Panel B1

Title Theorizing the future of digital journalism from a justice perspective: Old and new challenges in covering climate migration

Presenter(s) Anna Roosvall (Stockholm University)

Abstract In an increasingly connected world, the uneven distribution of means, risk and possibilities to act in the face of it, ability to utilize rights, as well as of being seen and heard in public space, will grow increasingly conspicuous. When digital news media discursively connect geographical places, this highlights the disconnections certain social groups and parts of the world experience in relation to political and communicational power nodes and networks, as the size of a public who is potentially available to hear, but still does not, increases (Silverstone, 2007).

The need to improve methods and conditions of debate and discussion is hardly unique to the digital era. Dewey deemed it “the problem of the public” in 1927. Thus, pondering its current and future digital appearance may help tackle not only new but also historical challenges concerning power, injustice and communication.

This paper takes the various potentials for dialogicity in digital journalism as a starting point for a discussion of how the democratic relevance of mediated communication in a global context can be addressed by retheorizing journalism from a perspective of justice, rights and responsibility (Brun Jensen, 2020; Fraser, 2008, 2014; Peters 1999; Roosvall & Tegelberg, 2018, 2020; Roosvall, 2014; Young, 2013). This is illustrated by examples of digital reporting on climate migration, a phenomenon challenging traditional conceptions of rights, migration geography and by extension media geography, as climate refugees are not fully included in the UN refugee convention and coincidentally appear intra- as well as inter-nationally. This constitutes old challenges of voice, framing and mode of address, as well as new challenges of facing a changing world that is both already subject to mediated reconceptualization in relation to migration (see Krzyzanowski, 2016) and at the same time in need of further re-/de-conceptualization with a view to geographical justice scales.

Presenter(s) Urbano Reviglio, Alessandro Gandini, Silvia Keeling & Alessandro Gerosa (University of Milan)

Abstract Over the last decade, social media platforms have significantly re-mediated the processes of public opinion formation across the Western world. This has taken place almost unbeknownst to the public until the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which has belatedly put on display (some of) the risks associated with this shift. Yet, a largely hands-off approach by international legislators persists, and little has been done in practice to effectively come to terms with the societal challenge this entails. In particular, the role algorithmic infrastructures play in the organization, circulation and reception of informational content has remained largely unaccounted for, and economic logics of profitability are prioritized over the health of public debate (Bucher, 2018). Furthermore, mainly due to the lack of access to data, academia and policy-makers have often struggled with conflicting, insufficient evidence as well as hyped and poorly defined concepts such as algorithms, fake news and filter bubbles. In this article we conceptualize the notion of the ‘algorithmic public opinion’ from a perspective that blends public opinion latest research and digital socio-legal studies. We question the challenges that an algorithmic public opinion entails and propose two levels of combined policy action: an economic one, based on the dismantling of the ‘behavioural surplus’ at the heart of the surveillance capitalism model (Zuboff, 2019), and a socio-technical one, that promotes algorithmic accountability, awareness and control by the general public according to principles of ‘data justice’ (Dencik et al., 2019) and pro-ethical and user-centered design (Floridi, 2016). In so doing, we shed light on policy and academic misconceptions and lay the foundations for an innovative and actionable policy framework able to reappraise the societal challenge of the ‘algorithmic public opinion’.

References

Bucher, T. (2018). If... then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dencik, L., Hintz, A., Redden, J., & Trere, E. (2019). Exploring data justice: conceptions, applications and directions. Information, Communication and Society, 22(7), 873-881. Floridi, L. (2016). Tolerant paternalism: Pro-ethical design as a resolution of the dilemma of toleration. Science and engineering ethics, 22(6), 1669-1688. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Profile books.

Title Infrastructuring Data Publics: A Case Study of Open Source Computational Programming Notebooks in Environmental Data Justice

Presenter(s) Alejandro Alvarado Rojas (University of Southern California)

Abstract Data is central for civic engagement. Among the vast data infrastructures that underpin civic participation, citizen-generating data initiatives increasingly proliferate to address public concerns (Milan, 2019; Balestrini et al., 2021). Emerging modes of civic participation complicate the formation of publics where the datafied and algorithmic reconfiguration of the political will of citizens surface issues about recognition – the critical ways in which data effects real consequences (Møller et al., 2021; Mortenbock & Moonshammer, 2020). In the context of environmental justice, the rise of open source computational notebooks as data infrastructures presents experimental forms of recognition by interfacing data relations to shape narratives and actions from data (Leon, 2021). Drawing from Marres’ (2012) material publics and LeDantec and DiSalvo’s (2013) concept of infrastructuring, I examine the sociotechnical processes that condition the formation of data publics around issues of recognition in environmental data justice. Particularly, the proposed case study attends to infrastructuring of open source computational notebooks created by the Environmental Enforcement Watch team (EEW) – an environmental data justice working group under the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) tasked with monitoring and reporting environmental data from U.S. government agencies. Through a multi-sited technography rooted in a participatory orientation, I engage in virtual participant observation, informal interviews, and close readings of organizational contents. Specifically, I trace the technical documentation, stories of users and designers of the notebooks, and histories of the datasets sourced to outline the infrastructuring dynamics of the notebook technology. Preliminary findings illustrate how infrastructuring informs representations and materializations of data publics through computational civic collaboration. In sum, this project demonstrates how infrastructuring data publics underscore the relationality of data and political intentions through the discovery and articulation of data issues in environmental data justice.

Title Platform dependency, opinion power and media concentration: How opinion power is shifting and why we need to rethink media concentration law

Presenter(s) Theresa Josephine Seipp (University of Amsterdam)

Abstract The increasing digitalisation and platformisation of the news media triggers an ‘opinion power’ shift, as the influence over individual and public opinion formation is progressively moving from legacy media to digital platforms. In our research, we identify three platform dynamics that are facilitating these changes: (1) the expanding algorithmic control and the steering of access to information; (2) the ability to access user data and communication contents; and (3) the control over communication and information infrastructures. Accordingly, we observe that the power of platforms now goes far beyond mere economic and data power. Instead, it extends to opinion and political power, affecting the entire media ecosystem, the public sphere, and democracy. The way how news media and publishers are dependent on digital platforms for news content distribution and for reaching audiences -as well as for economic and technological investment- is what we call ‘structural dependency’. This may provoke some of the growing media concentration trends that we are observing, which is significant because the changing media landscape increasingly challenges the survival of independent and local journalism, which, however, is crucial to ensure media pluralism. From a normative perspective, opinion power must be dispersed to provide for pluralism, equality and a public sphere that facilitates free, open and independent public opinion formation, unaffected by predominant opinion power. Hence, it is critical to comprehend how the media ecosystem is changing to develop a better understanding of how to build the frameworks necessary to facilitate a pluralistic media landscape. Regulatory instruments should aim to limit platform power over data, algorithms, and digital technologies, reduce structural dependencies and control over the relationship with the audience, counterbalance disproportionate negotiation power, and review terms of use licensing agreements. In other words, as the nature of opinion power is changing, so must the tools to control it.

References

Baker, C. Edwin. 2007. “Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters” New York: Cambridge University Press. Dachwitz, Ingo. Fanta, Alexander. 2020 “Google the Media Patron”. Otto-Brenner- Stiftung (OBS) Diakopoulos, Nick. (2019) Automating the News: How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Media. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Helberger, Natali. 2018. “Challenging Diversity - Social Media Platforms and a New Conception of Media Diversity”. In Moore, Martin & Tambini, Damian (Eds.), Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (pp. 153-175). Oxford University Press. Helberger, Natali. 2019. “On the Democratic Role of News Recommenders.” Digital Journalism 7(8): 993 - 1012. Helberger, Natali. 2020. “The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power.” Digital Journalism 8(6): 842–854. Karppinen, Kari. 2013. “Rethinking Media Pluralism.” 1st ed. New York: Fordham University Press. Lynskey, Orla. 2017. “Regulating ‘Platform Power’.” London: LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 1/2017. Moore, Martin. 2016. “Tech Giants and Civic Power.” London: Centre for the study of Media, Communication & Power, King’s College.