Problematic information, such as mis- and disinformation, circulating in fragmented news ecosystems, has contributed to mistrust and information fatigue. Using survey data (N = 2,117) and two focus groups, we explore the intersections of women’s media use, political self-efficacy, and family care in Chile, a country with high social media penetration but low institutional and news trust. Our findings reveal that women actively curate their news intake to protect their mental well-being and that of their loved ones, which highlights the ethical and relational dimensions of their media practices and emphasizes their role as both information curators and guardians.
AFP Factual. (2022, May25). El borrador de la nueva carta magna para Chile no dice que las casas pasarán a ser del Estado. AFP Factual. https://factual.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32B48NP
2.
AraujoK. (2019) Hilos tensados. Para leer el octubre chileno. Editorial USACH.
3.
AshleyS.MakslA.CraftS. (2013). Developing a news media literacy scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 68(1), 7–21.
BachmannI.CorreaT. (2013). Género, medios y participación. In ArriagadaA.NaviaP. (Eds.), Intermedios, Medios de comunicación y democracia en Chile (pp. 119–140). Diego Portales.
6.
BalchG. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept of ‘sense of political efficacy.’Political Methodology, 1, 1–43.
7.
BergerA. (1998). Media research techniques (2nd ed). Sage.
8.
BrogiE.NenadićI.ParcuP. L. (Eds.). (2024). Media pluralism in the digital era: Legal, economic, social, and political lessons learnt from Europe. Routledge. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/77215
9.
BrundidgeJ. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700.
10.
BrunsA.HighfieldT. (2015). From news blogs to news on Twitter: Gatewatching and collaborative news curation. In ColemanS.FreelonD. (Eds.), Handbook of digital politics (pp. 325–339). Edward Elgar Publishing.
11.
ChadwickA. (2017). The hybrid media system. Politics and power. Oxford University Press.
12.
CiullaJ. (2009). Leadership and the ethics of care. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 3–4
13.
CraigS. C.NiemiR. G.SilverG. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314.
14.
CuiX.LiuY. (2017). How does online news curate linked sources? A content analysis of three online news media. Journalism, 18(7), 852–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916663621
15.
DahlgrenP. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.
EdgerlyS. (2015). Red media, blue media, and purple media: News repertoires in the colorful media landscape. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(1), 1–21.
19.
EiseneggerM.SchäferM. (2023) Editorial: Reconceptualizing public sphere(s) in the digital age? On the role and future of public sphere theory, Communication Theory, 33(2–3), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad011
EpplerM. J.MengisJ. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325–344.
FlewT. (2021). The global trust deficit disorder: A communications perspective on trust in the time of global pandemics. Journal of Communication, 71(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab006
24.
FriedmanE. (2016). Interpreting the internet: feminist and queer counterpublics in Latin America. University of California Press.
Gil de ZúñigaH.WeeksB.Ardèvol-AbreuA. (2017). Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 105–123.
28.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
29.
GilliganC. (2005). Images of relationship. North Dakota Law Review, 81(4), 693–728.
30.
GrassauD.ValenzuelaS.BachmannI.LabarcaC.MujicaC.HalpernD.PuenteS. (2019). Estudio de opinión pública: uso y evaluación de los medios de comunicación y las redes sociales durante el estallido social en Chile. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
31.
GronemeyerM. E.PorathW. (2015). A study on homogeneity between editorials and news sources opinions in the Chilean reference press. Cuadernos.Info, 36, 139–153.
32.
HabermasJ. (2022). Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 145–171.
33.
HabermasJ. (2023). A new structural transformation of the public sphere and deliberative politics (1st ed.). Polity Press.
34.
HallJ. (2020). Focus groups: Culturally responsive approaches for qualitative inquiry and program evaluation. Myers Education Press.
35.
HanitzschT.Van DalenA.SteindlN. (2018). Caught in the nexus: A comparative and longitudinal analysis of public trust in the press. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217740695
36.
Humeres-RiquelmeM.Jordana-ContrerasC.Saavedra-UtmanJ. (2024). “A significant impact on our democracy”: Chilean media audiences’ claims for dignity. International Journal of Communication, 18, 432–451.
37.
IvankovaN.CreswellJ.StickS. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
38.
JacksonS.KreissD. (2023) Recentering power: conceptualizing counterpublics and defensive publics, Communication Theory, 33(2–3), 102–111, https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad004
39.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
40.
KitzingerJ. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103–112.
41.
KruegerR. (2000). Overview of focus groups. In KruegerR.CaseyM. (Eds.), Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (pp. 3–18). SAGE.
42.
Lazcano-PeñaD.Gálvez-PereiraM. P.Zuleta-CavalliR. (2021). Imaginarios sobre periodismo en Chile antes y después del estallido social. Una mirada desde futuros profesionales. Avatares Comunicación Cultura, 21(2021), 1–22.
43.
LunaJ. P.ToroS.ValenzuelaS. (2022). Amplifying counter-public spheres on social media: News sharing of alternative versus traditional media after the 2019 Chilean uprising. Social Media + Society, 8(1), 1–11.
44.
LuntP.LivingstoneS. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal of Communication, 46(2) 79–98.
45.
MartinJ. D.SharmaK. (2022). Getting news from social media influencers and from digital legacy news outlets and print legacy news outlets in seven countries: The “more-and-more” phenomenon and the new opinion leadership. Newspaper Research Journal, 43(3), 276–299.
46.
MasipP.Ruiz-CaballeroC.SuauJ. (2019). Active audiences and social discussion on the digital public sphere. El profesional de la información, 28(2), e280204. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.mar.04
47.
MendozaM.ValenzuelaS.Núñez-MussaE.PadillaF.ProvidelE.CamposS.BassiR.RiquelmeA.AldanaV.LópezC. (2023). A study on information disorders on social networks during the Chilean social outbreak and COVID-19 pandemic. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5347.
NewmanN.FletcherR.RobertsonC.Ross ArguedasA.NielsenR. K. (2024). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.
52.
OrchardX.SaldañaMPavezI.LagosC. (2023). ‘Does she know how to read?’ An intersectional perspective to explore Twitter users’ portrayal of women Mapuche leaders. Information, Communication & Society, 26(13), 2554–2574.
53.
PapacharissiZ. (2002). The virtual sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27.
54.
PapacharissiZ. (2010a). A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites. Routledge.
55.
PapacharissiZ. (2010b). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Polity Press.
56.
PriorM. (2019). Hooked. How politics captures people’s interest. Princeton University.
57.
PowellA. (2022). Two-step flow and protesters: understanding what influenced participation in a George Floyd protests. Communication Quarterly, 70(4), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2022.2077122
58.
ProustV.SaldañaM. (2022). Another violent protest? New perspectives to understand protest coverage. Media and Communication, 10(4), 18–29.
59.
RamírezC.Yáñez-UrbinaC.SalinasI. (2020). Chile, la democracia se acabó: Crisis institucional en el 18-O chileno. Re-Presentaciones. Investigación en Comunicación, 12, 6–28. https://doi.org/10.35588/rp.v0i12.4317
RobinsonS.JohnsonP. (2023). Rectifying harm through care-based practices: How journalists might tend to disengaged communities. Journalism Studies, 25(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2289889
62.
RosenbergA.SaldañaM.PorathW. (2023). Engaged and uncivil? Incivility and Engagement on Twitter over a televised presidential debate in Chile. International Journal of Communication, 17, 6129–6153.
SaldañaM. (2019). Exposing the president: The Political angle of a natural disaster in Chile. #ISOJ Journal, 9(1), 49–68.
65.
SantosM.SaldañaM.TsyganovaK. (2024). Subversive affordances as a form of digital transnational activism: The case of telegram’s native proxy. New Media & Society, 26(1), 131–153.
66.
SmithJ.DaviesS. E.FengH.GanC. C. R.GrépinK. A.HarmanS.Herten-CrabbA.KattirtziM.KaranikolosM.KothariA.MorganR.MunozM.NandaS.NeelyA. H.O’KeefeM.OomsG.RavindranT. K. S.RoalkvamS.. . . WenhamC. (2021). More than a public health crisis: A feminist political economic analysis of COVID-19. Global Public Health, 16(8–9), 1364–1380. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2021.1896765
67.
SmithJ. C. (2022). Representation in times of crisis: women’s executive presence and gender-sensitive policy responses to crises. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(10), 1984–2009. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.211014
SchwarzeneggerC. (2022). Understanding the users of alternative news media—Media epistemologies, news consumption, and media practices. Digital Journalism, 11(5), 853–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.2000454
70.
SchwaigerL.VoglerD.EiseneggerM. (2022). Change in news access, change in expectations? How young social media users in Switzerland evaluate the functions and quality of news. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211072787
71.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.EvelandW. P.KwakN. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209
72.
ShahrzadiL.MansouriA.AlaviM.ShabaniA. (2024). Causes, consequences, and strategies to deal with information overload: A scoping review. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 4(2), 1–12.
73.
SofferO. (2021). Algorithmic personalization and the two-step flow of communication. Communication Theory, 31(3), 297–315https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz008
74.
SkovsgaardM.AndersenK. (2019). Conceptualizing news avoidance: Towards a shared understanding of different causes and potential solutions. Journalism Studies, 21(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1686410
75.
StrömbäckJ.TsfatiY.BoomgaardenH.DamstraA.LindgrenE.VliegenthartR.LindholmT. (2020). News media trust and its impact on media use: Toward a framework for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1755338
76.
TernulloS. (2022). “I’m not sure what to believe”: Media distrust and opinion formation during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Political Science Review, 116(3), 1096–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542200003X
77.
TwengeJ. M.CampbellW. K.CarterN. T. (2014). Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents, 1972–2012. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1914–1923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614545133
78.
ThorsonK.WellsC. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087
79.
ToffB.KalogeropoulosA. (2020). All the news that’s fit to ignore: How the information environment does and does not shape news avoidance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(Suppl 1), 366–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa016
80.
TongR. (1998). The ethics of care: A feminist virtue ethics of care for healthcare practitioners. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 23(2), 131–152.
81.
TuckerJ. A.TheocharisY.RobertsM. E.BarberáP. (2017). From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 28(4) 46-58.
82.
ValenzuelaS.HalpernD.AranedaF. (2022). A downward spiral? A panel study of misinformation and media trust in Chile. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(2), 353-373.
83.
VilliM.AharoniT.Tenenboim-WeinblattK.BoczkowskiP. J.HayashiK.MitchelsteinE.TanakaA.Kligler-VilenchikN. (2022). Taking a break from news: A five-nation study of news avoidance in the digital era. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1904266
84.
VragaE. K.BodeL. (2020). Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: Using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication, 37(1), 136–144.
WasburnP. C.Adkins CovertT. J. (2017). Making citizens. Palgrave Macmillan.
87.
WilkinsL. (2009). Carol Gilligan. Ethics of care. In ChristiansC.MerrillJ. (Eds.) Ethical communication: Moral stances in human dialogue (pp. 33–39). University of Missouri Press.
88.
WilkinsonS. (1999). Focus groups: A feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(2), 221–244.
WyattR. O.KatzE.KimJ.KimJ. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 71–92.
