In periods of political unrest, media habits change significantly, allowing for new patterns of selectivity. This study's main contribution lies in its application of selective exposure theory and its comparison of people's media uses in five Global South polities that witnessed widespread protests in 2019: Chile, Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon. It examines the relationship between people's trust in the media and selective exposure at a global comparative level and within the contexts of political upheavals and hyperconnected media systems. The study also assesses the relationship between issue publics and participation in protests. Using cross-sectional surveys in each of the five countries/regions, it compares participants’ support for the protests and their exposure to legacy and social media. The findings reveal that media trust and issue publics play a significant role in determining the level of preference for pro-attitudinal news content. Trusting pro-attitudinal TV channels relates to following pro-attitudinal TV channels, and trusting counter-attitudinal TV channels relates to following counter-attitudinal TV channels. In addition, the strong issue publics group was more likely than the weak and moderate issue publics groups to participate in street protests.
Al-RawiAK (2013) The US influence in shaping Iraq’s sectarian media. International Communication Gazette75(4): 374–391.
2.
BeckerABDalrympleKEBrossardD, et al. (2010) Getting citizens involved: How controversial policy debates stimulate issue participation during a political campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research22(2): 181–203.
3.
BolsenTLeeperTJ (2013) Self-Interest and attention to news among issue publics. Political Communication30(3): 329–348.
CardenalASAguilar-ParedesCGalaisC, et al. (2019) Digital technologies and selective exposure: How choice and filter bubbles shape news media exposure. The International Journal of Press/Politics24(4): 465–486.
ChanM (2020) Partisan selective exposure and the perceived effectiveness of contentious political actions in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Communication30(3-4): 279–296.
8.
ChehabiHE (2001) The political regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran in comparative perspective. Government and Opposition36(1): 48–70.
9.
ChenH-T (2013) Capturing the nature of issue publics: selectivity, deliberation, and activeness in the new media environment. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
10.
ChiuSWSiuKY (2022) Hong Kong as a city of protest: Social movement as motor for social change. In: Hong Kong Society: High-Definition Stories Beyond the Spectacle of East-Meets-westSingapore: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.329–385.
11.
ClayRBarberJMShookNJ (2013) Techniques for measuring selective exposure: A critical review. Communication Methods and Measures7(3-4): 147–171.
ComninosA (2013) The role of social media and user-generated content in post-conflict peacebuilding. Report, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, June.
14.
ConversePE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: ApterDE (ed) Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press, pp.206–261.
15.
DahlgrenPMShehataAStrömbäckJ (2019) Reinforcing spirals at work? Mutual influences between selective news exposure and ideological leaning. European Journal of Communication34(2): 159–174.
16.
DilliplaneS (2011) All the news you want to hear: The impact of partisan news exposure on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly75(2): 287–316.
17.
DodgeTMansourR (2020) Sectarianization and desectarianization in the struggle for Iraq’s political field. The Review of Faith & International Affairs18(1): 58–69.
DuboisEBlankG (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information. Communication & Society21(5): 729–745.
20.
FeldmanLHartPS (2018) Broadening exposure to climate change news? How framing and political orientation interact to influence selective exposure. Journal of Communication68(3): 503–524.
21.
FletcherRNielsenRK (2018) Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media and Society20(7): 2450–2468.
22.
FletcherRParkS (2017) The impact of trust in the news media on online news consumption and participation. Digital Journalism5(10): 1281–1299.
23.
FrischNBelair-GagnonVAgurC (2018) Media capture with Chinese characteristics: Changing patterns in Hong Kong’s news media system. Journalism19(8): 1165–1181.
24.
GarrettRK (2009) Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication59(4): 676–699.
25.
GoldmanSKMutzDC (2011) The friendly media phenomenon: A cross-national analysis of cross-cutting exposure. Political Communication28(1): 42–66.
26.
GondweG (2020) Incivility, online participation, and message delivery in the 2019 Hong Kong protests: Exploring the relationship. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies10(1): 1–11.
27.
HartWAlbarracínDEaglyAH, et al. (2009) Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin135(4): 555–588.
28.
HendersonM (2014) Issue publics, campaigns, and political knowledge. Political Behavior36(3): 631–657.
HumanesML (2019) Selective exposure in a changing political and media environment. Media and Communication7(3): 1–3.
34.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
35.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (2013) The dark side of the boon? Credibility, selective exposure and the proliferation of online sources of political information. Computers in Human Behavior29: 1862–1871.
36.
JonasESchulz-HardtSFreyD (2005) Giving advice or making decisions in someone else’s place: The influence of impression, defense, and accuracy motivation on the search for new information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31(7): 977–990.
37.
KimY (2011) The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior27(2): 971–977.
38.
KimYM (2009) Issue publics in the new information environment. Communication Research36(2): 254–284.
39.
Knobloch-WesterwickSJohnsonBKWesterwickA (2015) Confirmation bias in online searches: Impacts of selective exposure before an election on political attitude strength and shifts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(2): 171–187.
40.
Knobloch-WesterwickSLiuLHinoA, et al. (2019) Context impacts on confirmation bias: Evidence from the 2017 Japanese snap election compared with American and German findings. Human Communication Research45(4): 427–449.
41.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2009) Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counter attitudinal political information. Communication Research36(3): 426–448.
42.
KohringMMatthesJ (2007) Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research34(2): 231–252.
43.
KozmanCMelkiJ (2018) News media uses during war: The case of the Syrian conflict. Journalism Studies19(10): 1466–1488.
44.
KozmanCMelkiJ (2022) Selection bias of news on social media: The role of selective sharing and avoidance during the Lebanon uprising. International Journal of Communication16: 2864–2884.
45.
KrosnickJTelhamiS (1995) Public attitudes toward Israel: A study of the attentive and issue publics. International Studies Quarterly39(4): 535–554.
46.
KrosnickJA (1990) Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior12(1): 59–92.
47.
LeeJKChoiJKimC, et al. (2014) Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication64(4): 702–722.
48.
LeeT-T (2010) Why they don’t trust the media: An examination of factors predicting trust.American Behavioral Scientist54(1): 8–21.
49.
LeeperTJ (2014) The informational basis for mass polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly78(1): 27–46.
50.
McGuireWJ (1985) Attitudes and attitude change. In: LindzeyGAronsonE (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House, pp.233–346.
51.
MelkiJKozmanC (2021a) Media dependency, selective exposure and trust during war: Media sources and information needs of displaced and non-displaced Syrians. Media War and Conflict14(1): 93–113.
52.
MelkiJKozmanC (2021b) Selective exposure during uprisings: Examining the public’s news consumption and sharing tendencies during the 2019 Lebanon protests. International Journal of Press/Politics26(4): 907–928.
53.
MelladoCHumanesMLSchermanA, et al. (2021) Do digital platforms really make a difference in content? Mapping journalistic role performance in Chilean print and online news. Journalism22(2): 358–377.
54.
MelladoCSchermanA (2021) Mapping source diversity across Chilean news platforms and mediums. Journalism Practice15(7): 974–993.
55.
MetzgerMJHartsellEHFlanaginAJ (2020) Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research47(1): 3–28.
56.
MillerJMPetersonDA (2004) Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. The Journal of Politics66(3): 847–867.
57.
MutzDCYoungL (2011) Communication and public opinion: Plus ca change?Public Opinion Quarterly75(5): 1018–1044.
58.
NewmanNFletcherRKalogeropoulosA, et al. (2018) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018. Report, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, UK.
59.
NewmanNFletcherRSchulzA, et al. (2021) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021. Report, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, UK, June.
60.
PeraltaCBWojcieszakMLelkesY, et al. (2017) Selective exposure to balanced content and evidence type: The case of issue and non-issue publics about climate change and health care. Health and Science Communication94(3): 833–861.
61.
PettyREKrosnickJA (1995) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Eldraum.
62.
RasmussenT (2014) Internet and the political public sphere. Sociology Compass8(12): 1315–1329.
63.
RicchiardiS (2011) Iraq’s news media after Saddam: Liberation, repression, and future prospects. Report, Center for International Media Assistance, Washington, March.
64.
SangYLeeJYParkS, et al. (2020) Signalling and expressive interaction: Online news users’ different modes of interaction on digital platforms. Digital Journalism8(4): 467–485.
65.
SawickiVWegenerDTClarkJK, et al. (2011) Seeking confirmation in times of doubt: Selective exposure and the motivational strength of weak attitudes. Social Psychological and Personality Science2(5): 540–546.
66.
SchoemakerEStremlauN (2014) Media and conflict: An assessment of the evidence. Progress in Development Studies14(2): 181–195.
67.
SchranzMSchneiderJEiseneggerM (2018) Media trust and media use. In: OttoKKöhlerA (eds) Trust in Media and Journalism. Zürich: Springer VS Wiesbaden, pp.73–91.
68.
SearsDOFreedmanJL (1967) Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly31(2): 194–213.
69.
ShahiAAbdoh-TabriziE (2020) Iran’s 2019–2020 demonstrations: The changing dynamics of political protests in Iran. Asian Affairs51(1): 1–41.
70.
SoCYK (2017) More coverage is less confidence? Media’s portrayal of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong. Chinese Journal of Communication10(4): 377–394.
71.
Soengas-PérezX (2013) The role of the internet and social networks in the Arab uprisings an alternative to official press censorship. Comunicar21(41): 147–155.
72.
StierSKirkizhNFroioC, et al. (2020) Populist attitudes and selective exposure to online news: A cross-country analysis combining web tracking and surveys. The International Journal of Press/Politics25(3): 426–446.
73.
StroudNJ (2008) Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior30(3): 341–366.
74.
StroudNJLeeJK (2013) Perceptions of cable news credibility. Mass Communication and Society16(1): 67–88.
75.
StrömbäckJTsfatiYBoomgaardenH, et al. (2020) News media trust and its impact on media use: Toward a framework for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association44(2): 139–156.
76.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
77.
TsfatiYArielyG (2014) Individual and contextual correlates of trust in media across 44 countries. Communication Research41(6): 760–782.
78.
TsfatiYCappellaJN (2005) Why do people watch news they do not trust? The need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychology7(3): 251–271.
WesterwickAKleinmanSBKnobloch-WesterwickS (2013) Turn a blind eye if you care: Impacts of attitude consistency, importance, and credibility on seeking of political information and implications for attitudes. Journal of Communication63(3): 432–453.
81.
WilliamsAE (2012) Trust or bust?: Questioning the relationship between media trust and news attention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(1): 116–131.
82.
WilliamsPKernMLWatersL (2016) Exploring selective exposure and confirmation bias as processes underlying employee work happiness: An intervention study. Frontiers in Psychology7: 1–13.
83.
WojcieszakM (2014) Preferences for political decision-making processes and issue publics. The Public Opinion Quarterly78(4): 917–939.
84.
WojcieszakM (2021) What predicts selective exposure online: Testing political attitudes, credibility, and social identity. Communication Research48(5): 687–716.
85.
WojcieszakMNisbetECKremerL, et al. (2019) What drives media use in authoritarian regimes? Extending selective exposure theory to Iran. The International Journal of Press/Politics24(1): 69–91.
