GOVT6150 Challenges of Democratic Politics

Digital Media and Political Communication: Transformation, Democratisation, or Fragmentation?

Francesco Bailo

Acknowledgement of Country

I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Australia and recognise their continuing connection to land, water and culture. The University of Sydney is located on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. I pay my respects to their Elders, past and present.

Who am I

Academic Background

Research Focus

  • Intersection of digital technologies and political participation, and democratic governance
  • Computational methods for understanding information systems and their societal and political impacts

Teaching: GOVT6139 Research Design (S2), SSPS4102/6006 Data analytics (with R, S1), GOVT3901 Digital Politics (S2) and CISS6022 Cybersecurity (S1).

You can reach me at francesco.bailo@sydney.edu.au.

How does the massification of digital media transform political communication, and does this transformation strengthen or weaken democratic participation and institutions?

Plan for today

  1. Introduction: The Digital Media Revolution - From mass to network communication

  2. PART I: ALGORITHMIC MEDIATION - The new gatekeepers

  3. PART II: PARTICIPATION PARADOX - Digital media and inequality

  4. PART III: INTERNET vs SOCIAL CAPITAL - New forms of mobilisation

What is the FIRST word that comes to mind when you think about digital media’s impact on democracy?

Instructions

  • Enter ONE word only
  • Think about your personal experience with social media, political information online, or digital political participation
  • Be honest - positive, negative, or neutral words all welcome

or try https://www.menti.com/al331g5knty1

Introduction

The Digital Media Revolution

The Convergence of Four Revolutions

The Internet Revolution

  • Computing power: Moore’s Law
  • Bandwidth: 300 bits/s → 1 billion bits/s
  • Broadband adoption: <5% (2000) → 61% (2011)
  • From novelty to essential utility

The Mobile Revolution

  • Fastest consumer technology adoption in history
  • More mobile lines than landlines by 2006
  • “Always-on” connectivity
  • Phones become “part of their body”

The Social Network Revolution

  • From groups to networked individuals
  • Partial membership in multiple networks
  • Relationships transcend geography
  • Active network management required

The Social Media Revolution

  • “Living in the cloud” goes mainstream
  • Facebook opens to all (Sept 26, 2006)
  • 50% of Americans on social media by 2011
  • Social networks as “dashboards of the Internet”

The Transformation: Mass to Network Communication

Traditional Mass Media

  • Centralised broadcasting
  • Professional gatekeepers
  • Scheduled consumption
  • Geographic constraints
  • Shared public sphere
  • Elite control

Digital Network Media

  • Many-to-many communication
  • Algorithmic curation
  • Always-on access
  • Global reach
  • Fragmented information environments
  • Democratised access (?)

The Central Tension

Digital media promised democratisation (broader access, lower barriers) but may weaken institutions (fragmented publics, algorithmic manipulation, anti-establishment mobilisation)

Our Analytical Framework

Today we examine three key perspectives on how digital media transforms democracy:

  1. Algorithmic Mediation (Soffer, 2021) How algorithms replace human gatekeepers in political information flow

  2. The Participation Paradox (Heiss & Matthes, 2019) How digital media may reinforce rather than reduce political inequalities

  3. Internet vs. Social Capital (Bailo, 2025) How digital networks enable new forms of political mobilisation outside traditional institutions

PART I

ALGORITHMIC MEDIATION

The New Gatekeepers

Soffer (2021): “Algorithmic Personalisation and the Two-Step Flow of Communication”

Central Question

How do algorithms function as the new “opinion leaders” in political communication?

From human to algorithmic intermediaries:

  • Traditional media: Journalists, editors, producers select and frame content
  • Digital media: Algorithms curate personalised information feeds
  • Key difference: Invisible, unaccountable, corporate-controlled

Soffer, O. (2021). Algorithmic Personalization and the Two-Step Flow of Communication. Communication Theory, 31(3), 297–315.

The Classical Two-Step Flow Model

Katz & Lazarsfeld (1955)

The Process

  1. Media → Opinion Leaders
  2. Opinion Leaders → General Public

Key Elements

  • Human intermediaries
  • Social proximity
  • Personal relationships
  • Visible mediation

Why It Worked

  • Trust based on social connections
  • Opinion leaders share group membership
  • People know who influences them
  • Social validation and interpretation

The Digital Disruption

  • Abundance of sources (no single “mass media”)
  • Personalised feeds (individual information environments)
  • Invisible mediation (users unaware of algorithmic influence)

The Algorithmic Two-Step Flow

Soffer’s Theoretical Innovation

The New Process

  1. Media → Algorithms → Individual Users
  2. Algorithms perform opinion leader functions

How Algorithms Work

  • Inputs: User behaviour, social signals, demographics, context
  • Process: Personalised content curation
  • Outputs: Customised feeds, recommendations, trending topics

From Solid to Liquid Peer Groups

Traditional peer groups:

  • Stable membership
  • Geographic proximity
  • Clear group norms

Algorithmic “peer groups”:

  • Data-driven (“users like you”)
  • Constantly changing
  • Invisible boundaries

Democratic Implications

Potential Benefits

  • Personalised relevance
  • Efficiency in filtering information
  • Serendipitous discovery
  • Scale (millions served)

Democratic Risks

  • Filter bubbles: Reduced exposure to diverse views
  • Manipulation: Invisible editorial control
  • Polarisation: Amplification of extreme content
  • Fragmented reality: No shared information environment

The Evidence: Mixed

  • Some polarisation for partisan users
  • Some diversity for casual users
  • Platform differences matter
  • User agency remains important

PART II

THE PARTICIPATION PARADOX

Does Digital Media Democratise or Reinforce Inequality?

Heiss & Matthes (2019): “Does incidental exposure on social media equalise or reinforce participatory gaps?”

Central Question

Do social media platforms reduce political inequalities by engaging the disengaged, or do they reinforce existing participatory gaps?

Two competing hypotheses:

  1. Equalisation: Lower barriers → broader participation → reduced inequality
  2. Reinforcement: Digital divides → motivated users dominate → increased inequality

Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2019). Does incidental exposure on social media equalize or reinforce participatory gaps? New Media & Society.

The Incidental Exposure Mechanism

The Optimistic View

The Process

  1. Non-political use (entertainment, socialising)
  2. Incidental exposure to political content
  3. Gradual engagement
  4. Equalisation: Disengaged users become active

Why It Should Work

  • Social media reach beyond civic networks
  • Lower barriers than offline participation
  • Accidental encounters with politics
  • Easy digital activities

Types of Digital Participation

Low-Effort Activities

  • Liking political posts
  • Sharing political content
  • Following political accounts
  • Commenting

High-Effort Activities

  • Creating political content
  • Organising events
  • Fundraising
  • Extended discussions

The Austrian Panel Study: Key Findings

Research Design

  • Two-wave panel: Same respondents measured twice
  • N = 559: Representative sample
  • 2017 Austrian election: High-stakes context
  • Causal inference: Panel design reduces reverse causation

Results: The Reinforcement Reality

Low-Effort Participation

  • ✓ Incidental exposure increases low-effort activities
  • ✗ Effect equally distributed across interest levels
  • ✗ No equalisation

High-Effort Participation

  • ✗ Effect depends on political interest
  • ✗ Negative effect for low-interest users
  • ✗ Gap increases

The Paradox

Incidental exposure mobilises low-effort “slacktivism” but reinforces inequalities in meaningful political participation

Explaining the Paradox

Why Digital Democracy Disappoints

  1. Motivation Still Matters
    • Political interest remains strongest predictor
    • Technology doesn’t eliminate participation requirements
    • Casual exposure insufficient to overcome disinterest
  2. Skill Requirements
    • High-effort participation requires digital literacy
    • Political knowledge necessary for meaningful engagement
    • Social capital advantages translate digitally
  3. Algorithmic Amplification
    • Platforms reward existing engagement patterns
    • Active users see more political content
    • Passive users filtered away from demanding activities

Interactive Poll

Based on the research we’ve discussed, which group is MOST likely to benefit from social media for political participation?

or try https://www.menti.com/al331g5knty1

PART III

INTERNET vs SOCIAL CAPITAL

New Forms of Political Mobilisation

Bailo (2025): “Breaking out of legacy mobilisation networks”

Central Question

How does “Internet capital” enable political mobilisation beyond traditional social capital networks?

The Problem with Traditional Social Capital

  • Dense social networks: Clubs, unions, churches, community groups
  • Geographic clustering: Concentrated in wealthy, educated areas
  • Declining: Mass party membership down since 1960s
  • Exclusionary: Working-class, rural, immigrant populations underrepresented

Defining Internet Capital

Definition

Internet capital: Digital resources that enable collective action independently of existing social capital structures

Comparing Two Forms of Political Resources

Social Capital Internet Capital
Dense, local networks Sparse, distributed networks
High-quality relationships Lower-quality connections
Geographic constraints Geographic independence
Strong reciprocity Weaker obligations
Slow to build Rapid formation
Stable membership Fluid participation
Institutional embedding Anti-institutional potential

Case Study: Italy’s Five Star Movement (M5S)

Background

  • Founded 2005 from comedian’s blog
  • No pre-existing organisation
  • Pure digital origins
  • “Anti-party system party”
  • Used Meetup.com for organising

Research Question

Can Internet capital mobilise voters in low-social capital areas where traditional parties failed?

Data Sources

  • Meetup.com events (2005-2013)
  • Census data (social capital indicators)
  • Electoral results (2013)
  • Media coverage intensity

Key Finding

M5S achieved 25% vote share in 2013 elections

Two Waves of M5S Mobilisation

Wave 1 (2005-2012): Legacy Networks

  • Meetups concentrated in high social capital areas
  • Followed traditional associational geography
  • Limited reach to disengaged populations
  • Modest electoral impact

Wave 2 (2012-2013): Internet Breakthrough

  • Massive media coverage of M5S
  • Meetups spread to low social capital areas
  • Reached previously disengaged voters
  • Electoral breakthrough: 25% vote share

The Mechanism

News media attention temporarily strengthens Internet network density

Internet networks need external validation to overcome weak-tie limitations

The Dark Side: Extremism and Outrage

When Internet Capital Enables Harmful Mobilisation

The Emotional Requirement

  • Extreme discontent needed
  • Outrage as fuel
  • Emotional messages travel faster
  • Anti-institutional bias required

Similar Cases Worldwide

  • Trump 2016 (USA)
  • Brexit campaign (UK)
  • Podemos (Spain)
  • AfD (Germany)

Political Consequences

  • Crowding out moderation: Extreme voices advantaged
  • Institutional delegitimisation: Undermines democratic norms
  • Emotional politics: Rational deliberation declines
  • Unpredictability: Political turbulence increases

Common Patterns

  • Anti-establishment messaging
  • Digital-first strategy
  • Emotional appeals
  • Media amplification crucial

CONCLUSION

Democracy in the Digital Age

Synthesising Our Evidence

The Transformation Is Real

Digital media fundamentally alter political communication through:

  1. Algorithmic mediation of information flows (Soffer)
    • New forms of gatekeeping, but invisible and unaccountable
    • Personalisation fragments shared public sphere
    • Corporate control over political information
  2. Reinforced inequalities rather than democratisation (Heiss & Matthes)
    • Benefits already engaged users most
    • Fails to mobilise the truly disengaged
    • “Slacktivism” replaces meaningful participation
  3. Institutional bypass enabled by Internet capital (Bailo)
    • Anti-establishment mobilisation advantages
    • Emotional politics crowds out deliberation
    • Requires external validation to scale

Answering Our Central Question

How does the massification of digital media transform political communication, and does this transformation strengthen or weaken democratic participation and institutions?

The Verdict: Institutional Weakening Dominates

  • ✗ Gatekeeping crisis: Loss of accountable intermediaries
  • ✗ Inequality reinforcement: Digital divides persist and deepen
  • ✗ Fragmentation: Shared public sphere erodes
  • ✗ Emotional polarisation: Outrage advantages over deliberation
  • ⚠️ New opportunities: But primarily for anti-establishment mobilisation

The Policy Challenge

How can democratic institutions adapt to algorithmic mediation, address digital inequalities, and channel Internet capital toward constructive participation?

Final Interactive Poll

Task: Rank these digital media impacts from MOST threatening (1) to LEAST threatening (4) for democratic institutions

or try https://www.menti.com/al331g5knty1

Questions?

francesco.bailo@sydney.edu.au