),主要是参与者之间的个人侮辱。选举前,在这个网路视讯平台上进行的对话,其特征不符合数位政治辩论中辩论与文明行为的最低标准,因此不但无助于改善审议过程的品质,反而恶化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: El profesional de la información es una revista sobre información, bibliotecas y nuevas tecnologías de la información. Primera revista española de Biblioteconomía y Documentación indexada por las dos bases de datos bibliográficas internacionales más importantes: ISI Social Science Citation Index y Scopus
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of online education among 16-18-year-olds: Differences and similarities in their interests and preferred formats according to where they live Informal learning of Spanish in a Chinese music fan community Social responsibility of Spanish universities for sustainable relationships Political polarization and politainment: Methodology for analyzing crypto hate speech on TikTok Political polarization and emotion rhetoric in the US presidential transition: A comparative study of Trump and Biden on Twitter and the post-election impact on the public
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1