IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v10y2022i2p169-179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Skeptical Inertia in the Face of Polarization: News Consumption and Misinformation in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Çiğdem Bozdağ

    (Research Centre for Media and Journalism Studies, University of Groningen, The Netherlands / Department of Intercultural Education, University of Bremen, Germany)

  • Suncem Koçer

    (Department of Public Relations and Information, Kadir Has University, Turkey)

Abstract

Focusing on Turkey, this article analyzes the role of polarization on news users’ perception of misinformation and mistrust in the news on social media. Turkey is one of the countries where citizens complain most about misinformation on the internet. The citizens’ trust in news institutions is also in continuous decline. Furthermore, both Turkish society and its media landscape are politically highly polarized. Focusing on Turkey’s highly polarized environment, the article aims to analyze how political polarization influences the users’ trust in the news and their perceptions about misinformation on social media. The study is based on multi-method research, including focus groups, media diaries, and interviews with people of different ages and socioeconomic backgrounds. The article firstly demonstrates different strategies that the users develop to validate information, including searching for any suspicious information on search engines, looking at the comments below the post, and looking at other news media, especially television. Secondly, we will discuss how more affective mechanisms of news assessment come into prominence while evaluating political news. Although our participants are self-aware and critical about their partisan attitudes in news consumption and evaluation, they also reveal media sources to which they feel politically closer. We propose the concept of “skeptical inertia” to refer to this self-critical yet passive position of the users in the face of the polarized news environment in Turkey.

Suggested Citation

  • Çiğdem Bozdağ & Suncem Koçer, 2022. "Skeptical Inertia in the Face of Polarization: News Consumption and Misinformation in Turkey," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(2), pages 169-179.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:169-179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5057
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Osmundsen, Mathias & Bor, Alexander & Vahlstrup, Peter Bjerregaard & Bechmann, Anja & Petersen, Michael Bang, 2021. "Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 999-1015, August.
    2. Ro'ee Levy, 2021. "Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 831-870, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adrian Kwek & Luke Peh & Josef Tan & Jin Xing Lee, 2023. "Distractions, analytical thinking and falling for fake news: A survey of psychological factors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Stefan Stieglitz & Björn Ross, 2022. "The Impact of Social Media on Social Cohesion: A Double-Edged Sword," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(2), pages 104-107.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. James N. Druckman & Donald P. Green & Shanto Iyengar, 2023. "Does Affective Polarization Contribute to Democratic Backsliding in America?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 137-163, July.
    3. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    4. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Sant’Anna Pedro C., 2023. "Discrimination in the Formation of Academic Networks: A Field Experiment on #EconTwitter," Working Papers 235, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    5. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Pedro C. Sant’Anna, 2023. "Rooting for the Same Team: On the Interplay between Political and Social Identities in the Formation of Social Ties," Working Papers 231, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    6. Columbus, Simon & Feld, Lars P. & Kasper, Matthias & Rablen, Matthew D., 2023. "Behavioural Responses to Unfair Institutions: Experimental Evidence on Rule Compliance, Norm Polarisation, and Trust," IZA Discussion Papers 16346, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Giuberti Coutinho, Lorena, 2021. "Political polarization and the impact of internet and social media use in Brazil," MERIT Working Papers 2021-032, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. Manuela Fritz & Michael Grimm & Ingmar Weber & Elad Yom-Tov & Benedictus Praditya, 2022. "Uncover your risk! Using Facebook to increase personal risk awareness and screening of type 2 diabetes in Indonesia," Working Papers 221, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    9. Griffith, David A. & Lee, Hannah S. & Yalcinkaya, Goksel, 2023. "Understanding the relationship between the use of social media and the prevalence of anxiety at the country level: a multi-country examination," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4).
    10. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    11. Raúl Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2023. "An Overview of the Fake News Phenomenon: From Untruth-Driven to Post-Truth-Driven Approaches," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(2), pages 15-29.
    12. Simon Calmar Andersen & Louise Beuchert & Phillip Heiler & Helena Skyt Nielsen, 2023. "A Guide to Impact Evaluation under Sample Selection and Missing Data: Teacher's Aides and Adolescent Mental Health," Papers 2308.04963, arXiv.org.
    13. Pierluigi Conzo & Andrea Gallice & Juan S. Morales & Margaret Samahita & Laura K. Taylor, 2021. "Can Hearts Change Minds? Social media Endorsements and Policy Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 641, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    14. Luca Braghieri & Ro'ee Levy & Alexey Makarin, 2022. "Social Media and Mental Health," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(11), pages 3660-3693, November.
    15. Sarah Schneider-Strawczynski & Jérôme Valette, 2021. "Media Coverage of Immigration and the Polarization of Attitudes," PSE Working Papers halshs-03322229, HAL.
    16. Geraci, Andrea & Nardotto, Mattia & Reggiani, Tommaso & Sabatini, Fabio, 2022. "Broadband Internet and social capital," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    17. Wu, Yue & Li, Linjiao & Yu, Qiannan & Gan, Jiaxin & Zhang, Yi, 2023. "Strategies for reducing polarization in social networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. Thomas Fujiwara & Karsten Müller & Carlo Schwarz, 2021. "The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from the United States," NBER Working Papers 28849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Stefano Carattini & Kenneth Gillingham & Xiangyu Meng & Erez Yoeli, 2022. "Peer-to-Peer Solar and Social Rewards: Evidence from a Field Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 10173, CESifo.
    20. Gillian K. Hadfield & Jack Clark, 2023. "Regulatory Markets: The Future of AI Governance," Papers 2304.04914, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:169-179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.