This document summarizes the findings of a 2003-2006 study on media consumption and public engagement. The study was replicated across Europe, the Americas, and New Zealand. It used both quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews, diaries) methods to examine how people understand and engage with public issues through their media diets. Key findings included that digital media do not replace traditional sources; social media consumption does not imply online deliberation; and communicative deliberation does not necessarily lead to political engagement. The study also found that traditional models in political science do not fully capture new forms of participation emerging online.

2. Antecedent
2003-2006 LSE study = Nick Couldry, Sonia
Livingstone & Tim Markham, MediaMediaMediaMedia ConsumptionConsumptionConsumptionConsumption
andandandand PublicPublicPublicPublic EngagementEngagementEngagementEngagement, Palgrave 2007.
Aim of the project: to explore people’s
understanding of what counted as ‘public issues’
and how their media consumption relate to such
understanding.
This ‘orientation’ was called Public Connection.

3. Actual project
Replicated by researchers in:
Europe: UK, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Belgium,
The Netherlands, Croatia, Portugal & Spain.
Americas: Canada, Mexico & Chile
Southern Pacific: New Zeland

4. Methodology
We depart from criticizing the scope of exclusive
quantitative methods for understanding the way
people use, consume, share & engage with media
contents…
In all cases, we combine quantitative (surveys)and
qualitative (in-depth interviews, diaries, blogs & FG)
methods.

5. In the qualitative phase…
FG, in-depth interviews, or diaries were used to
discuss with participants their daily media diet,
how they consume (use, share, discuss)
contents, and what they considered to be the
coverage of “public issues”…
No academic definition provided: get their own
understanding of “public issues”.

6. In the quantitative phase
We resorted to specifically designed surveys in
order to test some of the previous findings…
and, whenever possible, to generlize findings…

7. In the case of Mexico
In Mexico, we replicated the same research with a
variance :
In the UK they recruited 32 individuals from all the
country and followed their reporting through diaries for
2 months. Subjects ranging from 22 to 55 years old.
In Mexico, we recruited 67 college educated
individuals from Mexico City Metropolitan area,
between 18-35 years old. And followed them for 10
weeks.

8. Username
(Code name used along
the project to grant
anonymity)
Username
(Code name used along
the project to grant
anonymity)
Public issuePublic issue
Topics and themesTopics and themes
Politics; Society; Human
interest story; Justice;
Police-Crime; Ecology;
Health; Entertainment-
Sports; Economy-Finance;
Culture; Technology.
Politics; Society; Human
interest story; Justice;
Police-Crime; Ecology;
Health; Entertainment-
Sports; Economy-Finance;
Culture; Technology.
Kind of SourceKind of Source
Printed press; broadcast;
traditional media Web
sites; Tweeter; FB; digital
messages; digital news
sites; family; friends;
partner; workplace;
classroom; other.
Printed press; broadcast;
traditional media Web
sites; Tweeter; FB; digital
messages; digital news
sites; family; friends;
partner; workplace;
classroom; other.
Name of the media (if
applies)
Name of the media (if
applies)
Level
(local; national;
international)
Level
(local; national;
international)
Perceived tone
(negative; neutral;
positive)
Perceived tone
(negative; neutral;
positive)
The Information Registry SectionThe Information Registry SectionThe Information Registry SectionThe Information Registry Section

9. Where they could freely upload their ideas and
opinions on the news items/stories.
They could come back on the same entries as
many times as they wanted (the system
registered the times they did it), so they could
follow up their own comments, and a story in
time (so we could also register their opinions
and attitudes in time regarding an issue).
The Blog SectionThe Blog SectionThe Blog SectionThe Blog Section

10. Information Dynamic Section: Attitudes and Actions in Time
Regarding Information on Public Issues
Instruction 1:
"In order of time, tick where
appropriate: How did you
know about the public
issue?"
Instruction 1:
"In order of time, tick where
appropriate: How did you
know about the public
issue?"
BY CHANCE: I came to know; I heard; I saw; I watched; I
came across a text
BY CHANCE: I came to know; I heard; I saw; I watched; I
came across a text
BY MY OWN INITIATIVE: I read; I asked; I consultedBY MY OWN INITIATIVE: I read; I asked; I consulted
I REALLY GOT INTERESTED: I looked for; I researched; I
wanted to learn about
I REALLY GOT INTERESTED: I looked for; I researched; I
wanted to learn about
Instruction 2: “In
order of time, tick
where appropriate:
What have you
done with the
information about
the public issue?”
Instruction 2: “In
order of time, tick
where appropriate:
What have you
done with the
information about
the public issue?”
NothingNothing
DISCUSSION: I talked about the issue; I gave my opinion
on the issue; I talked about the issue (FB & Social
Networks)
DISCUSSION: I talked about the issue; I gave my opinion
on the issue; I talked about the issue (FB & Social
Networks)
VIRTUAL ACTION: I published something on a public blog;
I uploaded a comment, critique; I posted on a public site; I
wrote to authorities, media, journalists, NGO's, other
public actors.
VIRTUAL ACTION: I published something on a public blog;
I uploaded a comment, critique; I posted on a public site; I
wrote to authorities, media, journalists, NGO's, other
public actors.
ACTION: I engaged; I took part in; I collaborated; I
donated; Other
ACTION: I engaged; I took part in; I collaborated; I
donated; Other

11. The Study
We selected a sample for interviewing before and
after.
We analyzed the information: Gephi and N-Vivo.

12. Organizing info according to issues and their relation: which issues
were more frequently discussed and actively followed…

13. Main sources in general…

14. Findings (comparative)
On “public”
There is interest on, and knowledge about, “public
issues”, though general low levels of trust in politicians
(all countries), political institutions (lower: Spain,
Portugal, Belgium, Mexico) and politics (lowest: Spain &
Mexico).
Public interest issues = mostly politics; but also
references to social, cultural & entertainment topics.
There is a “theoretical” identification of the division
between public and private, but it blurrs in their daily life
practices.

15. Findings (Comparative)
The ‘mediation’:
Digital media consumption does not replace traditional
media (many sources are the same. I.e. The web sites of
traditional media to which they arrived via Twitter).
High prominence of news from social media sources
does not imply high levels of online communicative
interaction and deliberation.
There is no direct relationship between a high level of
communicative deliberation and a high level of political
engagement (except in the cases of Chile, Mexico &,
Spain).

16. Findings (Comparative)
All cases:
People show certain interest in news & info on public issues (not
only politics!!)
Decreasing levels of trust on political actors
The distinction between what is public and private is becoming
problematic in practice.
People do participate, but not through traditional
channels: these are no longer attractive, but new forms
are not completely recognizable to most as forms of
deliberation and engagement (perhaps linked with a more
“traditional” understanding of participation as well).
EXAMPLE…

17. Findings (Comparative)
Most cases:
Communicative deliberation does not necessarily lead to
political engagement. Especially in north European countries
liberal democratic rights are taken for granted and such a
deliberative space is seen as a natural extension, whereas in
southern countries there is the sense that such space “must be
taken or gained”.
This is why in Mx, Spain & Chile deliberation is apparently
more prone to spark engagement—especially with topics
regarding indignation, corruption, abuse of power, injustice.
..

18. Impacts & challenges
These changes are contributing to blur among certain
users the frontiers between public/private (i.e. Public
actions may spring out from private practices)
Traditional ways of surveying are not representing and
mapping these transformations
Traditional political science models are not accounting
for these transformations (the categories are still so stiff
in a way). New concepts are needed in political science
for new forms of participation that are sometimes not
even recognized as such by the actors themselves.

19. Impacts & challenges
In all cases,In all cases,In all cases,In all cases, what seems clear: individuals have acquired newwhat seems clear: individuals have acquired newwhat seems clear: individuals have acquired newwhat seems clear: individuals have acquired new
forms of interaction and participation skills in public issuesforms of interaction and participation skills in public issuesforms of interaction and participation skills in public issuesforms of interaction and participation skills in public issues
(not only politics!) and politicians (politics) show not only very(not only politics!) and politicians (politics) show not only very(not only politics!) and politicians (politics) show not only very(not only politics!) and politicians (politics) show not only very
slow reactions, but also transparency and accountabilityslow reactions, but also transparency and accountabilityslow reactions, but also transparency and accountabilityslow reactions, but also transparency and accountability
problems (problems that contribute to a “disenchantment withproblems (problems that contribute to a “disenchantment withproblems (problems that contribute to a “disenchantment withproblems (problems that contribute to a “disenchantment with
democracy” itself).democracy” itself).democracy” itself).democracy” itself).
DemocraticDemocraticDemocraticDemocratic discourse needs to be rediscourse needs to be rediscourse needs to be rediscourse needs to be re----legitimizedlegitimizedlegitimizedlegitimized: imagine new
forms of functionality
One cannot always be positive about the inherent democratic
nature of such participation, not only in countries with
authoritarian traditions.

20. Action: Legislative Accountability Project
At Uib, we are about to launch next year the LAP:
In collaboration with the National Institute of Statistics and
Geography, the Mexico City’s Legislative Chamber, and the
Electoral Authority:
Generate a data base where, from a large list of topics, most citizens
register those in which they have an interest.
Then, every time a new Bill is discussed in the Chamber, citizens saying
they have interest in the related issues it deals with, will receive the
date when it will be discussed, a link to the online session and a direct
blog to his/her Representative to exchange views on his/her opinions
and vote in real time.
We hope to foster democratic participation & accountability

21. http://zoomlegislativo.com/

22. GRACIAS!