FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2340577334> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2340577334 endingPage "58" @default.
• W2340577334 startingPage "33" @default.
• W2340577334 abstract "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and some data provided by news publishers along with re-analysis of regulatory data from Ofcom and previously unpublished data from the BBC and SimilarWeb.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." @default.
• W2340577334 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2340577334 creator A5012419998 @default.
• W2340577334 creator A5052347848 @default.
• W2340577334 date "2016-06-13" @default.
• W2340577334 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2340577334 title "Digital intermediaries in the UK: implications for news plurality" @default.
• W2340577334 cites W135209544 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W1523360751 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W1544381190 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W1686065478 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W1852317517 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W1976673295 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W1980732200 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2002000693 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2071810942 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2085029770 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2093163253 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2108805652 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2109741756 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2109790075 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2140484261 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2150957645 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2157508661 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2163179583 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2316241812 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2345533619 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W2601331019 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W3123763850 @default.
• W2340577334 cites W3124858663 @default.
• W2340577334 doi "https://doi.org/10.1108/info-12-2015-0056" @default.
• W2340577334 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2340577334 type Work @default.
• W2340577334 sameAs 2340577334 @default.
• W2340577334 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W2340577334 countsByYear W23405773342016 @default.
• W2340577334 countsByYear W23405773342019 @default.
• W2340577334 countsByYear W23405773342020 @default.
• W2340577334 countsByYear W23405773342021 @default.
• W2340577334 countsByYear W23405773342022 @default.
• W2340577334 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2340577334 hasAuthorship W2340577334A5012419998 @default.
• W2340577334 hasAuthorship W2340577334A5052347848 @default.
• W2340577334 hasBestOaLocation W23405773342 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C108170787 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C112698675 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C139569457 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C17632256 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C2778689934 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C2780233690 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConcept C529147693 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C108170787 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C108827166 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C112698675 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C136764020 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C139569457 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C144024400 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C144133560 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C162853370 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C17632256 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C17744445 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C199539241 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C2778689934 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C2780233690 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C36289849 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C39549134 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C41008148 @default.
• W2340577334 hasConceptScore W2340577334C529147693 @default.
• W2340577334 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2340577334 hasLocation W23405773341 @default.
• W2340577334 hasLocation W23405773342 @default.
• W2340577334 hasOpenAccess W2340577334 @default.
• W2340577334 hasPrimaryLocation W23405773341 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W2035605580 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W2129527909 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W2340577334 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W2348763091 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W2766017839 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W2953987186 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W3124714988 @default.
• W2340577334 hasRelatedWork W4366003042 @default.
• W2340577334 hasVolume "18" @default.
• W2340577334 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2340577334 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2340577334 magId "2340577334" @default.
• W2340577334 workType "article" @default.