NEWS

By Sine N. Just

As the extent to which digital technologies already saturate societies is becoming apparent to growing numbers of global citizens, the question of whether ubiquitous digitalization is desirable is moving to the forefront of public debate: as we combat COVID-19, should contact tracing apps and digital vaccination passports be mandatory for all citizens? In the battle against crime, should facial recognition software be integrated into surveillance equipment? Seeking to vanquish child abuse, should predictive algorithms assist social workers’ case evaluation? These are but three of the many issues that are being debated at present. And what about the (social) media platforms on which these debates are conducted? Invoking freedom of speech, should they remain unregulated? Seeking social justice, should hate speech and incitement to violence be banned? As decision making and opinion formation alike are becoming thoroughly digitalized, we need to discuss the content of controversies about data and algorithms as well as the form of datafied and algorithmic controversies.

A new research project aims to do just that. Generously funded by the Villum and Velux Foundations, the Algorithms, Data and Democracy-project will investigate issues of public concern about digitalisation and datafication as these are shaped by digital technologies and articulated in the digital infrastructures of democracy. The aim is to understand current concerns and challenges so as to be able to suggest ways in which the algorithmic organisation of data can engage, enlighten and empower individual citizens and democratic institutions. Turning potential crises of trust in democratic societies as well as in novel technologies into opportunities for enhanced digital democracy.

The ADD-project will achieve this aim through strong interdisciplinary integration as well as disciplinary expertise. It brings together a team of researchers with unique competences in computer science and technological research, the humanities and the social sciences, building common theoretical and methodological approach in the process of studying empirical cases. Further, the project integrates scientific research and public outreach by involving relevant stakeholders and interested citizens from its outset and throughout the 10 years of its existence. At first, we will seek broad engagement, listening to concerns and opinions of people and organizations. As we develop our research, we will seek to enlighten the debate through the communication of results. Finally, we will join in conversations that can empower citizens and inspire policy-makers to instigate positive change.

Read more about the project on our website and follow it as it unfolds by subscribing to our newsletter.  

Af Sine N. Just

Kultur- og kommunikationsstudier af digitaliseringens omorganisering af hverdagen

Antologien Digitale liv. Brugere, platforme og selvfremstillinger, der er redigeret af Rikke Andreassen, Rasmus Rex Pedersen og Connie Svabo, samler en gruppe forskere om studiet af forskellige måder, hvorpå digitalisering påvirker menneskers liv og hverdag. De fleste af bidragyderne har fagligt hjemme på Institut for Kommunikation og Humanistisk Videnskab, og nogle af os (inklusiv undertegnede) er medlemmer af Digital Media Lab. Vi er altså alle kultur- og kommunikationsforskere med interesse for digitalisering, men snarere end et snævert fokus viser antologien feltets emnemæssige bredde, metodiske spændvidde og teoretiske eklekticisme. I denne omtale vil jeg give et overblik over de emner, metoder og teorier, som bogen rummer, og dermed en forsmag på, hvad man finder, hvis man dykker ned i den.

Den digitale hverdag

Hverdagen er blevet digital i en sådan grad, at vi ikke tænker over det – indtil en del af den digitale infrastruktur bliver synlig via et ’glitch’ i matrixens ellers så fejlfrie flow. Vi ser vores afhængighed af det digitale, når internettet ’lacker’, som børnene råber med lige dele vrede og resignation. Når iPhonen går i stykker, og det bliver umuligt at holde styr på aftaler, at tage billeder, at lytte til musik og at komme i kontakt med venner, for nu blot at nævne nogle af de funktioner, der i dag er samlet i en smart phone. Eller når indkøbenes stregkode ikke kan scannes, og man må vente på, at en af supermarkedets stadigt færre ansatte dukker op.

Bogens undertitel angiver tre overordnede områder eller tematikker inden for denne omsiggribende udvikling, som bogen også er struktureret efter. For det første ’brugere’. Hvad betyder det for os, som individer og fællesskaber, at vi i stadigt stigende grad defineres i og med de digitale teknologier, vi benytter os af? Når vi som borgere organiseres i digitale offentligheder, finder vores nyheder på nettet og modtager information fra ’det offentlige’ i e-boksen? Når byens rum bliver digitale og vores færdsel i dem styres af vores evne eller vilje til at interagere med teknologierne omkring os? Når computerspil florerer i stadigt flere undergenrer, og man fx kan øve sig på kærlighed via spillene?

Det andet tema er ’platforme’. Her stilles især skarpt på den algoritmiske opbygning af digitale infrastrukturer; hvordan former de underliggende algoritmer brugernes handlemuligheder på fx Facebook, Spotify og dating apps? Hvad betyder det, at interaktionen mellem bruger og algoritme har en tendens til at virke forstærkende på brugerens smag? Altså, når man både selv kan sætte sine præferencer og bliver tilbudt mere af den type indhold, man efterspørger, er det på den ene side effektiv målretning, men på den anden side også spildte muligheder. ’People who likes this, also liked…’-logikken kan være en god måde at målrette indhold, men det kan også føre til ensporede ekkokamre, til øget forudsigelighed og kontrol.

Endelig fokuserer det tredje tema ’selvfremstillinger’ på forskellige brugergruppers anvendelse af de teknologiske muligheder til identitetsdannelse og/eller selvpromovering. Hvad enten det drejer sig om influencere, der bliver berømte på at ’være sig selv’, prekære arbejdere, der søger beskæftigelse via arbejdsplatforme, eller professionelle organisationer, der bruger digital kommunikation som et middel til realisering af strategiske mål, så formes individuelle og kollektive identiteter i stadigt stigende grad af de digitale platformes mulighedsrum, og i denne sidste del af bogen fokuseres der på, hvordan disse mulighedsrum konkret udnyttes.

Digitale metoder?

Der er i antologien eksempler på, at den omsiggribende digitalisering også skaber nye forskningspraksisser i form af digitale metoder. Fx anvender Sander Andreas Schwartz i sit kapitel om algoritmisk offentlighed ’walk-through’-metoden til at gennemgå Facebooks design og funktionalitet, og i kapitlet om Spotifys anbefalingssystemer benytter Rasmus Rex Pedersen sig af en ’kritisk læsning af algoritmen’, der muliggør en nærmere undersøgelse af, hvordan anbefalingerne egentlig fungerer.

Det er dog karakteristisk, at ingen af kapitlerne arbejder med digitale metoder til indsamling og analyse af ’big data’. I stedet er fokus på kvalitative studier, ofte med særligt blik for brugeren, hvad enten det er via kvalitative interviews, protokolanalyser eller deltagerobservationer af brugeroplevelser eller gennem studier af individuelle og kollektive aktørers digitale kommunikation. Antologien viser dermed, at digitaliseringen ikke har overflødiggjort klassiske humanistiske og samfundsvidenskabelige tilgange, men at det derimod i høj frad giver mening at studere de nye fænomener med velkendte metoder.

Digital humaniora

Dermed bidrager kapitlerne med dybe og detaljerede indsigter i forskellige former for sociomateriel meningsdannelse; de forstår og forklarer ’digitale liv’ som måder, hvorpå teknologisk betingede handlerum opstår og udnyttes. Dette må være en af humanioras fornemste opgaver i dag; at forstå, hvad det vil sige at være menneske i en digital tidsalder – hvordan vi former vores digitale redskaber og hvordan de former os. Antologien bidrager med netop sådanne forståelser gennem inddragelse af en bred vifte af teoretiske perspektiver, modeller og begreber. Fra aktørnetværksteoretiske arrangementer af humane og non-humane aktører over digitale affordances til realiserede handlinger – og deres konsekvenser. Og fra kontrol, normalisering og forstærkning af eksisterende ideologiske rammer, fx via markedsliggørelsen af shitstorms, til kreativ udnyttelse af de etablerede rammer til afsøgning af mulige alternativer, fx gennem minoritetssubjekters selvkommercialisering.

Er man konkret interesseret i et eller flere af de temaer, som behandles i Digitale liv, eller mere generelt optaget af spørgsmålet om, hvordan teknologiske udviklinger påvirker menneskelige fællesskaber, er der masser af inspiration at hente i antologien. Som bagsideteksten lover, kan bogen ”læses af alle, der interesserer sig for den digitalisering, der i stigende grad præger vores samfund og digitale liv”.

By Sine N. Just

Whether your point of reference for the title of this piece is late 19^th century German philosophy or early 21^st century computer games, the implications are the same: The categories are blurred and, hence, we need to develop new modes of ethical judgement. This is particularly true now, as the need for such judgement is also moving beyond ‘the human’ and ‘the technical’ as separate realms. What we need, today, is a sociotechnical ethics that enable us to steer current developments in new directions. We need, to borrow from the subtitle of Nietzsche’s work, a new ‘philosophy of the future’.

Turning from such sweeping visions to the more mundane question of how to introduce data ethics to students, the aim of this post is to report on one small experiment with technology-supported in-class debate.

Discussing algorithms and data in the class room

Using Kialo as the platform for the debate, I asked my students to help develop and assess arguments pro and con the societal impact of ‘big data’. The students had been given a prompt in the form of boyd and Crawford’s (2012) ‘Critical questions for big data,’ and prior to the exercise I had pointed to a key quote from that text (p. 663):

Will large-scale search data help us create better tools, services, and public goods? Or will it usher in a new wave of privacy incursions and invasive marketing? Will data analytics help us understand online communities and political movements? Or will it be used to track protesters and suppress speech? Will it transform how we study human communication and culture, or narrow the palette of research options and alter what ‘research’ means?

Translating these broad questions into more specific positions on the ethical implications involved, students were then asked to produce arguments for and against four common claims with clear tech-optimistic or tech-pessimistic valences as well as one claim suggesting the irrelevance of big data:

• Society will become safer
• Society will become more controlled
• Society will become richer
• Society will become more unequal
• Society will remain unchanged

The students were asked to provide one argument for or against each claim, and at the end of the exercise we held a plenary discussion to reflect on the arguments produced.

Students’ positions on data ethics

Looking at the students’ arguments, a first finding is that no one argued in favor of the claim that ‘society will remain unchanged’. To the contrary, the students provided arguments against this claim, e.g. suggesting that corporate actors and public institutions ‘will increasingly organize around big data’, that ‘techgiants have more knowledge about us, than we do’ and that individuals ‘will change their digital behaviors to protect their private lives’.

Beyond the consensus that algorithms and data are impacting the social world, however, students were divided as to the nature of the impact. And for each of the four remaining claims, they produced approximately as many arguments in favor as against. For instance, the claim that society will become more controlled, which was the claim that produced the most responses, let to a nuanced discussion concerning the implications of such control. That is, while most students took increased surveillance for granted, some felt this to be a cause for celebration rather than concern as it could ‘reduce crime’ or ‘create safety and make things easier’. Others, however, highlighted the risks of ‘misuse’ and ‘manipulation’, and suggested that people might self-regulate because ‘we do not know when we are being watched’.

Interestingly, the students produced somewhat different arguments for the claim ‘society will become safer’, suggesting that control and safety might not be exclusionary categories, but instead exist in a trade-off. Here, students were less prone to accept the possibilities of data to produce safety and more concerned with the price of such safety, e.g. suggesting that lack of transparency creates uncertainty and arguing that the ‘need to produce regulation about data security [GDPR] shows that there is a problem’. Generally, however, for this claim the students felt that ‘it depends’. And one comment on the claim of ‘more control’ nicely sums up the general attitude:

…learning more about human action and behavior can be both good and bad. Depends on what one wants to control.

Turning to the question of growth, students clearly saw the potential of technological developments to create new business opportunities and increase the efficiency while decreasing costs of e.g. marketing activities. However, as one student argued:

…society might not need more growth and wealth, but a better distribution of resources.

This takes us to the claim concerning increased inequality, which students seemingly view as a side-effect of growth. That is, the students tend to support the combined claim that current uses of algorithms and data simultaneously produce more growth and more inequality. The reasoning being that ‘data is a form of capital with which you can negotiate’ and ‘the most powerful people and organizations have more access to data and can use it to their advantage’.

Towards data ethics

In our plenary summary of the exercise, the students reported that in considering where to position themselves they had found that it is not easy to take one stance or the other, as there are many arguments for and against all positions and the matter is ‘more nuanced than I thought’, as one participant said.

Illustrating this point was the main pedagogical aim of the exercise, which I concluded with a slide showing Kranzberg’s (1986: 545) famous dictum that ‘technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.’ However, I also hoped to move beyond the articulation of this position to begin developing the alternative. What might a data ethics beyond the clear dichotomies of optimism and pessimism – good and evil – look like?

In reflecting on this question, we talked about intentionality, consequences, and situationality. Each of these potential principles of judgement are reminiscent of well-established ethical schools and, hence, carry with them the same issues of when and how to use either. As might be expected, we did not resolve these issues once and for all, but the questions linger with me – and, I hope, with the students.

With this text, I invite continued reflection on the ethics of data in as well as outside of classrooms. The future will not wait for us to develop a new philosophy, and, hence, establishing a robust and distinct data ethics is an increasingly urgent matter.  

By Mette Wichmand

The technological development has in recent years given us more and more opportunities to access, create and store data about ourselves and others. We communicate online with family, friends, acquaintances and people we do not know at all. We follow people, companies and organizations as well as hashtags online. We share thoughts, opinions and ideas in cyberspace together with our whereabouts, selfies and photos of others, and the things we do and buy. We register our sleep, steps, meals and temperature. And while we do all of that – and more – we leave digital traces behind – knowingly or not.

Together, these traces create an unprecedented amount of social data. Data that forms a goldmine for researchers in social science – like myself and my colleagues, and probably also you, dear reader, as you are reading this blog.

It is easy to become euphoric when thinking of the amount of data that the technologies are generating and giving us access to. Think about the insights we can create on how viruses travel and spread across boarders or how student socialize and learn online. Knowledge that can help us build better health services and stronger educational systems. But the opportunities come with ethical challenges. Because is the data actually ours to collect, store, share and analyse in the name of research, just because it exists and is accessible? Or does the data belong to the individuals who created it and should they be consulted before we use it? 

I have no clear answer to this question, but I think it a crucial one. Therefore I have been looking around for help and guidance.

I began my search by looking into the infamous GDPR, the extensive piece of legislation that was adopted in April 2016 by the European Council and Parliament. This piece of legislation seems to work well for private companies, but is not very helpful for me as a researcher looking for ethics. I am no legal expert, but from reading people who are, I understand that research occupies a privileged position within the Regulation: “Organizations that process personal data for research purposes may avoid restrictions on secondary processing and on processing sensitive categories of data (Article 6(4); Recital 50). As long as they implement appropriate safeguards, these organizations also may override a data subject’s right to object to processing and to seek the erasure of personal data (Article 89). Additionally, the GDPR may permit organizations to process personal data for research purposes without the data subject’s consent (Article 6(1)(f); Recitals 47, 157)” (see: https://iapp.org/news/a/how-gdpr-changes-the-rules-for-research/)

My own conclusion: Good to know what the rules are, but not the right place to look for ethical guidance.

So, looking for ethics, my next stop, was the homepage of the Danish ‘Council of Data Ethics’ (Dataetisk Råd). The council was established in May 2019 by the government with the stated task of supporting ‘a responsible and sustainable use of data in the private and the public sector’ (see: https://digst.dk/data/dataetisk-raad/). It would seem to be an obvious place to find some guidelines but turned out to be another dead-end. On the homepage, the council writes that it is essential that the data ethical challenges of the public sector are addressed, but at this point in time they have only prepared recommendations directed at the private sector.  

Finding no help with the Council of Data Ethics made me think that I might need to change my search. Instead of looking for ethical guidelines concerned with the use of personal digital data in social research, perhaps I should be looking for guidelines developed for health and medical researchers as this group has been dealing with ethical issues connected to working with sensitive and personally identifiable data for years. Maybe there was something to learn from our colleagues?

This led me to the website of the Danish Ethical Council, who prepared and published a statement in 2015 on research involving digital health data and biological material in Denmark (see: (https://www.etiskraad.dk/etiske-temaer/sundhedsdata/publikationer/udtalelse-om-sundhedsdata-2015). The statement is partly based on a background paper discussing the ethical aspects (see: https://www.etiskraad.dk/~/media/Etisk-Raad/Etiske-Temaer/Sundhedsdata/Publikationer/2015-05-12-Sundhedsdata-etiske-aspekter.pdf?la=da).

In the following, I will extract some central points of the statement and discuss their relevance and how they might help inform a similar discussion in the field of social science.

Personal ownership and consent

First of all, the publications underline that medical science is based on a 400 years old liberal tradition where every person is believed to have ownership of their own body and all information connected to it – in a medical context meaning tissue, bioproducts and genetic information et cetera.

I think this opens up an interesting discussion in relation to the data we create about ourselves online. Could and should we understand the data that is produced online in line with data derived from our physical body and as such place it under the banner of personal ownership?

If we were to accept the idea that every individual owns the data they produce online, the next step according to the Ethic Council would be for researchers to ask for ‘informed consent’ from the data owners when we want to use their data. In doing so, we should enable the data owners to decide not only if the data can be collected and by whom – but also which purposes it can be used for.

Having to ask for consent might seem inarguable when you want to drain human blood or take a biopsy from person’s liver, but when the data is accessible and can be collected with a webspider that no one sees or feel it might become easy to think of the data as finders keepers?   

Anonymity, privacy and confidentiality

The ethical imperative behind having to ask for consent from the data owners is the idea that people have the right to autonomy and self-determination. Meaning that people should be free to decide whether their personal data is used in ways that are aligned with their personal values and beliefs. If there is no alignment it could be claimed that the autonomy of a person has been violated. In health research we might agree to our data being used to do research on a rare eye disease but not for anything connected to euthanasia. I think the same considerations could be pertinent in relation to social online data, where it would be possible to imagine cases where the focus of the research is not aligned with the values of the individuals producing the digital social data used in the study. On could imagine a study focused on political differences between men and women, that a person who does not subscribe to the idea of a binary biological gender might take affront to and therefore would not wish to contribute their data to.

Further, the Ethic Council states in its report that it is often assumed unproblematic to use anonymized personal data in research. But if one applies the idea of autonomy and self-determination, it is no longer possible to think of it as unproblematic, as a person’s personal values and believes can still be violated even though the data can’t be traced back to an individual level. Furthermore, there is always a risk that the data is not thoroughly anonymized and it can therefore be argued that it should be the individual data owners themselves who decide if they find it sound to provide their data to a research project.

Solidarity and public interest

There is no doubt when reading the reports from the Ethical Council that they are concerned about people’s data and their right to self-determination, anonymity and privacy and that they advocate that we as researcher ask for consent before collecting and using personally identifiable data. With that being said, the Ethical Council points to the importance of enabling researchers to build knowledge that is of societal value – even though this can be undesirable for the individual. The argument goes that in order to be able to heal and help people, health researchers need the ability to access personal information. A cure for cancer can’t be created on basis of theoretical hypotheses only, but demands blood, sweat and tissue from many individuals. Therefore, we as individuals must show solidarity and put the collective interest before our own – even when we pay with our private data. I believe that the same could be argued for social research. Access to data – including sensitive personal data – impacts the knowledge we are able to build. The key question is when the knowledge is of such an interest to the public that we can justify using the data. Is it when data helps us make informed decisions on how to diversify the way we teach in order to meet different learning styles? Or is it when we use data to predict who will pass and fail a study and base our admissions of students on such predictions? I am afraid that there is no simple, clear-cut answers to such questions.         

What now?

I started out by asking if online social data is ours to collect, store, share and analyse in the name of research just because it exists and is accessible? Or if it belongs to the individuals who created it and who we need to consult before we can create, collect and use the data? 

Neither the legislative texts of the GDPR, nor the reports from the Ethical Council, give me any strict guidelines, but I do think that they call for a larger awareness of and discussion in the social science research community on how we should deal with public and private data and how we make sure to consider and deeply reflect on whether what we do as researchers is of such a nature and interest to the public that we can justify collecting and analyzing sensitive personal data regardless of the relative ease with which we can access it online.   

We can make rules and laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) but in the end the matter also has to do with trust. Does the public trust us researchers and the institutions we represent to such a degree that they are willing to grant us access to their cells and internal organs as well as their (secret) desires, habits, ideas and opinions expressed online? Earning, having and keeping that trust – now and in the future – depends on how we think about and handle sensitive personal data today. It is a discussion we have to engage in. Together. So, what are your thoughts?   

Mette Wichmand is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Roskilde University

By Jannie Møller Hartley

Misinformation has been a theme in recent years in connection with several democratic elections in our neighboring countries. In particular, the notion of ‘fake news’ with fictitious and factually incorrect stories has received much publicity. However, experience from countries such as the UK, Germany and Sweden had already shown that so-called ‘junk news’ is more widespread that actual misinformation from foreign actors or trolls interested in corrupting the election results. Therefore, Politiken set out to investigate the phenomenon in Denmark prior to the parliamentary elections in the spring of 2019. The newspaper contacted Digital Media Lab in the initial research for this story, as a number of questions came up during the research.

First of all, how could previous research carried out during elections in Sweden be used in a Danish context?

Researchers at Oxford University had already investigated the phenomenon. They defined ‘junk news’ as ‘propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan or conspiratorial political news’. Five criteria were used to measure the amount of junk news during the election. Oxford examined the Swedish election in the fall of 2018 and concluded that for every three normal articles shared on Twitter, a ‘junk news’ article was shared.

The Oxford researchers were not investigating the general election in Denmark. Politiken therefore set up an expert panel with the help of the three journalism programs in Denmark. I agreed to be part of the panel, together with Peter Bro, head of the Center for Journalism at the University of Southern Denmark, Vibeke Borberg, lawyer and associate professor of media law from the Danish School of Media and Journalism.

New questions came up and simply employing the framework from the Oxford study proved an uneasy fit.

The panel spent quite some time discussing the definition of ‘junk news’ and after reading several of Oxford’s reports we concluded that the Oxford criteria were deficient. Instead, the panel set out 20 criteria for how we would assess what ‘junk news’ is. We decided that it was important to evaluate 1) The platform 2) the producers and 3) the product.

In terms of platform, we developed criteria such as ‘who owns the medium?’ And ‘is the business model transparent?’

As far as producers are concerned, the panel decided to include criteria such as ‘does the media correctly declare article genres, such as news and attitude?’ And ‘Is the media willing to correct mistakes, and how does it make the readers aware of corrections?’

As far as the product was concerned, the panel wanted to include criteria such as ‘does the media follow the contradictory principle – that the accused in an article has the right to see and respond to criticism?’. Another criterion, although a difficult one, was: ‘Is the information communicated by the media outlet misleading?’

The panel chose to focus on new digital media. The criterion for becoming part of the study was for the media site to refer to themselves as ‘media’, who did ‘journalism’ or ‘news’, or had a set-up reminiscent of news media. Party political media and actual blogs were cut off from the study as they were considered to be a category for themselves. It would later prove to be somewhat difficult to distinguish between news sites and blogs for example.

Against this background, Politiken located 15 media sites that the expert panel could examine. Articles from the 15 sites were collected during the same study period, 25. February- 4. March, whenever possible. For the most productive sites, Politiken stripped away reader letters, Ritzau articles, debate posts and daily reports from the police, so that the expert panel would only review editorial production.

The prevalence of junk media on social media was investigated with a so-called Twitter Capture and Analysis Toolset (TCAT). This tool is available from Digital Media Lab at Roskilde University. (You can read more about TCAT here).

So, what did we end up with?  How much was junk and was junk news really a problem?

The expert panel reviewed a total of 237 articles from 15 media sites. The panel concluded that nine of the media produced journalism of such poor quality that they could be defined as junk news sites. Those nine media were: 24News, NewSpeak, People’s Newspaper, The Short Newspaper, Today’s, News24, Digital News / Hug, dkdox.tv and 24/7.

Six media were assessed by the expert panel to NOT be junk media. They were: 180 Degrees, NewsBreak, Document, Solidarity, Updated and Responses. The experts’ reasons differed depending on the media. Some provided content of a quality that was satisfactory. Other media were considered by the panel to be blogs or social media, not news media. Therefore, they were not relevant to the investigation, the panel believed.

The research concluded, that several Danish digital media were spreading misinformation and hidden advertising on the internet. Their articles look like real journalism, but contain misleading information to such a degree that it can be seen as a democratic problem.

As part of the expert group, I warned against these sites as they are advertising and propaganda disguised as news journalism. It can be a democratic problem if these media manage to influence the Danes’ attitude toward certain political issues.

By doing this analysis, Politiken was able to show that doubtful articles from so-called junk media not only set the agenda on social media. They are also involved in the parliamentary processes, where politicians question the Ministers based on misleading information.

It is common to refer to specific stories in the news when asking a question to a minister, and Politiken found that 69 questions during a period of two years were based on stories published by sites characterized as junk news. This led to a broader discussion of which media sites to refer to and the responsibility of ministers and politicians to check the information of the sites they refer to, before citing them.

The project was nominated for an investigate price for the innovative method by the Danish Federation of Investigative Journalism (FUJ), 2019.

The articles can be found here (In Danish though)

Recently the chief rat of the DigitalMediaLab was featured as an expert on the DR2 series “Trumps Tweets”. Having analysed and catalogued every tweet written by Trump in the first 100 days of his presidency, Ib describes the daily rhythm of the president and how it can be seen as influencing his Twitter habits.

You can watch the full episode here:

https://www.dr.dk/drtv/se/trumps-tweets_-den-soevnige-praesident_173970

Den 3. marts var en vigtig dag for de demokratiske præsidentkandidater. Det var nemlig dagen, hvorpå over 33 procent af de delegerede skulle tildeles.

I alt skulle 1.357 delegerede ud af 3.979 mulige tildeles, og med kun fem præsidentkandidater til at kæmpe om dem var det spændende at følge med i. 

Inden Super Tuesday gik i gang valgte Pete Buttiegieg og Amy Klobuchar at droppe ud af kampen om at blive Det Demokratiske Partis præsidentkandidat. Det betød, at der til Super Tuesday kun var fem kandidater tilbage: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg og Tulsi Gabbard. Efter Super Tuesday har yderligere to valgt at droppe ud af kampen: Elizabeth Warren og Michael Bloomberg. 

Digital Media Lab har derfor fulgt Super Tuesday ganske nøje, og har igen kigget på hvilke præsidentkandidater, som deltog under Super Tuesday, der bliver nævnt flest gange. Denne gang har vi gjort det over en periode af tre dage: Dagen inden Super Tuesday (02/03), på dagen (03/03) og dagen efter Super Tuesday (04/03). I den forbindelse skal det nævnes, at vi har taget udgangspunkt i EST tidszonen (Eastern Standard Time). Dette vil vi ligeledes gøre ved fremtidige dataindsamlinger, som vedrører Det Demokratiske Partis udvælgelse af deres endelige præsidentkandidat. Derudover er Donald J. Trump blevet nævnt 16.458 gange. 

I alt er der i perioden blevet indsamlet 501.024 tweets. 

Vi har valgt at putte de indhentede data ind i fire tidsintervaller per dag, således at udviklingen per dag er mest tydelig i diagrammet. Intervallerne er fra 00:00 til 06:00, 06:00 til 12:00, 12:00 til 18:00 og 18:00 til 00:00. Grafen ser således ud: 

Grafen viser, ligeledes som resultaterne i primærvalget viste, at Joe Biden fik et stort comeback midt og efter Super Tuesday. Ligeledes viser diagrammet også, Bernie Sanders var den person, som flest personer nævnte (@mentions) – indtil Joe Biden blev annonceret som vinder af Super Tuesday. Det er ligeledes interessant at se, hvor lidt Michael Bloomberg er blevet nævnt taget i betragtning, at han har brugt omkring 3,7 milliarder kroner på sin kampagne. 

Hos DigitalMediaLab er ikke kun interesseret i, hvem det er der er blevet nævnt flest gange, men også hvem der kommunikere med hvem. Derfor har vi denne gang lavet en netværksgrafen med de 250 mest nævnte personer – denne gang baseret på hashtagget #supertuesday. Netværksgrafen viser igen, at personer som ikke er politisk aktive, som er den største gruppe af mennesker, som kommunikerer til kandidaterne via Twitter. Derudover er den siddende præsident, Donald J. Trump, også en af dem som bliver nævnt flest gange.

Vi fortsætter med at følge med i den Amerikanske valgkamp på Twitter. Følg med her på bloggen for de nyeste analyser.