Module POL2087 for 2018/9
- Overview
- Aims and Learning Outcomes
- Module Content
- Indicative Reading List
- Assessment
Undergraduate Module Descriptor
POL2087: Digital Media and Politics
This module descriptor refers to the 2018/9 academic year.
Indicative Reading List
This reading list is indicative - i.e. it provides an idea of texts that may be useful to you on this module, but it is not considered to be a confirmed or compulsory reading list for this module.
Munger, K. (2017). Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior, 39(3), 629-649.
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016). A bad workman blames his tweets: the consequences of citizens' uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of communication, 66(6), 1007-1031.
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, online first.
Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172-1190.
Freelon, D., & Karpf, D. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390-406.
Milner, R. M. (2013). Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. International Journal of Communication, 7, 34.
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Forthcoming in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign.
Ercan, S. E., Hendriks, C. M., & Dryzek, J. (2018). Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty. Policy & Politics.
Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2017). I do not believe you: how providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 1-17.
Shah, D. V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E. P., Lassen, D. S., Van Thomme, J., Bialik, K., ... & Pevehouse, J. C. (2016). Dual screening during presidential debates: Political nonverbals and the volume and valence of online expression. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(14), 1816-1843.
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 US presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35(2), 155-177.
Maireder, A., & Schlögl, S. (2014). 24 hours of an# outcry: The networked publics of a socio-political debate. European Journal of Communication, 29(6), 687-702.
Highfield, T., & Bruns, A. (2015). Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere. In The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 78-95). Routledge.
