How has the power of the Media affected the Quality of

Democracy?

Essay

Name

Student ID
1

When it comes to the day-to-day coverage of what's happening in the nation or the

globe, the public does look to the media for guidance. With this power comes the

responsibility to decide what information the public receives from the media. The media has

an enormous impact on people's attitudes and behaviours about democracy; hence the quality

of democracy and media can be said to have a strong relationship. The media has always

been a powerful influence within these societies as the people’s knowledge depends on how

the media gathers, constructs and then disseminates this information to them (Lisle, 2009, pg.

154).

Contemporary media uses technology to distribute this information to democratic

societies utilising tools such as social media that can impact the quality of democracies. The

freedom of gathering knowledge by interacting online through technology (Ellison & Hardey,

2014, pg. 26) and increased expression and participation (Homero et al., 2018, pg. 1173) have

impacted democratic quality positively. Nevertheless, the negative impacts on democratic

quality through media far outweigh the positives through political polarisation,

misinformation in democratic societies, and the digital oppression of journalism. In this

essay, I will focus on social media and argue that it has both positive and negative influences

on the quality of democracy.

Previously, democracy was measured through performance and sustainability (Geissel

et al., 2016, pg. 575). Sociologists, democracy experts, and several other organisations have

all been on a quest for better ways to define and measure democracy in recent times.

Democratic quality can be seen as democratic governments restructuring to address their own

growing issues of public discontent. According to Caramani (2020) pg. 104, media is

connected to democratic quality as it can be used by authoritarian governments to spread

propaganda to shape public views, which is in direct contrast to democracy. In actuality,

numerous democracies share these patterns, including a continuous decrease in the public's
2

trust in political and legislative organisations, an increasing disconnection of citizens from

political groups in specific, and a common belief that representative democratic politicians

and governments are progressively crooked, and unreceptive to the public. President

Netanyahu also uses Twitter to amass his followers in rallies and posts these on Twitter to

increase support by conveying his own ideas to the public (Taras & Davis, 2022, pg. 249).

Hence, we can say that democracy is a social ideal, a preferred political structure in which

many values, such as social equality, liberty, equality, and mutual respect, are prioritised.

(Caramani, 2020, pg. 87).

Media can be considered to be both traditional or digital communication channels in

the context of democratic quality and is moulded by the established social and economic

objectives of modern societies (Loader & Mercea, 2011, pg. 758). Nevertheless, when it

comes to the relationship between democratic quality and media, democratic quality can be

defined as a comparison of the inner workings of a democratic system with an ideal standard

of democracy. Hence, it is an effort to broaden the meaning of democracy beyond its

electoral-centric definition (Munck, 2016, pg. 1) to see the extent of media impacts on

democracy. In today’s era, democracy is measured through the extent of freedom of

expression and participation of the people within different areas of politics (Homero et al.,

2018, pg. 1174).

As the digital era progresses, it impacts democratic quality, where social media plays

an important role. Social media is a collection of digital communication channels that provide

input, can interact with the audience, and promote facts and opinions regarding democracy,

such as collective actions within the system (Wolfsfeld et al., 2013, pg. 115). Social media

sites, which allow users to communicate with others all over the globe for no cost, have

paved the way for an exciting new era in digital communication by bringing people together
3

and serving as a powerful equaliser of ideas and opinions. As seen from the figure below,

more people keep joining these platforms.

Fig 1. Increase in Global Social Media Users (Source: Oberlo:Guabys)

All of these can be considered to increase the quality of democracy in recent times,

where people can be at home and vote (Loader & Mercea, 2011, pg. 751). As social media

joins millions and millions of people together, the opinions of even normal people start to

matter. Individuals are more likely to share their opinions on networks with greater diversity

showing more political expression through social media (Barnidge, 2018, pg. 8-9). Arab

nations like Egypt and Tunisia saw civil strife because of long-simmering resentment, an

emotive trigger, a feeling of impunity, and the availability of new forms of social media

where they could raise their concerns (Wolfsfeld et al., 2013, pg. 118). Another example is

the Public Electronic Network that was opened in the US through which citizens could

actively participate in political decision-making (Ellison & Hardey, 2014, pg. 25). With more

opinions, democratic nations can assess the majority’s perspective and ensure that these

individuals' voices are heard. This can aid in creating rules and policies geared towards these

individuals, which would, in turn, enhance the democratic quality of that nation.
4

Secondly, digital media usage has been positively linked to increased political

participation (Homero et al., 2018, pg. 1174), which is also a factor in increasing democratic

quality. Many people today rely on social media to keep up with political news and

developments. Online political involvement is crucial to political influence. There is currently

a substantial future possibility for the improvement of online participation, thanks to the

incredible expansion of internet use and the changing behaviours of use, especially social

networking (Ellison & Hardey, 2014, pg. 21). In addition, the internet provides a key venue

for citizens to engage in political actions via social media. Social media is the engine that

drives contemporary political mobilisation, from Black Lives Matter to nationwide and

global political campaigns (Dunivin, 2022, pg. 2). Media is a strong watchdog in democracies

which can increase its quality and in countries such as Japan, where many believe the media

has too many ties to the ruling party, it is at an all-time low (Caramani, 2020). Through these

practices of wide political participation, democratic quality can increase and be enhanced.

Last but not least, subfactors such as the empowerment of the people can greatly

impact democratic quality. Evidence can be the different movements that have been present

throughout the world. For instance, when it came to empowerment, mobilisation,

organisation, engagement, and protest, social media networks were invaluable tools for civil

society groups helping in the Catalan Movement (Anderson, 2019). Within social media, the

platforms embrace a public persona as staunch supporters of free speech, giving a voice to the

voiceless by providing them with a worldwide megaphone. The Arab Spring proved without

a reasonable doubt that the Internet was used by the Arab nations for uprisings (Wolfsfeld,

2013, pg. 115) and to bring down oppressive governments. This allows individuals to activate

and act as catalysts of collective action, enhancing democratic quality. When integrated into

social movements, collective action can play an important part in disseminating people’s

voices at a decreased cost and ensuring that the voices have democratic potential (Ellison &
5

Hardey, 2014, pg. 26). An easy way to measure a democracy’s quality would be to analyse

the ways in which democracy would be able to neutralise a collective action problem or

issues of the people. For instance, a country that has a high democratic quality would listen to

the people’s problems before a need for collective action is considered by the public.

Apart from the several advantages social media brings to the table that can positively

impact democratic quality, the disadvantages far outweigh the latter. Firstly, one of the social

media's biggest problems is the spread of misinformation which is a concern for democratic

societies (Dan, 2021, pg. 641). The exploitation of social media has gone viral, with some

users using the sites to incite violence, sow discord in politics, and propagate false

information. For instance, most Americans (68%) agree that misinformation may damage

confidence in the government (Gaultney et al., 2022, pg. 60). Below is a statistic from 2017

through 2020, the estimated number of nations whose citizens were exposed to politically

motivated propaganda and misinformation via social media.

Figure 2: Number of Countries involved in propaganda and misinformation (Source: Statista:Dixon)

Furthermore, during the 2018 midterm elections in the US, 767 political candidates

from the two main parties seeking Congress seats disseminated over 75% of tweets
6

including opinion pieces to legitimate and market their own agendas (Taras & Davis, 2022,

pg. 13). This misinformation is spreading to social media advancements such as the

Metaverses, which is the next iteration of the internet where people can communicate and

access information. This has many implications, one of which is that users may begin to

adopt behaviours depending on the sphere of influence exerted by the Metaverse and the

agenda-driven establishment media, both of which are prone to spreading false information

and causing mass delusion (Bibri, 2022, pg. 857) sometimes through brown journalism where

negative stories are avoided (Taras & Davis, 2022). Leaders can also use this tactic to achieve

their own agendas. Leaders who want to solve their problems might take away the public’s

attention from something through the use of foreign force (Barbera et al., 2022, pg. 4). This

force, hence, undermines the democratic quality.

Social media, which connects people with similar opinions, has received much

attention lately because of the concern that it may be a factor in the growing polarisation of

online viewpoints. The ideological dispersion of such channels is a possible contributor to the

polarisation of public opinion since it gives viewers an "echo chamber" for their opinions

where only partial understandings are reinforced (Rosa, 2022, pg. 25). An example can be a

study done on 50000 Americans that showed growing hostility between internet users who

held different political views (Rosa, 2022, pg. 25). Political polarisation by public

manipulation through social media in the Trump elections (Gaultney et al., 2022, pg. 67). A

nationwide poll in China between 2007 and 2014 revealed that the country's population is

also politically polarized, with strong divisions between nationalists and liberals (Zhu, 2019,

pg. 69). This polarisation can deal an extreme negative blow to the integrity of a democracy

where a single group must not take command. An example is how this partisan happened

during Brexit where Eurosceptic and pro-European activity during Brexit was influenced by

Twitter (Hanska & Bauchowitz, 2017, pg. 29). Studies have shown that those with more
7

extreme partisan views are more likely to assume that those of other political backgrounds are

less able to spot false news (Gaultney, 2022, pg. 60). Therefore, it becomes necessary to

ensure that this polarization does not hamper the democratic quality of a nation because there

are a number of ways in which the consequent polarisation of public opinion might

undermine the legitimacy of political decisions and, in turn, the democratic quality.

Free speech is considered to be another pillar of democracy that social media

platforms can hinder by undermining conventional journalism. Current trends in journalism

have generated an atmosphere of crisis that may make a nation's democratic institutions shake

with terror. There have been both positive and negative effects of the changes to journalism,

which has long served as the backbone of the information economy but has hit a wall due to

the rise of social media (Mosco, 2018, pg. 182). The destructive effects on individuals'

relationships with their social networks are reflected in the quality of such relationships.

Unfortunately, the general public needs help to tell the difference between phoney and

authentic news. To trust social media above actual journalism leads to prejudice. In addition,

the media industry as a whole has been taking a beating recently. Thousands have reduced

reporting positions at major media sites. When companies like Google and Facebook entered

the market, they completely shattered the business paradigm that had provided stability and

primary financing for media (Mosco, 2018, pg. 181).

To measure the quality of democracy, both the negative and positive aspects of social

media need to be considered; however, the negative factors need more understanding and

solutions. The ability to seek information and expand avenues of speech and participation has

had a salutary effect on the quality of democracy. Nevertheless, the negative aspects that may

affect the quality of democracy, including political polarisation, disinformation, and the

digital suppression of media, hinder democracy quality and must be reflected upon.

Policymakers must create a public participation enrollment website that is open enough to
8

incorporate a broad spectrum of public opinion whilst also being protected from the desires of

nationalist and extremist views if social media sites that collect, analyse, and combine the

perspectives of citizens are methodically biassed towards philosophically controversial views.

References

Anderson, P. (2019). ‘independence 2.0’: Digital Activism, social media and the Catalan

independence movement. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies,

11(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs_00003_1

Barberá, P., Gohdes, A. R., Iakhnis, E., & Zeitzoff, T. (2022). Distract and divert: How world

leaders use social media during contentious politics. The International Journal of

Press/Politics, 194016122211020. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221102030

Barnidge, M. (2018). Social affect and political disagreement on social media. Social Media

+ Society, 4(3), 205630511879772. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118797721

Bibri, S. E. (2022). The social shaping of the metaverse as an alternative to the imaginaries of

data-driven Smart Cities: A Study in Science, technology, and Society. Smart Cities,

5(3), 832–874. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities5030043

Caramani, D. (2020). Comparative politics. Oxford University Press.

Dan, V., Paris, B., Donovan, J., Hameleers, M., Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., & von

Sikorski, C. (2021). Visual mis- and disinformation, social media, and democracy.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(3), 641–664.

https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990211035395

Dixon. (2022, April 28). Countries using organized social media manipulation campaigns

2020. Statista. Retrieved December 31, 2022, from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1023881/organized-social-media-manipulation-

campaigns-worldwide/
10

Dunivin, Z. O., Yan, H. Y., Ince, J., & Rojas, F. (2022). Black lives matter protests shift

public discourse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(10).

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117320119

Ellison, N., & Hardey, M. (2013). Social Media and Local Government: Citizenship,

consumption and democracy. Local Government Studies, 40(1), 21–40.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.799066

Gaultney, I. B., Sherron, T., & Boden, C. (2022). Political polarization, misinformation, and

Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 14(1), 59–81.

https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-2022-14-1-5

Gaubys, J. (2022). How many people use Social Media in 2022? [updated Sep 2022]. Oberlo.

Retrieved December 31, 2022, from https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/how-many-

people-use-social-media

Geissel, B., Kneuer, M., & Lauth, H.-J. (2016). Measuring the quality of democracy:

Introduction. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 571–579.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116669141

Hanska, M., & Bauchowitz, S. (2017). Tweeting for Brexit: How social media influenced the

referendum. Retrieved December 25, 2022, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320357979_Tweeting_for_Brexit_how_social

_media_influenced_the_referendum

Homero, G., Huber, B., & Straub, N. (2018). Social Media and Democracy. Journal of

Communication, 2(1).
11

Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Information, Communication

& Society, 14(6), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2011.592648

Mosco, V. (2018). Social media versus journalism and democracy. Journalism, 20(1), 181–

184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918807611

Munck, G. L. (2016). What is democracy? A reconceptualization of the quality of democracy.

SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2299128

Rosa, H. (2022). Social media filters and resonances: Democracy and the Contemporary

Public Sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 17–35.

https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221103520

Taras, D., & Davis, R. (2022). Electoral campaigns, media, and the New World of Digital

Politics. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.12013603

Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Social Media and the arab spring. The

International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 115–137.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212471716

Zhu, G. (2019) Polarized China: The Effect of Media Censorship on People's Ideology," Res

Publica - Journal of Undergraduate Research, 24(1).