Leticia Bode – författare
Visar alla böcker från författaren . Handla med fri frakt och snabb leverans.
10 produkter
10 produkter
Inbunden, Engelska, 2025
893 kr
Skickas inom 7-10 vardagar
While many solutions have been proposed to combat misinformation on social media, most are either ineffective, expensive, or do not work at scale. What if social media users could help mitigate the misinformation they're also responsible for proliferating? In Observed Correction, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga consider both the power of and the barriers to "observed correction"--users witnessing other users correct misinformation on social media. Bode and Vraga argue that when people view others directly and publicly correct misinformation on social media, their understanding of the topic becomes more accurate. Yet, while many members of the public value correction, Bode and Vraga find that they are often reluctant to correct misinformation they see on social media. This same reluctance to correct is seen among expert fact checkers and health communicators, compounded by the constraints of limited resources and competing priorities. To empower people to respond to misinformation, Bode and Vraga offer a set of practical recommendations for how observational correction can be implemented. In some cases, simple messages addressing concerns can increase users' willingness to respond to misinformation. In other cases, they argue that platforms will need to promote corrections and protect the correctors while experts can contribute by creating accessible curated evidence (ACE) to facilitate user corrections and build social norms around responding to misinformation.Including analysis of eleven experiments, seven surveys, and dozens of interviews with social media users, health professionals, fact checkers, and platform employees about their efforts to curb misinformation online, Bode and Vraga make the case that observed correction is an effective and scalable tool in the fight against bad content on the Internet.
Häftad, Engelska, 2025
270 kr
Skickas inom 5-8 vardagar
While many solutions have been proposed to combat misinformation on social media, most are either ineffective, expensive, or do not work at scale. What if social media users could help mitigate the misinformation they're also responsible for proliferating? In Observed Correction, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga consider both the power of and the barriers to "observed correction"--users witnessing other users correct misinformation on social media. Bode and Vraga argue that when people view others directly and publicly correct misinformation on social media, their understanding of the topic becomes more accurate. Yet, while many members of the public value correction, Bode and Vraga find that they are often reluctant to correct misinformation they see on social media. This same reluctance to correct is seen among expert fact checkers and health communicators, compounded by the constraints of limited resources and competing priorities. To empower people to respond to misinformation, Bode and Vraga offer a set of practical recommendations for how observational correction can be implemented. In some cases, simple messages addressing concerns can increase users' willingness to respond to misinformation. In other cases, they argue that platforms will need to promote corrections and protect the correctors while experts can contribute by creating accessible curated evidence (ACE) to facilitate user corrections and build social norms around responding to misinformation.Including analysis of eleven experiments, seven surveys, and dozens of interviews with social media users, health professionals, fact checkers, and platform employees about their efforts to curb misinformation online, Bode and Vraga make the case that observed correction is an effective and scalable tool in the fight against bad content on the Internet.
E-bok
PDF, Engelska, 2025282 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
While many solutions have been proposed to combat misinformation on social media, most are either ineffective, expensive, or do not work at scale. What if social media users could help mitigate the misinformation they're also responsible for proliferating? In Observed Correction, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga consider both the power of and the barriers to "e;observed correction"e;--users witnessing other users correct misinformation on social media. Bode and Vraga argue that when people view others directly and publicly correct misinformation on social media, their understanding of the topic becomes more accurate. Yet, while many members of the public value correction, Bode and Vraga find that they are often reluctant to correct misinformation they see on social media. This same reluctance to correct is seen among expert fact checkers and health communicators, compounded by the constraints of limited resources and competing priorities. To empower people to respond to misinformation, Bode and Vraga offer a set of practical recommendations for how observational correction can be implemented. In some cases, simple messages addressing concerns can increase users' willingness to respond to misinformation. In other cases, they argue that platforms will need to promote corrections and protect the correctors while experts can contribute by creating accessible curated evidence (ACE) to facilitate user corrections and build social norms around responding to misinformation. Including analysis of eleven experiments, seven surveys, and dozens of interviews with social media users, health professionals, fact checkers, and platform employees about their efforts to curb misinformation online, Bode and Vraga make the case that observed correction is an effective and scalable tool in the fight against bad content on the Internet.
E-bok
Engelska, 2025282 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
While many solutions have been proposed to combat misinformation on social media, most are either ineffective, expensive, or do not work at scale. What if social media users could help mitigate the misinformation they're also responsible for proliferating? In Observed Correction, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga consider both the power of and the barriers to "e;observed correction"e;--users witnessing other users correct misinformation on social media. Bode and Vraga argue that when people view others directly and publicly correct misinformation on social media, their understanding of the topic becomes more accurate. Yet, while many members of the public value correction, Bode and Vraga find that they are often reluctant to correct misinformation they see on social media. This same reluctance to correct is seen among expert fact checkers and health communicators, compounded by the constraints of limited resources and competing priorities. To empower people to respond to misinformation, Bode and Vraga offer a set of practical recommendations for how observational correction can be implemented. In some cases, simple messages addressing concerns can increase users' willingness to respond to misinformation. In other cases, they argue that platforms will need to promote corrections and protect the correctors while experts can contribute by creating accessible curated evidence (ACE) to facilitate user corrections and build social norms around responding to misinformation. Including analysis of eleven experiments, seven surveys, and dozens of interviews with social media users, health professionals, fact checkers, and platform employees about their efforts to curb misinformation online, Bode and Vraga make the case that observed correction is an effective and scalable tool in the fight against bad content on the Internet.
Inbunden, Engelska, 2019
2 429 kr
Skickas inom 10-15 vardagar
This book highlights the diverse methods needed to study a complex media environment, and the nuance and richness of the understanding gained by doing so, by offering examples of political communication research considering multiple platforms simultaneously.Political communication research that considers multiple media platforms is difficult and expensive to perform, and therefore relatively rare. Yet studying media platforms in isolation ignores the realities of the varied and complicated contemporary media experience, where most individuals consume information from multiple media outlets. Media platforms, from traditional outlets such as newspapers and television to newer online platforms such as social media, have proliferated in recent years. This makes the media environment itself more complex, as classic understandings of how the media function give way to a growing recognition of the hybrid media system, where divisions between content and producers are opaque, and where information is gleaned from increasingly diverse and numerous sources.Studying political communication across platforms allows better understanding of which types of experiences and effects are universal, and which are specific to particular platforms. This book was originally published as a special issue of Political Communication.
Häftad, Engelska, 2020
627 kr
Skickas inom 10-15 vardagar
This book highlights the diverse methods needed to study a complex media environment, and the nuance and richness of the understanding gained by doing so, by offering examples of political communication research considering multiple platforms simultaneously.Political communication research that considers multiple media platforms is difficult and expensive to perform, and therefore relatively rare. Yet studying media platforms in isolation ignores the realities of the varied and complicated contemporary media experience, where most individuals consume information from multiple media outlets. Media platforms, from traditional outlets such as newspapers and television to newer online platforms such as social media, have proliferated in recent years. This makes the media environment itself more complex, as classic understandings of how the media function give way to a growing recognition of the hybrid media system, where divisions between content and producers are opaque, and where information is gleaned from increasingly diverse and numerous sources.Studying political communication across platforms allows better understanding of which types of experiences and effects are universal, and which are specific to particular platforms. This book was originally published as a special issue of Political Communication.
E-bok
PDF, Engelska, 2020740 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
This book highlights the diverse methods needed to study a complex media environment, and the nuance and richness of the understanding gained by doing so, by offering examples of political communication research considering multiple platforms simultaneously.
Political communication research that considers multiple media platforms is difficult and expensive to perform, and therefore relatively rare. Yet studying media platforms in isolation ignores the realities of the varied and complicated contemporary media experience, where most individuals consume information from multiple media outlets. Media platforms, from traditional outlets such as newspapers and television to newer online platforms such as social media, have proliferated in recent years. This makes the media environment itself more complex, as classic understandings of how the media function give way to a growing recognition of the hybrid media system, where divisions between content and producers are opaque, and where information is gleaned from increasingly diverse and numerous sources.
Studying political communication across platforms allows better understanding of which types of experiences and effects are universal, and which are specific to particular platforms.
This book was originally published as a special issue of Political Communication.
E-bok
Engelska, 2020740 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
This book highlights the diverse methods needed to study a complex media environment, and the nuance and richness of the understanding gained by doing so, by offering examples of political communication research considering multiple platforms simultaneously.
Political communication research that considers multiple media platforms is difficult and expensive to perform, and therefore relatively rare. Yet studying media platforms in isolation ignores the realities of the varied and complicated contemporary media experience, where most individuals consume information from multiple media outlets. Media platforms, from traditional outlets such as newspapers and television to newer online platforms such as social media, have proliferated in recent years. This makes the media environment itself more complex, as classic understandings of how the media function give way to a growing recognition of the hybrid media system, where divisions between content and producers are opaque, and where information is gleaned from increasingly diverse and numerous sources.
Studying political communication across platforms allows better understanding of which types of experiences and effects are universal, and which are specific to particular platforms.
This book was originally published as a special issue of Political Communication.
Häftad, Engelska, 2020
364 kr
Skickas inom 5-8 vardagar
How the 2016 news media environment allowed Trump to win the presidencyThe 2016 presidential election campaign might have seemed to be all about one man. He certainly did everything possible to reinforce that impression. But to an unprecedented degree the campaign also was about the news media and its relationships with the man who won and the woman he defeated.Words That Matter assesses how the news media covered the extraordinary 2016 election and, more important, what informationtrue, false, or somewhere in betweenactually helped voters make up their minds. Using journalists' real-time tweets and published news coverage of campaign events, along with Gallup polling data measuring how voters perceived that reporting, the book traces the flow of information from candidates and their campaigns to journalists and to the public.The evidence uncovered shows how Donald Trump's victory, and Hillary Clinton's loss, resulted in large part from how the news media responded to these two unique candidates. Both candidates were unusual in their own ways, and thus presented a long list of possible issues for the media to focus on. Which of these many topics got communicated to voters made a big difference outcome.What people heard about these two candidates during the campaign was quite different. Coverage of Trump was scattered among many different issues, and while many of those issues were negative, no single negative narrative came to dominate the coverage of the man who would be elected the 45th president of the United States. Clinton, by contrast, faced an almost unrelenting news media focus on one negative issueher alleged misuse of e-mailsthat captured public attention in a way that the more numerous questions about Trump did not.Some news media coverage of the campaign was insightful and helpful to voters who really wanted serious information to help them make the most important decision a democracy offers. But this book also demonstrates how the modern media environment can exacerbate the kind of pack journalism that leads some issues to dominate the news while others of equal or greater importance get almost no attention, making it hard for voters to make informed choices.
E-bok
Engelska, 2020394 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
How the 2016 news media environment allowed Trump to win the presidencyThe 2016 presidential election campaign might have seemed to be all about one man. He certainly did everything possible to reinforce that impression. But to an unprecedented degree the campaign also was about the news media and its relationships with the man who won and the woman he defeated.Words That Matter assesses how the news media covered the extraordinary 2016 election and, more important, what informationtrue, false, or somewhere in betweenactually helped voters make up their minds. Using journalists' real-time tweets and published news coverage of campaign events, along with Gallup polling data measuring how voters perceived that reporting, the book traces the flow of information from candidates and their campaigns to journalists and to the public.The evidence uncovered shows how Donald Trump's victory, and Hillary Clinton's loss, resulted in large part from how the news media responded to these two unique candidates. Both candidates were unusual in their own ways, and thus presented a long list of possible issues for the media to focus on. Which of these many topics got communicated to voters made a big difference outcome.What people heard about these two candidates during the campaign was quite different. Coverage of Trump was scattered among many different issues, and while many of those issues were negative, no single negative narrative came to dominate the coverage of the man who would be elected the 45th president of the United States. Clinton, by contrast, faced an almost unrelenting news media focus on one negative issueher alleged misuse of e-mailsthat captured public attention in a way that the more numerous questions about Trump did not.Some news media coverage of the campaign was insightful and helpful to voters who really wanted serious information to help them make the most important decision a democracy offers. But this book also demonstrates how the modern media environment can exacerbate the kind of pack journalism that leads some issues to dominate the news while others of equal or greater importance get almost no attention, making it hard for voters to make informed choices.