Cristian Vaccari

In an article just published open-access in Political Communication with Andrew Chadwick and Johannes Kaiser, we shed new light on the role of different sources of campaign news in enabling citizens to discern between true and false information, and to share such information.

Based on two surveys on samples mirroring the UK adult population during the 2019 General Election in the UK, we found that the sources from which citizens got their campaign news mattered a great deal. The more respondents got their news from professional news organizations (broadsheets, tabloids, television, radio, and professional news websites) the more they were able to distinguish true from false information, and to share it. Conversely, the more respondents relied on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and private messaging apps such as WhatsApp) for campaign news, the less they were able to distinguish true from false information, and the more likely they were to share false than true information.

We term this bifurcation “campaign disinformation divide” and argue it has important implications for contemporary politics, as citizens increasingly rely on social media and messaging apps for news and professional news organizations face challenges to the viability of their business models and lower levels of public trust.

Perhaps most troublingly, we also found that false news, once they were believed, were more likely to be shared than true news, as the figure below highlights. This means that those combating the spread of falsehoods online face an uphill battle, as such falsehoods seem to enjoy a competitive advantage among users, as shown by other studies based in the United States.

This project was made possible by a collaboration with Opinium Research, a leading research company, which generously invited us to add our experiment to their multi-wave general election tracker surveys. The article will be part of a special issue on “Digital Campaigning in Dissonant Public Spheres”, guest edited by Karolina Koc Michalska, Ulrike Klinger, Andrea Römmele, and W. Lance Bennett.

This has been a fascinating study to design and I have learned a lot from it. I will be sure to take these findings on board in my work as Co-Rapporteur for the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Integrity of Online Information, where we are drafting a Guidance Note on countering the spread of online mis- and disinformation through fact-checking and platform design solutions in a human rights compliant manner. For me, the key policy implication of these findings is that reducing the spread and negative impacts of misinformation and disinformation in contemporary society will require both strengthening professional news organizations, including fact-checkers, and ensuring that the design of social media platforms and messaging apps promotes better-quality information.

To read the article, visit the Political Communication website, where you can also access an extensive Supplementary Materials file and replication data (via the Open Science Framework).

On 21-23 September, seventy scholars from many different countries and disciplines will present research on the relationship between media and politics in an international perspective at Loughborough University during the eight conference of The International Journal of Press/Politics, which I am honored to serve as Editor-in-Chief. I am delighted to share the conference program. Apart from the keynote speech, the conference will be held at the Holywell Park Conference Centre at Loughborough University. Registration is required to participate in the conference. The conference is hosted by the Centre for Research in Communication and Culture.

Wednesday, September 21

17:00               Brockington Building, room U0.20
Keynote speech by Maria Repnikova (Georgia State University)
Advancing Research on Communication under Authoritarianism

19:00               Burleigh Court Hotel
Conference inaugural dinner

Thursday, September 22

8:00-8:45        Holywell Park Conference Centre
Coffee and refreshments

8:45-9:00        Stephenson room
Welcome and opening remarks

9:00-10:30      Brunel / Murdoch room
Panel 1A: New theories and concepts for political communication in a changing world
Chair: Ariadne Vromen (Australian National University)

Speaking of Africa: Sociology and the Study of Media in ‘Majority World Countries’
j. Wahutu Siguru (New York University), Zhuoru Deng (New York University), Osman Osman (New York University)

The dynamic journalistic intermediary model (DJIM) of communicative transaction in a networked public sphere
Jakob Ohme (Freie Universität Berlin), Anna-Theresa Mayer (Freie Universität Berlin), Timothy Charlton-Czaplicki (Copenhagen Business School), Christoph Neuberger (Freie Universität Berlin)

A theory of cultural resonance process in political and media communication
Cristina Monzer (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

9:00-10:30      Pascal room
Panel 1B: Social media and election campaigns
Chair: Kari Steen-Johnsen (Institute for Social Research)

Between anger and love: Comparing citizen engagement with party posts during election campaigns across three countries
Hedvig Tønnesen (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), Márton Bene (Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre of Excellence, Eötvös Loránd University), Jörg Haßler (LMU Munich), Anders Olof Larsson (Kristiania University College), Melanie Magin (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), Eli Skogerbø (University of Oslo), Anna-Katharina Wurst (LMU Munich)

Populist Political Communication Style and Personalization on social media: The case of Greek MPs
Amalia Triantafillidou (University of Western Macedonia), Georgios Lappas (University of Western Macedonia) *presenting remotely

Framing candidate image from a strategic perspective: A visual communication analysis on Instagram in 2019 Spanish Elections
Rocío Zamora (University of Murcia), Marta Rebolledo (University of Navarra), Shahira S. Fahmy (American University of Cairo)

10:30 – 11:00  Holywell Park Conference Centre
Coffee break

11:00-13:00    Brunel / Murdoch room
Panel 2A: Understanding and limiting the impact of misinformation
Chair: Hossein Kermani (University of Vienna)

Political Scandals, Fabricated Evidence, and Journalistic Fact-Checking
Viorela Dan (LMU Munich)

It’s all in the Measurement: Varying Association of Subjective vs. Actual Social Media Usage with Reaction to Misinformation Exposure
Waqas Ejaz (University of Oxford)

“I love reading fake news. Don’t always believe what you read”. How Social Media Users React to Political Online Misinformation by Commenting
Sophie Morosoli (University of Antwerp)

Assessing the impact of disinformation narratives in a polarized electoral campaign: the case of 2021 Catalan elections
Jaume Suau (Ramon LLull University), Elena Yeste (Ramon LLull University)

11:00-13:00    Pascal room
Panel 2B: Communication and propaganda on the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Chair: Sabina Mihelj (Loughborough University)

The Dissemination of Russian-backed content in European Alternative News Environments
Jakob Bæk Kristensen (Roskilde University), Frederik Møller Henriksen (Roskilde University), Eva Mayerhöffer (Roskilde University)

The Image War as a significant fighting arena: Evidence from the Ukrainian battle over perceptions during the 2022 Russian invasion
Moran Yarchi (Reichman University)

A place to rally around the flag or hub of subversive information? Telegram during Russo – Ukrainian war
Tamara Grechanaya (University of Milan) *presenting remotely

Crowd intelligence: Exploring the epistemic role of OSINT communities
Timothy Charlton-Czaplicki (Copenhagen Business School), Anna-Theresa Mayer (Freie Universität Berlin), Jakob Ohme (Freie Universität Berlin)

13:00-14:00    Holywell Park Conference Centre
Lunch

14:00-16:00    Brunel / Murdoch room
Panel 3A: Media, pluralism, and democracy
Chair: Leslie Tkach-Kawasaki (University of Tsukuba)

Understanding the role of the Colombian media in a peace process during a ‘political wave’: the 2014 escalation of the conflict
Jose David Ortega Chavez (University of Leeds)

Modi Media? Heteronomy and Autonomy in the Indian journalistic field
Rohit Dasgupta (University of Glasgow), Debasreeta Deb (University of Hyderabad), John Downey (Loughborough University), Bhargav Nimmagadda, (Manipal Institute of Communication), Vinod Pavarala, (University of Hyderabad), Madhavi Ravi Kumar (University of Hyderabad)

What can we learn from the short history of independent media in Serbia? George Soros, Radio B92, and new models of media development
Janet Steele (George Washington University)

Vive la petite différence! The business of gender in the production of financial news in the Arabian Gulf
Jairo Lugo-Ocando (University of Sharjah),.Faisal AlAqeel (King Saud University) *presenting remotely

14:00-16:00    Pascal room
Panel 3B: Media and political information
Chair: j. Wahutu Siguru (New York University)

Journalism and the Center-Periphery Cleavage: How national and local news media covered the 2021 municipal elections in Denmark
Mark Blach-Ørsten (Roskilde University), Mads Kæmsgaard Eberholst (Roskilde University)

Local News in National Elections: Assessing News and Information Provision During a Critical Democratic Event
Martin Moore (King’s College London), Gordon Neil Ramsay (University of Akureyri)

Trump Kissing Pence, Clinton Leading the Waltz: The Role of Gender Stereotypes in Saturday Night Live Portrayals of Presidential Candidates
Caroline V. Leicht (University of Southampton)

Supporting the spread: the role of heuristic thinking in the proliferation of online propaganda
Valentina Nerino (University of Trento)

16:00 – 16:30  Holywell Park Conference Centre
Coffee break

16:30-18:30    Brunel / Murdoch room
Panel 4A: Political elites and information flows
Chair: Danielle K. Brown (University of Minnesota)

How and why do anti-establishment and mainstream politicians share news on social media
Risto Niemikari (Tampere University)

Authoritarian regimes and defusing Twitter threat: the case of transforming Iranian Twittersphere to a less challenging space
Hossein Kermani (University of Vienna)

Policy actors’ struggle for attention in the migration discourse. The role of semantic, ideological and attributional diversity on Twitter
Sara Schmitt (University of Stuttgart), Hakan G. Sicakkan (University of Bergen), Pierre-Georges Van Wolleghem (University of Bergen), Raphael H. Heiberger (University of Stuttgart) *presenting remotely

Vertical disinformation: a comparative analysis between Trump and Bolsonaro’s communication strategies during the COVID-19 outbreak
Rose Marie Santini (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), Heloísa Traiano (Leiden University), Débora Salles (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), Fernando Ferreira (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) *presenting remotely

16:30-18:00    Pascal room
Panel 4B: The flow of political information in contemporary media environments
Chair: Caroline V. Leicht (University of Southampton)

International News Flow in a Digital Era: A Network Analysis of Online News Websites’ Mentions and Hyperlinks
Diyi Liu ( University of Oxford)

Political Influences on News Distortion in Professional News Organizations
Doron Shultziner (Hadassah Academic College)

Political agenda setting in the digital public sphere – an actor centered approach
Rune Karlsen (University of Oslo), Kari Steen-Johnsen (Institute for Social Research)

20:00   Peter Pizzeria – 17-18 Baxter Gate, Loughborough LE11 1TG
Conference dinner

Friday, September 23

8:30-9:00        Holywell Park Conference Centre
Coffee and refreshments

9:00-10:30      Brunel / Murdoch room
Panel 5A: Audience perspectives on media and politics
Chair: Eran Amsalem (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

What in The World Is Newsworthiness? Evaluations of News Interest and Informativeness by International Audiences
Lilach Nir (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Stuart Soroka (University of California Los Angeles), Patrick Fournier (Université de Montréal)

Examining Urban/Rural Gaps in Trust in News across Four Countries
Nick Mathews (University of Minnesota) Benjamin Toff (University of Oxford, University of Minnesota), Camila Mont’Alverne (University of Oxford), Sumitra Badrinathan (University of Oxford), Amy Ross Arguedas (University of Oxford), Richard Fletcher (University of Oxford), Rasmus Kleis Nielsen (University of Oxford)

Mediated polarisation: An intergenerational analysis
Ssu-Han Yu (London School of Economics and Political Science) * presenting remotely

9:00-10:30      Pascal room
Panel 5B: Media, politics, and the fight for social justice
Chair: Doron Shultziner (Hadassah Academic College)

Cross-national patterns in the protest paradigm: An analysis of Black Lives Matter protests across Europe
A. Maurits van der Veen (College of William & Mary) *presenting remotely

Repertoire of Contention in Authoritarian China: Framings, Contentious Performances and Culture
Xijing Wu (University of Oxford) *presenting remotely

Australian and American unions’ storytelling about essential workers during the pandemic
Ariadne Vromen (Australian National University), Michael Vaughan (Frei Universitet), Filippo Trevisan (American University)

10:30 – 11:00  Holywell Park Conference Centre
Coffee break

11:00-12:30    Brunel / Murdoch room
Panel 6A: Challenges and opportunities in computational research on media and politics
Chair: Diyi Liu ( University of Oxford)

Beyond Mere “Toxicity”: A Multi-label Classifier for Uncivil and Intolerant Discourse on Twitter
Patrícia Rossini (University of Glasgow), Stefanie Hills (University of Stirling), Federico Bianchi (Stanford University), Sarah Shuggars (George Washington University), Dirk Hovy (Bocconi University), Rebekah Tromble (George Washington University)

A problematisation of research with citizen-produced political text: Inequalities in access, ethics, languages and resources
Amanda Haraldsson (Audencia Business School), Shota Gelovani (Technical University of Munich), Bente Kalsnes (Kristiania University College), Karolina Koc-Michalska (Audencia Business School), Yannis Theocharis (Technical University of Munich)

Characterizing Registered U.S. Voters’ Exposure to Political Content on Twitter
Assaf Shamir (Ben-Gurion University), Jennifer Oser (Ben-Gurion University), Nir Grinberg (Ben-Gurion University)

11:00-12:30    Pascal room
Panel 6B: Media and politics in and about contemporary Russia
Chair: Václav Štětka (Loughborough University)

Reviving Eternal Russia: U.S. Media Representations of Democracy and Human Rights in Post-Soviet Russia
Heather L. Tafel /Grand Valley State University)

‘State narrative’ construction on Twitter. A case study around news stories on LGTBQ in Russia
Daria Dergacheva (University of Bremen), Anna Tous-Rovirosa (Autonomous University of Barcelona) *presenting remotely

12:30-13:30    Holywell Park Conference Centre
Lunch

13:30-15:00    Brunel / Murdoch room
Panel 7A: Political advertising in contemporary media systems
Chair: Jakob Ohme (Freie Universität Berlin)

Political Advertising on Facebook India: Punjab and Uttar Pradesh 2022 Assembly Elections
Holli A. Semetko (Emory University), Kiran Arabaghatta Basavaraj (University of Exeter), Anup Kumar (Cleveland State University)

Is there a permanent campaign for online political advertising?: Investigating partisan and non-party campaign activity in the UK between 2018-2021
Junyan Zhu (University of Sheffield), Kate Dommett (University of Sheffield), Tom Stafford (University of Sheffield), Nikolaos Aletras (University of Sheffield), Samuel Mensah (University of Sheffield)

New Political Actors in the Electoral Process: Japan’s Election Management Boards Online
Leslie Tkach-Kawasaki (University of Tsukuba)

13:30-15:00    Pascal room
Panel 7B: Patterns and consequences of political incivility
Chair: Lilach Nir (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Online participation and the role of incivility in the context of an illiberal public sphere
Sabina Mihelj (Loughborough University), Václav Štětka (Loughborough University)

Candidate Incivility and Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Chiara Vargiu (University of Lausanne), Diego Garzia (University of Lausanne), Frederico Ferreira da Silva (University of Lausanne) * presenting remotely

Cross-cutting disagreement in opposition online community within non-democratic context: the case of Alexei Navalny’s YouTube channel
Aidar Zinnatullin (University of Bologna) *presenting remotely

15:00 – 15:30  Holywell Park Conference Centre
Coffee break

15:30-17:00    Brunel / Murdoch room
Panel 8A: New perspectives on media effects
Chair: Holli A. Semetko (Emory University)

Do People Learn About Politics on Social Media? A Meta-Analysis of Seventy-Six Studies
Eran Amsalem (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Alon Zoizner (University of Haifa)

Reinterpreting the Relationship between News and the “Most Important Problem”
Benjamin Toff (University of Oxford, University of Minnesota), Ruth Palmer (IE University)

News Media’s Coverage of the 2021 Global Climate Summit and its Effects on Public Opinion
Per Oleskog Tryggvason (University of Gothenburg), Adam Shehata (University of Gothenburg) *presenting remotely

15:30-17:00    Pascal room
Panels 8B: Political behavior on social media
Chair: Junyan Zhu (University of Sheffield)

Voice and deliberation in partisan Twitter-spheres
Albert Padró-Solanet (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya), Joan Balcells (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya), Rosa Borge (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya)

Abortion war is not a war: Who is driving incivility and intolerance in abortion discourse in the United States (2020) and Ireland (2018)?
Dayei Oh (Loughborough University and University of Helsinki), Suzanne Elayan (Loughborough University), Martin Sykora (Loughborough University)

Spectating in the public sphere: investigating political lurking practices among young adult social media users
Elizabeth Solverson (Nord University) ** Cancelled

17:00-17:30    Stephenson room
Concluding remarks

17:30-19:30    Holywell Park Conference Centre
Farewell reception

Across most of the Western world, the dominant norms around journalism entail what the authors of the Worlds of Journalism Study defined as “monitorial journalistic cultures“, where journalists are seen as checks on other powers and must therefore remain independent from them. Yet, sometimes journalists legitimately decide to venture into politics, either as advisors or as full-fledged candidates and officeholders. (The current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a former journalist.) What happens, then, when journalists straddle the boundaries of these norms and seek to become politicians themselves? How do voters respond to the fact that some members of a professional group that is supposed to hold politicians accountable are coopted by politicians?

In a new article published open-access in the International Journal of Communication I set out to shed some light on these issues based on an experiment embedded in the pre-electoral survey of the Italian National Election Studies, of which I am honored to be a member, in the run-up to the 2018 Italian general election. I started with two theoretical premises. First, journalist-candidates should increase levels of populist attitudes, as the populist mentality denies the separation of society into different groups (what Ernesto Laclau has termed the “logic of equivalence“) and populist politicians routinely lambast the media as out-of-touch elites in cahoots with political elites. Secondly, I reasoned that high-profile journalists may be strong candidates due to their popularity and communication skills, and may thus result in a higher probability to vote for the parties that recruit them.

To test these hypotheses, I designed an experiment whereby participants were randomly assigned to seeing different types of information on parliamentary candidates, some of which reported accurate information on high-profile former journalists who were running for the three major parties at the time: center-right Forza Italia, center-left Partito Democratico, and populist MoVimento 5 Stelle. Participants in the control group were simply asked if they knew who the candidates were in their constituency.

I then asked participants questions that measure their levels of populism and their probability to vote for the three parties that were fielding journalist-candidates. I measured populist attitudes by asking participants how much they agree with three statements: “Politicians in Parliament must follow the will of the people”; “I would rather be represented by an ordinary person than by a career politician“; and “Journalists are too close to powerful groups to inform ordinary people.” I measured probability to vote with a standard question that asks respondents to rank their likelihood to vote for a party from 0 to 10.

Because participants had been effectively randomly assigned to seeing different types of information on (journalist-)candidates, differences in participants’ responses can be attributed to the effects of the different information they saw before they answered those questions.

The results suggest that when people are told that some journalists are running for office, they become more likely to endorse populist attitudes, as you can see below.. Interestingly, however, people did not become more likely to vote for the parties that were fielding the journalist-candidates they had just learned about.

These results suggest that journalist-candidates do not directly enhance the electoral prospects of the parties that recruit them, but they weaken democratic legitimacy by performing what I call “populism vindicated by the media“, which results from media representatives’ conducts that may be seen as validating populist claims. On a more optimistic note, citizens’ negative reactions to journalist-candidates suggest that they value the role of the media as an independent Fourth Estate and as a check on elected officials.

On a personal note, this has been a fascinating journey. Growing up in Italy, where the revolving doors between journalism and politics seem to be constantly spinning, I often wondered whether this kind of close integration led citizens to lose faith in journalists’ professionalism and politicians’ accountability. I was very grateful to be able to include this experiment in the 2018 general election survey of Italian National Election Studies, which gave me the opportunity to empirically test those intuitions. This study went through many different iterations (and yes, journal rejections!) and I am very happy it has now seen the light. I hope you enjoy the article and look forward to your comments.

More than two years ago, I had the honor of being selected as one of the 13 members of a new Council of Europe expert committee on Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies (MSI-DIG). The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading human rights organization and brings together 46 member States, including all members of the European Union and the United Kingdom. Al members are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, whose principles are implemented by the European Court of Human Rights..

Between 2020 and 2021, all members of the MSI-DIG committee worked very closely and benefited enormously from the input of member States and civil society stakeholders, as well as the competent and steady support of the Secretariat, to produce two key documents:

• Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the impacts of digital technologies on freedom of expression.
• Guidance note on best practices towards effective legal and procedural frameworks for self-regulatory and co-regulatory mechanisms of content moderation.

I had the pleasure and honor to serve as Co-Rapporteur, together with the fantastic Alexandra Borchardt, for the drafting of Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)13, which on the 6th of April 2022 has been adopted by the Committee of Ministers. Natali Helberger and Viktors Makarovs were invaluable as Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Committee. The Council of Europe’s Elena Dodonova and, before her, Charlotte Altenhoener-Dion, were invaluable in helping us navigate both organizational and substantive issues.

The document aims to clarify how States and other stakeholders, including internet intermediaries, can fulfill their human rights obligations and responsibilities with regard to freedom of expression, combining legal, regulatory, administrative and practical measures. It is divided into six sections:

1. Foundations for human rights-enhancing rule-making
2. Digital infrastructure design
3. Transparency
4. Accountability and redress
5. Education and empowerment
6. Independent research for evidence-based rule-making

I hope this document will be useful to policymakers and regulators, private companies, and civil society actors as we all grapple with the difficult choices and trade-offs that the contemporary digital media environment entails for the preservation of human rights. Our Northern star throughout the writing of this document has always been Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is always worth reading in full:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Last week, I had the pleasure of discussing the Recommendation at the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day Global Conference 2022, held in hybrid format in Punta Del Este (Uruguay). I participated in a panel titled “Freedom of Expression during Conflicts – Curbing of war propaganda/disinformation vs. access to information on internet platforms”. The panel also featured Guy Berger (UNESCO),Eliska Pirkova (Access Now), and Ambassador Thomas Schneider (Swiss Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication).

The Journal of Communication has just published a new article led by Johannes Kaiser (a brilliant colleague who was a post-doc at the Online Civic Culture Centre at Loughborough University with funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation), Andrew Chadwick, and myself. The article is published open access, which means everyone can freely read and download it.

In this study, based on two experiments on representative sample of social media users in Germany, we investigate how people use the “block” and “unfollow” (or “unfriend”) function on social media against their friends who report misinformation. In particular, we ask whether users use these functions differently depending on whether the friend who reports misinformation has similar or different political views to their own.

We find that, indeed, users are substantially and significantly more likely to block their friends who share misinformation if those friends have different political views to their own. We argue that these patterns, in turn, have important implications for network polarization, i.e., the degree to which the other users with whom we are in contact on social media tend to cluster based on political preferences. By disproportionately cleaning up their social media feeds from disagreeing friends who share misinformation, users may end up reducing the diversity of the content they encounter, whether accurate or not. As we argue in the conclusion:

“Partisan blocking derives from a confluence of other users’ norm violations and popular social media affordances originally introduced to grant people greater control over their online experiences. Even when used by citizens to protect themselves from misinformation shared by their online friends, blocking and unfriending can end up disproportionately severing ties to politically dissimilar others. At the same time, because politically similar friends who share inaccurate content are less likely to be blocked, partisan blocking does little to solve the problem of users who continue to push misinformation to their like-minded online friends.“

I also had the pleasure to speak about our research with Shraddha Chakradhar from the Nieman Lab, who wrote an excellent article that illustrates the results of our research. The final quote from the article nicely summarizes one of the key implications of our work:

“I think that probably the most important takeaway is that there are some drawbacks to the widespread assumption that one of the best ways to protect people against disinformation is to give users tools that enable them to limit contact with other people who share misinformation,” Vaccari told me. “If people applied those tools in a politically neutral way, then there would be no problem with that argument. But the problem, as this study shows, is that people apply those blocking and unfollowing tools in a way that is partisan.”

Full citation: Johannes Kaiser, Cristian Vaccari, Andrew Chadwick, Partisan Blocking: Biased Responses to Shared Misinformation Contribute to Network Polarization on Social Media, Journal of Communication, Volume 72, Issue 2, April 2022, Pages 214–240, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac002