>Non-mainstream news sites erode people’s interest in politics ...no? The results of the paper [0] are actually much more complex than the article indicates, y

>Non-mainstream news sites erode people’s interest in politics ...no? The results of the paper [0] are actually much more complex than the article indicates, yet the article is polished enough to suggest that its slanted analysis of the paper is correct. But it isn't. Crazily, the article even links to the paper, yet one need only read the abstract or the conclusion to understand the depth of the misrepresentations of TFA. Here, I'll paste the paper's conclusion verbatim: >We demonstrated that exposure to alternative digital media can foster political interest over time. More importantly, we also observed that the relationship between mainstream media use and political interest depends on the level of alternative digital media use. For high levels of alternative digital media use, mainstream media use was found to be negatively related to political interest. This finding comes with potentially important implications. Alternative digital media may not only be “correctives of the mainstream media” but also erode the democratic function of mainstream media. That is, mainstream media may still be associated with political interest (and by doing so, potentially also political knowledge in a second step) but only when citizens are not or only marginally exposed to alternative digital media. The interplay of mainstream media and alternative digital media is therefore relevant and deserves more scholarly attention. See that first sentence? And how it's the exact opposite conclusion presented by TFA's title?! I feel like I'm going fucking crazy. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2021.1974916 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2021.1...