PodcastNoEdits

The discussion revolves around the impact of social media on elections. It is highlighted that social media is filled with fake news and misinformation, which can confirm biases or make people skeptical of certain candidates. The spread of misinformation can affect civil conversations about politics, as people may hold differing views based on false information. Social media can amplify political polarization, leading to fights and cyberbullying. The credibility of news sources is also discussed, with biases present in both established media outlets and viral posts from everyday people. The tendency to believe news that confirms biases is noted. Overall, social media has worsened partisanship and made it easier for people to believe false information. Okay, first, you guys can each introduce yourselves with your name and like your major and stuff at school. You can go first, either way. Are you recording already? I just pressed it. Okay, I'll go first. I'm Abby Washburn. I am an exercise and sports science major. I'm planning on going to PA school. I'm Parker Barnes. I graduated from UGA last year with a major in science, and I'm getting my master's in financial planning. Okay, so most of what I'm just going to talk about is just about how social media during elections. There's a lot of fake news on social media and a lot of misinformation and disinformation. The difference between the two, misinformation is information that is just false that's out there, and disinformation can just lead people astray, and disinformation is purposely meant to lead people astray so the people that put it out there know that it's not true and it's done on purpose, and misinformation is most of the time accidental. Okay, and you guys can just talk. Whoever wants to go first, it doesn't really matter. But do you feel like news on social media tends to confirm your biases about a particular candidate or make you more skeptical of a particular candidate, both ones that you might agree with or ones that you might not agree with? I would say definitely. I mean, just with the way the algorithms work on Instagram and TikTok and stuff, they're just kind of built to confirm your own biases, and especially I feel like as I was getting towards election season, I was getting more and more of stuff that confirmed what I believed in and went against what I didn't believe in. Do you feel like there could be a difference, or do you feel like there's a difference between positive news and negative news? Like are you more likely to believe positive news about your candidate and less likely to believe positive news about the other candidate or vice versa? Oh, me? It doesn't matter. You guys just talk. Whoever wants to talk. I feel like I try to see it pretty evenly. I don't think I have a hard time accepting positive news from a candidate that I don't agree with, but I think that I have an easier time accepting negative news from the candidate I don't agree with. Okay, so the study that I was looking at that kind of backed this one up or led me to ask the question was proof that, or in their research, they discussed how people are much more likely to believe stories that favored their preferred candidate, especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks. Okay, next question. Studies argue that fake news can have large effects in tight elections. Have you ever encountered a news story on social media that you later found out wasn't true, and how did that make you feel? I have one. When there was the story of Trump saying, whenever this was the 90s, early 90s, late 80s, that if he were to ever run for government, he'd run as a Republican because they're stupid and everyone would vote for him, which obviously I think was eponized by people who leaned left, but it ended up being fake, and it was not hard at all to figure out that that was not something that he actually said. Yeah. I don't have a fake news one, but like the last question, I definitely think confirmation bias plays a role in that, and I feel like a lot of times people are looking to prove their side and validate how they feel versus I don't think I would ever go out and try to find positive news for the other candidate. I just feel like if it came to me, I'd be like, oh, that's good, whatever, but I think negative news for the other candidate or positive for yours confirms how you feel. Okay. And what ways do you think social media can amplify political polarization during elections, or could you provide any examples of that? I mean, I know after the recent election, there were multiple people in their stories that said, if you vote for Trump, I don't want to be associated with you, something along those lines. I just don't think that's something you should do, and I know people got in fights over that stuff, but yeah, social media fights and posting stuff like that is definitely unnecessary. I mean, there definitely has been just since we've grown up. Like, you know, we learned about cyberbullying when we were little and how in the age of social media, people – it's just a lot easier to be mean. Like, I don't think – even if they don't think they're being mean, it's just easier to say things that you wouldn't say in person, and I definitely think there is more polarization because of social media. Absolutely, I would say, on going either way, but then again, that's just what you see on social media, what your confirmation bias is. Do you think that the spread of misinformation affects your ability to have civil conversations about politics with friends or family who may have differing views, potentially because of things that they have seen on social media that may not be true? Can you say the question again? Do you think the spread of misinformation on social media, so things that aren't necessarily true, have affected your ability or willingness to have civil conversations with friends or family that might have varying political views from you because of what they might believe that isn't true in the first place? I think that social media on both sides does a lot of – allows for a lot of fearmongering and then also allows for a lot of single party – or not single party, single issue – I can't really figure out what I'm trying to say. But like, again, with the confirmation bias, like it's the algorithm. If you're concerned about a single issue and then your social media deep dives into the single issue, I think it's very emotional and misinformation can be – or disinformation even can be on purpose to fearmonger. And then I think definitely it can make it hard to talk to people because you see this issue as something that is so terrifying. And then it seems like someone who might be on the opposite side of the political spectrum doesn't even care about it. So then you kind of deep dive into this like, okay, well, how can they not care about it? But maybe they're not even necessarily seeing the same thing if the only place they're getting their news is social media. So, yeah, definitely. And then kind of going off of that, do you think that viral posts from everyday people sharing news, how that compares to posts from established media outlets like Fox or CNN in terms of credibility? Are you more likely to believe things that come from a regular person or from one of those official networks, even if they tend to lean the other way and might pose your candidate in a more negative light just due to the bias of the network? I do not believe everything that I see on TV. And I personally think some networks are – a lot of networks are biased one way or the other. And I have a family member that works for a media outlet. And at a family dinner, one of my relatives told him that she feels like his network is biased. And he freaked out and said, what? There's no bias in the media. And I think that just shows that people necessarily don't realize that they are biased when they're the ones feeding us everyday information. So I think that it definitely is biased. But to answer the question, I don't know. I know the Joe Rogan podcast might have had a big effect on elections, but it seems like a lot of people did tune in and try to listen to what specific people were saying, like Rogan or Taylor Swift, for example. Yeah, it's definitely both. I think that there definitely is an issue where even bias but credible news networks are almost just as credible as social media in some people's minds at this point. Like people – even smart people will believe things that confirm their bias. It comes back to that. And I think that I try to make sure I'm getting my news from credible sources, and I really try to get it from unbiased sources. But, yeah, I mean, I think going off Parker, like there are probably a lot of people that see what they see, what they want to see, and that's where they get their information, and that's how they make their decisions, which is scary. Do you feel like going off that it's scary to think that that's how certain people make their decisions? Do you think that going off kind of what we talked about earlier with the issue of how social media has kind of made partisanship and the polarization almost worse, do you think that that changes how you would think about the other side in general if you maybe know someone who thinks differently than you but you don't think they're getting their news from a credible source, or they're maybe more likely to believe something that you might have gone out of your way to hopefully know is not real? I – wait, sorry, can you say that again? Do you think that it's scary that you were saying it's scary that some people just get their news from social media and just believe everything that they think? Do you think that sometimes when that might come from the – I think that it's something that happens on both sides of the spectrum a lot, but do you think that when you notice it about people on the other side, do you think that that makes partisanship worse? Do you think that just the issue of social media in general and what people are so easily believing now makes that problem worse or not? Yeah, I mean, I definitely think that I'm guilty of that. I think it's really frustrating when you have people who put a lot of time and effort into getting information and being able to have simple talks about it, and then you have other people that aren't really trying at all. But I would say that it is more scary to me when it's just the side I don't agree with because – I mean, for obvious reasons, I think. But when it's my side of the political spectrum, I'm like, well, you don't really know what you're talking about, but at least you're voting for who I'm voting for, which, again, it just makes partisanship worse for sure, and I think it makes it hard to have civil, moderate conversations. I agree, and I think it makes it worse. I also think you think the other party always hyper-focuses on one certain thing, and like when it's not – or like, I mean, there's certain issues that are big debates today, and you always just think that that's the only thing the other party cares about because that's all you really hear them talking about. And it makes you wonder if like other – if we all know actually what we're talking about or if we just vote for someone just for one issue, like abortion or immigration or something. Yeah. I'm trying – there's something I'm trying to say, but I need to figure out how to say it. Never mind. Do you think that our generation is more or less skeptical of the news that we see on social media compared to older generations because we've grown up with social media, or do you think that makes it worse or better? Yeah, I feel like it could go either way. Like, I feel like this whole term fake news, I mean, obviously that's something like this, you know, funny Donald Trump coin, but like it's real, and I think maybe hopefully people are starting to realize that. I don't know if people our age more so than older generations are necessarily more skeptical of the news, but maybe just more skeptical of the government, more skeptical of politics in general. But then on the other hand, I think people are aware of the bias, but I don't – I wouldn't necessarily say that we're more skeptical because I think people don't care, and that's just from my experience literally on both sides. Yeah, I don't know who's more skeptical. I would definitely say I feel like older generations watch the news more and can be very anchored to their opinions because they sit at home and watch Fox or CNN or whatever, they may watch all that. But I know a lot of kids will just look on their phone and say, oh, Fox or CNN posted this about my candidate, I like that. And then they'll go tell their friends what they saw, and it might not even be right. So I don't know who's more skeptical, but I think we just get our news a lot different than the older generations. Yeah, I think it's probably hard to say. But yeah, I would just agree with – I mean, yeah, just double back what I said earlier where I think people aren't necessarily more skeptical, but they are more aware, which is also concerning. I think people know that social media is feeding into their biases, but it's a hard cycle to break, and people aren't necessarily going to break it themselves. How do you think that may be going into future elections? Because I think something that's interesting is that the campaigns themselves have really come to social media a lot more this election cycle than they have in the past, especially on TikTok and things. So with that kind of moving in that direction, what steps do you think maybe should be taken realistically just in the future to uphold election integrity and not have things that aren't true work their way into voters' minds and it all be because of social media? I honestly don't know. I, like myself, I'm not sure how I feel about the party's presence on social media. I think sometimes it's weird because it's just politics seems so serious and important, and then I think other times it humanizes the candidates a little bit more, and I think that's a good thing. But I think the issue isn't even necessarily the candidates or the parties themselves. Candidates have always smack-talked one another. That's something that's always happened. I think the issue comes from the really far left and the really far right other outlets of social media, and I'm honestly not sure how those could or would be regulated just with free speech and everything. I agree with that. I do think, though, that at least I've seen on Instagram how they'll have a fact check on a post. I think those could actually be really helpful for election cycles. However, I believe that a lot of those outlets do lean a certain way, so they tend to fact check one candidate over the other. But if there was a way to get a nonpartisan objective fact check on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, that would definitely help a lot of kids because I know that's where probably 90% of people get their information at our age. Yeah, I think a nonbiased fact checking would be good. But then there's, I feel like, concerns where people are already so set in their bias that even if they see a fact check, they might just think, oh, well, that's not true. So I hope that over the next four years there can be a little bit, not even a little bit, a lot more just bipartisanship in this country and that we can just realize we don't need to hate each other and spew all this hate on social media. Not we are just one country, and I hope that that is reflected in social media, both from the parties and the candidates and any other news outlet.