Next week’s elections mark a decisive moment. Many people are seeking information before casting their vote, while politicians, in turn, aim to attract as much public attention as possible. Through televised debates, talk shows, morning radio programmes, podcasts and social media, politicians present their party platforms and share their views on current social issues.
VU communication scientist Silvia Majó-Vázquez researches how news consumption helps people make informed decisions. Her work focuses particularly on key political events such as crises and elections. How does a person’s media diet influence their decisions, such as voting choice? And how should we deal with factors such as algorithms that automatically feed us news through social media?
Media diet
“The media diet of individuals is complex in itself and far more diverse than we previously assumed,” says VU researcher Silvia Majó-Vázquez. “We therefore aim to map people’s news consumption and take into account factors such as ideology, age and gender. We analyse the different media sources and the attention each one receives. We also consider that more and more information is now offered through AI chatbots or algorithms, such as ChatGPT.”
What does that mean for people’s freedom to choose which news and media they consult? She continues: “We know that algorithms limit people’s freedom to some extent, but we still need to study exactly how that works. At the same time, we shouldn’t overstate the impact of new media technologies such as social media and AI platforms. Many people still get their news and information from established media outlets such as television, newspapers and radio. Our research also shows that there is considerable overlap among these traditional sources in terms of content and audiences. As researchers, we refer to these as legacy media: well-established, broadly supported outlets that originated before the internet era and continue to play a central role in public debate. Television and radio remain particularly popular, especially among older generations and those more prone to vote. Overall, we see that older people consume more news than younger people. So, we shouldn’t focus solely on new developments but rather look at the full range of news sources, their possibilities and people’s consumption habits. It is especially important to understand the underlying factors, for example, why television remains popular, or what kind of effects AI may have in the future.”
Elections in the Netherlands
“Of course, we cannot predict the future, but there are some interesting facts about the upcoming elections,” says Majó-Vázquez. “For instance, 74 percent of Dutch people see WhatsApp as a channel for obtaining information, and 16 percent use it specifically to look for news. As researchers, we want to know whether new media such as WhatsApp have a different impact on people than traditional media. What kind of news is shared there, and does it influence people in a different way? We are also curious whether news shared by family or friends receives more attention and have greater effects on your opinion making process. Because these messages are private, we cannot currently study them, but we do know that WhatsApp is widely used.”
Among young people, the percentage who use WhatsApp as an information source is even higher, Majó-Vázquez observes. “Young people also spend a lot of time on video platforms such as YouTube and TikTok.”
News avoiders
Majó-Vázquez continues: “There is a large group of people who actively avoid the news. In the Netherlands, this applies to 32 percent of people. That may seem high, but from an international perspective the Netherlands still performs relatively well. In the United Kingdom and the United States, the figure is almost half of the population. The main reasons for avoiding news are often emotional. People wish to steer clear of the negative feelings it can provoke. During more polarised elections, people find it harder to keep up with the news because the content often evokes negative emotions, which makes them prefer to avoid it altogether. We also know that feeling underrepresented in the news is another major reason why people disengage. That’s why we need to study both mainstream and non-mainstream sources, not just newspapers or television, but also the expressions of content creators or politicians on social media. These posts partly count as news too, even though the creators do not have a journalistic background. The precise motivations of news avoiders are complex, and to understand them, you really have to sit down with people and talk to them.”
Desinformation and hate speech
“Major political events also bring risks,” Majó-Vázquez explains. “Disinformation can lead to less well-informed decisions, for instance during elections, and that is harmful to democracy. To counter disinformation, including that caused by geopolitical influences, the European Union has established a taskforce to limit the spread of fake news. On a more positive note, research from the United States shows that news from high-quality sources are more prevalent than disinformation. In my own research from the UK, Germany and France, I also see that people tend to prefer established news outlets.”
When it comes to hate speech, a trend can also be observed, Majó-Vázquez adds. “During the Covid-19 pandemic, research was conducted into hate messages received by staff at the World Health Organization, and whether those aimed at women were more severe. The findings showed that strong or toxic messages generated more reactions. However, when audiences felt that messages went too far or triggered too many negative emotions, their engagement dropped sharply. This shows that people tolerate only a limited degree of toxicity.”
Transparancy of major platforms
Silvia Majó-Vázquez advocates for greater transparency from major tech platforms such as Meta and Google regarding how their algorithms work. She also calls for these companies to make user data more easily available to researchers.
“There are international concerns about the lack of accountability of platforms like Meta and Google due to the absence of transparency about user data,” she explains. “Until a few years ago, independent researchers could directly access such data to, for instance, study the extent of influence during elections. These analyses have historically been crucial for identifying problems such as the spread of disinformation. That access allowed us to understand the role of tech platforms in political events. Now, it has become almost impossible for independent researchers to obtain such data.”
She continues: “I am a member of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, which brings academics together to express our shared concerns about this development, because there are significant barriers to study social media. That is why it remains essential to create stronger legislation to enforce transparency.”
