Search

The wars of the 21st century are not the first media wars, and many tropes and schema have long histories, particularly propaganda and the othering of a purported enemy. What is new today is that although mass media remains a central and hegemonic source of insight and perspective, citizen journalism, social media, spreadable media, and surveillant, data-driven media have grown in significance at an exponential level, adding a layer of complexity. In this article, we focus on disparity in media coverage and make the point that media and information literacy provide a valuable set of lenses from which to view a cluster of news and social media accounts taken from the government, mainstream media, alternative media, and the DIY mediasphere of the social media. It centers on two conflicts that receive little media exposure-the Nagorno-Karabash conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the internal Anglo-Francophone conflict in Cameroon. It also offers examples of classroom activities that could be adapted and modified to most educational settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known presently about how, why, and with what consequences audiences comment on their news in contemporary authoritarian regimes. In order to address this gap, this study leverages recent theorizing about the multiple public sphere under non-democratic rule. Accordingly, critically commenting publics are theorized as "input institutions" that not only create risks but also offer important benefits for autocrats. Grounded in this approach, the study develops a series of hypotheses about the extent of political criticism that should be visible beneath the news in three purposefully selected authoritarian contexts: Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkmenistan. In order to test these hypotheses, commenting environments facilitated (or not) by 46 leading news organizations on seven platforms were considered (N=322). For each environment, coders established whether comments were published that were (1) critical of the autocrat himself, (2) critical only of lower-level policies or officials of the regime, or (3) entirely uncritical. As the findings show, the extent of readers' criticism differed systematically between the three contexts, broadly following the patterns hypothesized. Moreover, in line with this study's key assumptions, critically commenting publics were facilitated not only by opposition media but also by substantial numbers of state-controlled news organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]