Throughout history, communication has introduced more complex and sophisticated processes by which closer and more accessible means of communication for individuals have been added to the use of mass media. In that sense, social networks, together with other elements which facilitate direct or interpersonal communication, are also increasingly popular means for the general public to interact.
The management of public problems has a key position in modern democratic societies and, thus far in the 21st century, it is unquestionable that the media, alongside social networks, have contributed to a noticeable change in the visibility and perception the different echelons of citizens’ power and action. Consequently, from the point of view of mediatization (Manin, 1998; Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999) not only is the action of parties analyzed through the press but there is also the instantaneous nature and interaction of the digital world, suggesting a possible “digital democracy” and the appearance of a virtual public sphere (Papacharissi, 2008).
Terms in office and election processes are a moment of particular interest when citizens observe their elected representatives. As such, the press becomes a strategic place for knowing about the candidates, their electoral programs and the issues they propose. These are also shared on their social network accounts, favoring close communication between representatives and the represented. Is that really the case? Are social networks a place for coming together or falling apart, for informing or misinforming? At times the traditional and digital media generate a climate of opinion which can lead to polarization in which the elections are perceived as a social mood: euphoria, negativism, vertigo, etc. To what extent does all that affect democracy and public opinion.
The boom in social networks has brought with it an increase in the spreading of false information (Wardle, 2017) and discriminatory content, thus turning the digital sphere into a place with a propensity for disinformation and hate speech (Piñeiro and Martínez, 2021). The debate regarding whether social networks improve public debate and democracy or if, by contrast, they polarize and block it, remains open and there are claims on both sides. According to some proposals, one way of reducing this noise in the digital sphere needs there to be a guarantee of the right of access to information and an improvement in the processes of transparency and accountability of public authorities. This would achieve two objectives. On the one hand, it would reduce the dependence of civil society on the media and networks to know which public issues are of interest to it. On the other, it would strengthen governance and bring public institutions nearer to the general public, thus improving levels of trust in institutions.
This issue focuses particularly on giving an answer using several case studies or a literature review of mediatization and the elements of which it is composed. As such, the most appropriate pieces of work for this monograph are those which focus on:
- Mediatization and Public communication;
- Analyses of election campaigns and debates in the media and/or social networks, from different points of view;
- A study of the main issues on the public, media and political agendas;
- Disinformation, parties and the digital society;
- Democracy and press;
- Cyberdemocracy;
- Leaders on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, etc.;
- Transparency and access to public information;
- Accountability and the use of public resources;
- Hate speech and the violation of rights on social networks;
- Communication tools for strengthening democracy;
- Relationships of consensus and conflict between political, media and civil players;
- Discourse and leadership;
- Public opinion, framing and agenda-setting;
- Emotions in legislature;
- The use of big data Citizen participation and its influence on democracy.
