KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 48

SANSÜRLÜ AYNAYA BAKIŞ: KISITLI BİLGİ ORTAMLARINDA ALGILANAN DEMOKRASİ ARZI

LOOKING AT THE CENSORED MIRROR: PERCEIVED SUPPLY OF DEMOCRACY IN RESTRCITED INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTS

Aysenur Dal(İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2868-0282
Sayfa
47–59
Yayın Tarihi
2022-01-01
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bölgeden on farklı ülkeyi kapsayan bir örneklem üzerinde yapılan istatistiksel analizler demokrasiyi eleştirme özgürlüğüne dayalı olarak kavramsallaştıran bireylerle sınırlandırılmış olup sansür algısının siyasi haber ve bilgi arayışında internet kullanımı yoluyla dolaylı olarak demokratik arzla ilgili daha olumsuz değerlendirmelere yol açtığını ortaya koymuştur.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Dünya çapında giderek daha ağır düzenlemelere maruz bırakılan internet, birçok yerde geleneksel medyaya göre nispeten daha özgürdür.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu bağlamda mevcut çalışma medya tüketiminde çevrimiçi alternatiflerin varlığında algılanan medya kısıtlamalarının vatandaşların demokrasiyle ilgili değerlendirmelerini nasıl etkilediğini Arap Barometresinin üçüncü dalgası üzerinden araştırmaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bölgeden on farklı ülkeyi kapsayan bir örneklem üzerinde yapılan istatistiksel analizler demokrasiyi eleştirme özgürlüğüne dayalı olarak kavramsallaştıran bireylerle sınırlandırılmış olup sansür algısının siyasi haber ve bilgi arayışında internet kullanımı yoluyla dolaylı olarak demokratik arzla ilgili daha olumsuz değerlendirmelere yol açtığını ortaya koymuştur.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Medya özgürlüğü · internet kullanımı · siyasi iletişim

Özet

Dünya çapında giderek daha ağır düzenlemelere maruz bırakılan internet, birçok yerde geleneksel medyaya göre nispeten daha özgürdür. Bu durum, internet ortamının medya özgürlüğü ihlallerinde kitle iletişimine alternatif olarak kabul edilmesine yol açmış ve akademik ilgiyi bir taraftan sıradan vatandaşların medya sansürü deneyimine, diğer taraftan da “yeni” ve özgürleştirici olduğu iddia edilen alternatiflere erişime çekmiştir. Bu bağlamda mevcut çalışma medya tüketiminde çevrimiçi alternatiflerin varlığında algılanan medya kısıtlamalarının vatandaşların demokrasiyle ilgili değerlendirmelerini nasıl etkilediğini Arap Barometresinin üçüncü dalgası üzerinden araştırmaktadır. Bölgeden on farklı ülkeyi kapsayan bir örneklem üzerinde yapılan istatistiksel analizler demokrasiyi eleştirme özgürlüğüne dayalı olarak kavramsallaştıran bireylerle sınırlandırılmış olup sansür algısının siyasi haber ve bilgi arayışında internet kullanımı yoluyla dolaylı olarak demokratik arzla ilgili daha olumsuz değerlendirmelere yol açtığını ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular geleneksel medyadaki sansür algısı ile internet üzerinden siyasi haber ve bilgi arayışı arasında pozitif bir ilişkiyi ortaya çıkarırken, internet kullanımı ile demokratik arz arasında negatif bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir.

Abstract

Despite the increasingly heavy regulations around the world, internet has remained relatively freer than traditional media in many places. This has resulted in internet to be considered as an alternative in cases of media freedom violations, and attracted scholarly attention on citizens’ democratic experience with media censorship while accessing “new” and supposedly liberating alternatives. In this context, this manuscript explores how perceived media censorship influences citizen assessments about democracy in the presence of online alternatives. By statistically analyzing the third wave of the Arab Barometer, this research provides empirical evidence particularly for citizens conceptualizing democracy primarily based on the freedom to criticize. Findings from a sample of ten countries from the region demonstrate that perceived censorship leads to more negative assessments of democratic supply via political internet use. Namely, while a positive relationship was observed between perceived censorship in the traditional media and using the internet for seeking political news and information, a negative relationship was found between political internet use and the perceived supply of democracy.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Dal, A. (2022). SANSÜRLÜ AYNAYA BAKIŞ: KISITLI BİLGİ ORTAMLARINDA ALGILANAN DEMOKRASİ ARZI. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 48, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.909096

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (61)

  1. Anderson, C. J. ve Guillory, C. A. (1997). "Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems", American Political Science Review, 91/1, 66–81.
  2. Arab Barometer. (2014). Public Opinion Survey, 2012-2014. (15.04.2020) https://www.arabbarometer.org
  3. Bailard, C. S. (2012). "Testing the Internet's effect on democratic satisfaction: A multi-methodological, cross-national approach", Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9/2, 185–204.
  4. Bailard, C. S. (2014). Democracy’s double-edged sword: How Internet use changes citizens’ views of their government, JHU Press, Baltimore.
  5. BBC News. (2014, 7 Nisan). Mısır’da üç gazeteci 100 gündür tutuklu. Elde edilme tarihi: 21 Şubat 2021, https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2014/04/140407_misir_elcezire
  6. Becker, L. B. ve Vlad, T. (2011). "The Conceptualization and Operationalization of Country-level Measures of Media Freedom", Measures of Press Freedom and Media Contributions to Development: Evaluating the Evaluators", (Ed: M. E. Price, S. Abbott ve L. Morgan), Peter Lang, New York, 24–47.
  7. Behrouzian, G. (2018). From Reactance to Political Belief Accuracy: Evaluating Citizens’ Response to Media Censorship and Bias (Doktora Tezi, The Ohio State University).
  8. Behrouzian, G., Nisbet, E. C., Dal, A., & Çarkoğlu, A. (2016). "Resisting censorship: How citizens navigate closed media environments", International Journal of Communication, 10/2016, 4345–4367.
  9. Berlin, I. (2017). "Two concepts of liberty", Four Essays on Liberty (Ed: I. Berlin), Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford, 118-172.
  10. Bond, R. M., Settle, J. E., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., & Fowler, J. H. (2017). "Social endorsement cues and political participation", Political Communication, 34/2, 261–281.
  11. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18/5, 524-538. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
  12. Center for Human Rights in Iran. (2018). Closing the gates: Implications of Iran’s ban on the Telegram messaging app. (27.05.2021) https://iranhumanrights.org/2018/06/iran-telegram-ban-strangles-country-amid-struggling-economy-protests/
  13. Chen, Y. ve Yang, D. Y. (2019). "The impact of media censorship: 1984 or brave new world?", American Economic Review, 109/6, 2294–2332.
  14. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, Yale University Press, New Haven.
  15. Dal, A., & Nisbet, E. C. (2020). "To Share or Not to Share? How Emotional Judgments Drive Online Political Expression in High-Risk Contexts", Communication Research, 0093650220950570.
  16. Dalton, R. J., Sin, T. ve Jou, W. (2007). "Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places", Journal of Democracy, 18/4, 142–156.
  17. Diamond, L. (1993). "Introduction: Political Culture and Democracy", Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, (Ed. L. Diamond), Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, Boulder, CO.
  18. Entman, R. M. (2007). "Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power", Journal of Communication, 57/1, 163–173.
  19. Farrell, H. (2012). "The consequences of the Internet for politics", Annual Review of Political Science, 15. Freedom House. (2013). Freedom of the press. (21.02.2021) https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2013_Booklet_PDF.pdf
  20. Freedom House. (2014). Freedom of the press. (21.02.2021) https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2014_Full_Booklet.pdf
  21. Freedom House. (2015). Freedom of the press. (21.02.2021) https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2015_Full_Report_PDF.pdf
  22. Geddes, B. ve Zaller, J. (1989). "Sources of popular support for authoritarian regimes", American Journal of Political Science, 319–347.
  23. Gerber, A. ve Green, D. (1999). "Misperceptions about perceptual bias", Annual Review of Political Science, 2/1, 189–210.
  24. Groshek, J. (2011). "Media, instability, and democracy: Examining the Granger-causal relationships of 122 countries from 1946 to 2003", Journal of Communication, 61/6, 1161–1182.
  25. Gunitsky, S. (2015). "Corrupting the cyber-commons: Social media as a tool of autocratic stability", Perspectives on Politics, 13/1, 42-54.
  26. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
  27. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, Guilford Publications, New York, NY.
  28. Howard, P. N. ve Hussain, M. M. (2013). Democracy’s fourth wave?: Digital media and the Arab Spring, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  29. Jansen, S. ve Martin, B. (2015). The Streisand effect and censorship backfire. International Journal of Communication, 9, 656-671.
  30. Jha, C. K., ve Kodila-Tedika, O. (2020). Does social media promote democracy? Some empirical evidence. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42/2, 271-290.
  31. Kunda, Z. (1990). "The case for motivated reasoning", Psychological Bulletin, 108/3, 480.
  32. Larreguy, H. ve Marshall, J. (2019). "The Incentives and Effects of Independent and Government-controlled Media in the Developing World", The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion, (Ed: E. Suhay, B. Grofman ve A. H. Trechel), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  33. Leeson, P. T. (2008). "Media freedom, political knowledge, and participation", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22/2, 155–169.
  34. Letsch, C. (2014, 21 Mart). Turkey Twitter users flout Erdogan ban on micro-blogging site. The Guardian. (30.05.2021) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/21/turkey-twitter-users-flout-ban-erdogan
  35. Marshall, T. H. ve Bottomore, T. (1992). Citizenship and social class, Vol. 2, Pluto Press, London.
  36. Mattes, R. ve Bratton, M. (2007). "Learning about democracy in Africa: Awareness, performance, and experience", American Journal of Political Science, 51/1, 192–217.
  37. McCombs, M. (2018). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
  38. Mickiewicz, E. P. (1999). Changing channels: Television and the struggle for power in Russia, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
  39. Miller, A. H., Hesli, V. L. ve Reisinger, W. M. (1997). "Conceptions of democracy among mass and elite in post-soviet democracies", British Journal of Political Science, 27, 157–190.
  40. Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world, Penguin UK, London.
  41. Nisbet, E. C., Kamenchuk, O., & Dal, A. (2017). "A psychological firewall? Risk perceptions and public support for online censorship in Russia", Social Science Quarterly, 98/3, 958-975.
  42. Nisbet, E. C., Stoycheff, E. ve Pearce, K. E. (2012). "Internet use and democratic demands: A multinational, multilevel model of internet use and citizen attitudes about democracy", Journal of Communication, 62/2, 249–265.
  43. Norris, P. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government, (Ed. P. Norris), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  44. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  45. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  46. Ojo, E. O. (2003). "The mass media and the challenges of sustainable democratic values in Nigeria: Possibilities and limitations", Media, Culture & Society, 25/6, 821–840.
  47. Reporters without Borders. (2013). World Press Freedom Index. (21.02.2021) https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-2013
  48. Reporters without Borders. (2014a). Government uses repeated seizures to harass newspapers. (21.02.2021) https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-2013
  49. Reporters without Borders. (2014b). Libya still extremely dangerous for journalists. (21.02.2021) https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-2013
  50. Roberts, M. E. (2018). Censored: distraction and diversion inside China’s Great Firewall, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  51. Roberts, M. E. (2020). "Resilience to Online Censorship", Annual Review of Political Science, 23.
  52. Rød, E. G. ve Weidmann, N. B. (2015). "Empowering activists or autocrats? The internet in authoritarian regimes", Journal of Peace Research, 52(3), 338–351.
  53. Sanovich, S., Stukal, D. ve Tucker, J. A. (2018). "Turning the virtual tables: Government strategies for addressing online opposition with an application to Russia", Comparative Politics, 50/3, 435–482.
  54. Shen, F. ve Zhang, Z. (2018). "Do circumvention tools promote democratic values? Exploring the correlates of anticensorship technology adoption in China", Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15/2, 106–121.
  55. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations, Penguin, London.
  56. Shoemaker, P. J. ve Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory, Routledge, London.
  57. Stoycheff, E. L. (2013). Free media consolidation in Eastern Europe: Citizen attitudes about political, legal, and economic media freedom. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). The Ohio State University
  58. Stoycheff, E. ve Nisbet, E. C. (2014). "What’s the bandwidth for democracy? Deconstructing internet penetration and citizen attitudes about governance", Political Communication, 31/4, 628–646.
  59. Taber, C. S. ve Lodge, M. (2016). "The illusion of choice in democratic politics: The unconscious impact of motivated political reasoning", Political Psychology, 37, 61–85.
  60. Thorson, K. ve Wells, C. (2016). "Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age", Communication Theory, 26/3, 309–328.
  61. Voltmer, K. (2008). "Comparing media systems in new democracies: East meets South meets West", Central European Journal of Communication, 1/01, 23–40.