Regulating the new information intermediaries as gatekeepers of information diversity

Helberger, Natali; Königslöw, Katharina Kleinen-von; Noll, R. van der

doi:10.1108/info-05-2015-0034

Cited by 38 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, for the commercial media (Council of Europe 31 January 2007) and cable and pay-tv platforms. At present, the diversity regulations do not apply to the new information intermediaries such as search engines, social networks, and app stores (Helberger, Kleinen-von K€ onigsl€ ow, and Noll 2015). Since some of these platforms have become central information gateways (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism 2016), some have argued that mandatory diversity safeguards should also extend to platforms (e.g., Foster, 2013; High Level Expert Group on Media Pluralism).…”

Section: Diverse Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility

Helberger

Pierson

Poell

2017

The Information Society

Self Cite

185

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online platforms, from Facebook to Twitter, and from Coursera to Uber, have become deeply involved in a wide range of public activities, including journalism, civic engagement, education, and transport. As such, they have started to play a vital role in the realization of important public values and policy objectives associated with these activities. Based on insights from theories about risk sharing and the problem of many hands, this article develops a conceptual framework for the governance of the public role of platforms, and elaborates on the concept of cooperative responsibility for the realization of critical public policy objectives in Europe. It argues that the realization of public values in platform-based public activities cannot be adequately achieved by allocating responsibility to one central actor (as is currently common practice), but should be the result of dynamic interaction between platforms, users, and public institutions.

show abstract

Section: Diverse Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility

Helberger

Pierson

Poell

2017

The Information Society

Self Cite

185

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing regulatory frameworks however are not designed to curtail the impact intermediaries may have on media plurality (Helberger et al, 2015;Mansell, 2015b). For example, current rules preventing media concentration and control over opinion formation in the UK and Germany specifically prevent large newspaper companies from purchasing influential broadcasters, [2] but would not prevent similar transactions between digital intermediaries and newspapers or broadcasters.…”

Section: Section 1: Academic Industry and Policy Concerns About Digimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On one hand, the intermediaries themselves such as Google and Facebook say that we live in a new age of crowdsourced plurality, and on the other hand others are concerned that intermediaries reduce both content and exposure plurality (Helberger et al, 2015;Napoli and Karppinen, 2013; …”

Section: Section 1: Academic Industry and Policy Concerns About Digimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Important interventions such as Foster (2012) and Helberger et al (2015) that specifically address the issue of intermediaries and plurality stop short of investigating the available empirical evidence, in part because this is a new field with significant analytical problems, notably the complexity of the concept of media plurality itself (Napoli, 1999). [3] Empirical research on media influence and plurality has focused on questions of ownership concentration (Noam, 2011;Napoli & Gillis, 2006) media effects (Gerbner et al, 2002) agenda setting (McCombs and Shaw, 1972;Cohen, 1963) and information flow.…”

Section: 1: Defining and Measuring Media Pluralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Singer, 2014). Laidlaw (2010) and other theorists commenting on intermediary control do not link the question of intermediary control to wider issues of media plurality and power, but work by Helberger et al (2015) does attempt to look at the implications of intermediary power for media plurality.…”

Section: 1: Defining and Measuring Media Pluralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Digital intermediaries in the UK: implications for news plurality

Tambini

Labo

2016

INFO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Digital intermediaries such as Google and Facebook are seen as the new powerbrokers in online news, controlling access to consumers and with the potential even to suppress and target messages to individuals. Academics, publishers and policymakers have raised concerns about the implications of this new power, from the impact on media plurality to implications for democratic discourse, freedom of speech and control over public opinion formation. After reviewing academic literature that has raised this concern and public policy addressing it, this paper aims to examine the empirical foundations for these claims. Through secondary analysis of industry data on referrals of online news traffic, the authors find that intermediaries do have the potential to exert significant influence over distribution of online news. The authors however find that not all news that is filtered through intermediary services is subject to the same shaping and editorial forces, in part, because user agency is also an important factor. The role of intermediaries in news distribution is thus complex; headline numbers do not translate automatically into influence due to the complex interplay and exchange between user agency and the editorial influence of intermediaries. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based mainly on a secondary analysis of publicly available data on news referrals, and some data provided by news publishers along with re-analysis of regulatory data from Ofcom and previously unpublished data from the BBC and SimilarWeb. These data sources are combined for the first time to investigate claims regarding the current controversy about media plurality, algorithmic power and transparency. Findings The paper finds that evidence that intermediaries wield concentrated editorial power is mixed. While other, non-intermediated news distribution platforms such as TV and the press remain highly important, online is heading towards being the most important distribution platform, particularly for younger demographics. The authors found that intermediaries such as search and social control access to a significant proportion of online news content. Not all use of intermediaries is indicative of online gatekeeping however. User agency also determines how content is prioritised and thus consumed. The news consumed is therefore a product of a complex interplay between user agency and intermediary influence. In contrast to traditional discussions of media power and its regulation (for example the notion of mass media plurality); it is thus not possible to make inferences on influence simply by noting the market share of intermediaries. The role of intermediaries is much more subtle and opaque. Research limitations/implications This paper is mainly based on publicly available data. It is crucial to find out what is possible with such data as regulators with responsibility for monitoring and regulating media plurality are similarly limited to such data. The implications are that further research with a wide range of methods and data sources will be necessary to update research on media plurality and diversity. Practical implications The implications of these findings are that independent public authorities should have access to much more revealing data about public opinion formation processes, including referrals and other data currently held only by publishers. The three stage analytical framework will be of use to regulators and policymakers currently looking into these issues. Social implications Civil society and public debate about digital intermediaries is currently intensively discussed in policy debate. Taking these debates forward will depend on whether existing public policy frameworks (such as limits on news plurality) are able to accommodate the new challenges such as intermediary influence on news distribution and public opinion formation. Originality/value The recent special issue of INFO, including contributions from Mansell and Helberger, raised a range of similar issues with regard to media plurality and intermediaries. These papers did not seek empirically to examine in depth, using all available publicly relevant data, the implications for media pluralism and diversity in one particular media market. The paper is theoretically original, contains some previously unpublished data and an entirely new empirical and theoretical analysis. The models and tables are previously unpublished.

show abstract

I'm the same, I'm the same, I'm trying to change: Investigating the role of human information behavior in view change

McKay,

Makri,

Gutierrez‐Lopez

et al. 2024

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information is powerful; it can influence peoples' views and, in turn, their behavior. Much recent research and discussion on the role information plays in view change has focused on filter bubbles, echo chambers and misinformation and how they might influence what people think and how they act. However, no prior work has focused specifically on understanding the human information behavior (HIB) that drives and facilitates view change. We report findings from interviews with 18 people who recently changed views on issues they considered important. We found a tight symbiotic relationship between HIB and view change; passive information encountering sparked change, often spurring follow‐up active seeking and verification which progressed the change to a “point of no return,” supported making the change and reinforced the decision to change. When shared, information that contributed to the change sometimes sparked changes in others (as did expressing or debating the change), serving as an information encounter that perpetuated a cycle of HIB and view change. This understanding of the integral role of HIB in view change can inform policy and systems design to promote view change autonomy and a broader research agenda of understanding HIB to support democratic principles and values.

show abstract

Regulating the new information intermediaries as gatekeepers of information diversity

Cited by 38 publications

References 63 publications

Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility

Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility

Digital intermediaries in the UK: implications for news plurality

I'm the same, I'm the same, I'm trying to change: Investigating the role of human information behavior in view change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About