Interested in Diversity

REFERENCES

• Bakshy, Eytan, Solomon Messing, and Lada A. Adamic. 2015. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook.” Science 348 (6239): 1130–1132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, Pablo, John T. Jost, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A. Tucker, and Richard Bonneau. 2015. “Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?” Psychological Science 26 (10): 1531–1542. doi: 10.1177/0956797615594620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BBC. 2015. The Future of News. London: BBC.
   Google Scholar
• BBC. 2017. BBC Annual Plan for 2017/18. London: BBC.
   Google Scholar
• Bobok, Dalibor. 2016. “Selective Exposure, Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers on Facebook.” Master thesis, Central European University.
   Google Scholar
• Boczkowski, Pablo J., and Eugenia Mitchelstein. 2013. The News Gap: When the Information Preferences of the Media and the Public Diverge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bodó, Balázs, 2018. “Means, Not an End (of the World) – The Customization of News Personalization by European News Media”. Prepared for the Algorithms, Automation, and News Conference, Munich, 22-23 May 2018; Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2018-09; Institute for Information Law Research Paper No. 2018-01. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3141810 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3141810
   Google Scholar
• Borgesius, Frederik, Damian Trilling, Judith Möller, Balázs Bodó, Claes H. de Vreese, and Natali Helberger. 2016. “Should We Worry about Filter Bubbles? An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Self-Selected and Pre-Selected Personalised Communication.” Internet Policy Review 5 (1).
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, Dana. 2015. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bozdag, Engin V. 2015. “Bursting the Filter Bubble: Democracy, Design, and Ethics.” PhD diss., Delft University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, Manuel. 2008. “The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1): 78–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, Stephen. 2017. “Journalism and the Public-Service Model: In Search of an Ideal.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication, edited by Kate Kenske and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe, Recommendation No R(99)1 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Measures to Promote Media Pluralism (Strasbourg, 1999).
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership (Strasbourg, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Craufurd, Rachel and Tambini Damian. 2012. “Measuring Media Plurality in the United Kingdom: Policy Choices and Regulatory Challenges”. Journal of Media Law, 4 (1): 35–63.
   Google Scholar
• Csigó, Péter. 2016. The Neopopular Bubble. Budapest: CEU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dilliplane, Susanna. 2011. All the News You Want To Hear: The Impact of Partisan News Exposure on Political Participation. Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (2): 287–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donders, Karen and Ben Van Rompuy. 2012. “Competition Law, Sports, and Public Service Broadcasting: The Legal Complexity and Political Sensitivity of Measuring Market Distortion and Public Value”. Journal of Media Law 4 (2): 213–228.
   Google Scholar
• Duggan, Maeve, and Aaron Smith. 2016. “The Political Environment on Social Media.” October 25. www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/the-political-environment-on-social-media/
   Google Scholar
• Dutton, William H, Bianca C. Reisdorf, Elizabeth Dubois, and Grant Blank. 2017. “Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States”. Michigan: Michigan State University.
   Google Scholar
• EBU. 2016. Connecting to a Networked Society. Geneva: European Broadcasting Union.
   Google Scholar
• Eskens, Sarah, Natali Helberger, and Judith Moeller. 2017. “Challenged by News Personalisation: Five Perspectives on the Right to Receive Information.” Journal of Media Law 9 (2): 259–284. doi: 10.1080/17577632.2017.1387353
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-Conill, Raul, and Edson C. Tandoc Jr. 2018. “The Audience-Oriented Editor: Making sense of the Audience in the Newsroom.” Digital Journalism 6 (4): 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flaxman, Seth R, and Justin M. Rao. 2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (S1): 298–320. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfw006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, Richard, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2017. “Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis.” New Media & Society 20 (7): 2450–2468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, Batya, and Helen Nissenbaum. 1997. “Software Agents and User Autonomy.” In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents - AGENTS ’97, New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, 466–469.
   Google Scholar
• Gauch, Susan, Mirco Speretta, Aravind Chandramouli, and Alessandro Micarelli. 2007. “User Profiles for Personalized Information Access.” In The Adaptive Web: Methods and Strategies of Web Personalization, edited by Peter Brusilovsky, Alfred Kobsa, and Wolfgang Nejdl, 54–89. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. Kelly. 2013. “Selective Exposure: New Methods and New Directions.” Communication Methods and Measures 7 (3–4): 247–256. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2013.835796.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Haim, Mario, Andreas Graefe, and Hans-Bernd Brosius. 2017. “Burst of the Filter Bubble? Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News.” Digital Journalism 6 (3): 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, William, Dolores Albarracín, Alice H. Eagly, Inge Brechan, Matthew J. Lindberg, and Lisa Merrill. 2009. “Feeling Validated versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin 135 (4): 555–588. doi: 10.1037/a0015701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helberger, Natali. 2012. “Exposure Diversity as a Policy Goal.” Journal of Media Law 4: 65–92.
   Google Scholar
• Helberger, Natali. 2015. “Public Service Media: Merely Facilitating or Actively Stimulating Diverse Media Choices? Public Service Media at the Crossroad.” International Journal of Communication 9: 17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helberger, Natali. 2016. “Policy implications from algorithmic profiling and the changing relationship between newsreaders and the media.” Javnost, 23 (2): 188–203. doi: 10.1080/13183222.2016.1162989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helberger, Natali and Magdalena Wojcieszak. 2018. “Exposure Diversity: Contemporary Challenges and Research Opportunities”. In: Mediated Communication, a Volume of the Handbooks of Communication Science, edited by Napoli Philip. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Hindman, Matthew. 2017. “Journalism Ethics and Digital Audience Data.” In Remaking the News: Essays on the Future of Journalism Scholarship in the Digital Age, edited by Pablo J. Boczkowski and C. W. Anderson, 177–195. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• High Level Group on fake news and online disinformation. 2018. “A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Disinformation – Report of the Independent High Level Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation.” Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Huckfeldt, Robert, Paul E. Johnson and John Sprague. 2002. Political environments, political dynamics, and the survival of disagreement. The Journal of Politics 64 (1): 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, Shanto, and Sean J. Westwood. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690–707. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jannach, Dietmar, Markus Zanker, Alexander Felfernig, and Gerhard Friedrich. 2010. Recommender Systems: An Introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, and Steven B. Kleinman. 2012. “Preelection Selective Exposure: Confirmation Bias Versus Informational Utility.” COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 39 (2): 170–193. doi: 10.1177/0093650211400597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koene, Ansgar, Elvira Perez, Christopher James Carter, Ramona Statache, Svenja Adolphs, Claire O’Malley, Tom Rodden, and Derek McAuley. “Ethics of Personalized Information Filtering.” In Proceedings of International Conference on Internet Science, pp. 123–132. Springer, Cham, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, K. Hazel, Shin-Il Moon and Michael A. Stefanone. 2015. “Unspeaking on Facebook? Testing network effects on self-censorship of political expressions in social network sites.” Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology 49 (4): 1417–1435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakubowicz, Karol. 2007. “Public Service Broadcasting in the 21st Century.What Chance for a New Beginning?”. In: From Public Broadcasting Service to Public Service Media, edited by Lowe, Gregory Ferrell and Bardoel, Jo. Nordicom, Götemborg: 19–50.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Francis L. F. 2016. “Impact of Social Media on Opinion Polarization in Varying Times.” Communication and the Public 1 (1): 56–71. doi: 10.1177/2057047315617763.
   Google Scholar
• Linzer, Drew A, and Jeffrey Lewis. 2016. “poLCA: Polytomous Variable Latent Class Analysis.” R package version 1.4. http://dlinzer.github.com/poLCA
   Google Scholar
• Livingstone, Sonia. 2009. Children and the Internet: Great Expectations, Challenging Realities. Oxford: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mancini, Paolo. 2013. “Media Fragmentation, Party System, and Democracy.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 18 (1): 43–60. doi: 10.1177/1940161212458200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, Aleecia M., and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2010. “Americans’ Attitudes about Internet Behavioral Advertising Practices.” In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, 63–72. ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Messing, Solomon, and Sean J. Westwood. 2014. “Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online.” Communication Research 41 (8): 1042–1063. doi: 10.1177/0093650212466406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munson, Sean A., and Paul Resnick. 2010. “Presenting Diverse Political Opinions: How and How Much.” Proc. CHI 2010, 1457–1466. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753543.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, Diana C. 2002. “Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory In Practice.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 111–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Napoli, Philip M. 2011. “Exposure Diversity Reconsidered.” Journal of Information Policy 1. 2011: 246–259. doi: 10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0246.
   Google Scholar
• Negroponte, Nicholas. 1995. Being Digital. 1st ed. New York: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Neuberger, Christoph, and Frank Lobigs. 2010. Die Bedeutung des Internets im Rahmen der Vielfaltssicherung. Berlin: Vistas.
   Google Scholar
• New York Times. 2014. New York Times: Innovation. New York: The New York Times.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, Nic, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, David A. L. Levy, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2017. “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017”. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Oxford: University of Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, Nic, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, David A. L. Levy, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2018. “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018”. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Oxford: University of Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hara, Kieron, and David Stevens. 2015. “Echo Chambers and Online Radicalism: Assessing the Internet’s Complicity in Violent Extremism.” Policy and Internet 7 (4): 401–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohlheiser, Abby. 2016. “This Is How Facebook’s Fake-News Writers Make Money – The Washington Post.” The Washington Post, November 18. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/18/this-is-how-the-internets-fake-news-writers-make-money/?utm_term=.9870b80b0a8c.
   Google Scholar
• Oulasvirta, Antti, and Jan Blom. 2007. “Motivations in Personalisation Behaviour.” Interacting with Computers 20 (1): 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paapst, Mathieu H, and Trix Mulder. 2017. Media Pluralism Monitor 2016. Monitoring Risks for Media Pluralism in the EU and Beyond - Country Report: Netherlands. Florence: Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom.
   Google Scholar
• Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. UK: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Powers, Elia. 2018. “Selecting Metrics, Reflecting Norms: How Journalists in Local Newsrooms Define, Measure, and Discuss Impact.” Digital Journalism 6 (4): 454–471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prensky, Marc. 2001. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1.” On the Horizon 9 (5): 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Price, Vincent, Joseph N. Cappella, and Lilach Nir. 2002. “Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?” Political Communication 19 (1): 95–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quattrociocchi, Walter, Antonio Scala, and Cass R. Sunstein. 2016. “Echo Chambers on Facebook.” Available at SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795110
   Google Scholar
• Roessler, Beate. 2005. The Value of Privacy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schönbach, Klaus. 2007. “‘The Own in the Foreign’: Reliable Surprise—An Important Function of the Media?” Media, Culture and Society 29 (2): 344–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sears, David O., and Jonathan L. Freedman. 1967. “Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review.” Public Opinion Quarterly 31 (2): 194–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen, Jannick Kirk. 2013. “PSB Goes Personal: The Failure of Personalised PSB Web Pages.” MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research 29 (55): 43–71.
   Google Scholar
• Splichal, Slavko. 2017. “Does History Matter? Grasping the Idea of Public Service Media at Its Roots”. In: From Public Broadcasting Service to Public Service Media, edited by Gregory Ferrell Lowe and Jo Bardoel, 237–256. Göteborg: Nordicom.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. “The Law of Group Polarization.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2): 175–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, Cass R. 2009. Republic. Com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tambini Damian, 2017. “How Advertising Fuels Fake News” Media Policy Project, February 24. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2017/02/24/how-advertising-fuels-fake-news/
   Google Scholar
• Tandoc Jr, Edson C., and Ryan J. Thomas. 2015. “The Ethics of Web Analytics: Implications of Using Audience Metrics in News Construction.” Digital Journalism 3 (2): 243–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurman, Neil, Judith Möller, Damian Trilling, and Natali Helberger. 2018. My Friends, Editors, Algorithms, and I: A Multi-level Analysis of Audience Attitudes to News Selection, 68th ICA Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 24–28 May 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Trefis Team. 2016. “How Big is The Fake News Problem for Facebook?” Forbes December 21. https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/12/21/how-big-is-the-fake-news-problem-for-facebook/#157167c95bd1.
   Google Scholar
• Turow, Joseph, Jennifer King, Chris Jay Hoofnagle, Amy Bleakley, and Michael Hennessy. 2009. “Americans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activities that Enable it.” Available at SSRN. http://ssrn.com/paper=1478214
   Google Scholar
• Valentino, Nicholas A., Antoine J. Banks, Vincent L. Hutchings, and Anne K. Davis. 2009. “Selective Exposure in the Internet Age: The Interaction between Anxiety and Information Utility.” Political Psychology 30 (4): 591–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Bulck, Hilde, and Hallvard Moe. 2017. “Public Service Media, Universality and Personalisation through Algorithms: Mapping Strategies and Exploring Dilemmas.” Media, Culture and Society 40 (6): 875–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Sloot, Bart. 2018. “Decisional privacy 2.0: the procedural requirements implicit in Article 8 ECHR and its potential impact on profiling.” International Data Privacy Law 7 (3): 190–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vīķe‐Freiberga, Vaira, Herta Däubler‐Gmelin, Ben Hammersley, and Luís Miguel Poiares Pessoa Maduro. 2013. “A Free and Pluralistic Media to Sustain European Democracy”, Report of the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Viner, Katherine. 2017. “A mission for journalism in a time of crisis.” The Guardian, November 16. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/16/a-mission-for-journalism-in-a-time-of-crisis.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, James G. 2010. “User Information Regimes: How Social Media Shape Patterns of Consumption.” Northwestern University Law Review 104 (2): 593–612.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, Magdalena. 2010. ‘Don’t Talk to Me’: Effects of Ideologically Homogeneous Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties on Extremism.” New Media and Society 12 (4): 637–655.
   Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, Magdalena. 2011. “Deliberation and attitude polarization.” Journal of Communication 61: 596–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, Magdalena, and Hernando Rojas. 2011. “Hostile public effect: Communication diversity and the projection of personal opinions onto others.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 55 (4): 543–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung, Karen. 2017. “‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a Mode of Regulation by Design.” Information Communication and Society 20 (1): 118–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar