Political Science Program

Department of Social Sciences

University of the Philippines, Manila

BIRDS OF A FEATHER:

INVESTIGATING THE POLICY-ISSUE FORMATION OF FACEBOOK POLITICAL

ECHO CHAMBERS

Thesis

By

Kyle Dheric D.C. Miguel

2014-53037

BA Political Science

Professor Jose Mari Lanuza

Adviser

May 2019

Manila, Philippines

1

2

ABSTRACT

This research aims to answer the question: “How do echo chambers work to create policy

attitudes?” In this process, the study takes from the Issue Publics Hypothesis and Anticipated

Agreement theory in assuming that political interests play a vital role in the phenomenon of echo

chambers. The study suggests that echo chambers share similar characteristics with semi-public

microspheres, arguing that discourses within echo chambers display evidences of issue-

deliberation and policy-formation strategies embedded in them. Considering policy-issues as

manifestations of political interest and values, this study adopts the Issue-Selling Model as a

frame for analyzing the patterns of policy attitude formation of echo chambers in a bottom-up

fashion. The results conclude that issue-selling strategies are present within echo chambers but

their orientation is not targeted towards an in-group deliberation and the claim that echo

chambers being principally homogenous in terms of political stances still proves to be true.

3

Table of Contents

1. Title Page

2. Approval Sheet ………………………………………………………………………….1

3. Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...…..2

4. Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………….....3

5. Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………....4

6. Chapter 1 introduction……………………………………………………………….….7

A. Background of the study ……………………………………………………..…7

B. Research Question ………………………………………………………….….12

C. Analytic Framework ………………………………………………………...…13

7. Chapter 2: Review of related literature…………………………………………………23

8. Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………….….…37

9. Chapter 4: Data Presentation and Analysis………………………………………….….47

10. Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations ………………………………….……..55

11. References ……………………………………………………………………….…….58

12. Appendix ………………………………………………………………………………68

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is dedicated to all the ordinary Filipino people, whose voices are usually

neglected by the government and whose ability to participate in politics and to effect change is

constricted by the limited resources and opportunities that they have. This study was conducted

on the prospects of democratizing the Philippine political system by focusing on the

effectiveness of the deliberative spaces accessible to the ordinary people who are usually

politically disempowered in our society. By doing this research, I aim to understand the nuances

and mechanisms of the echo chambers present in social media on the hopes of contributing to the

efforts of demystifying and solving them.

In the journey of conducting this research, I faced various challenges and learned

valuable lessons on the topic of echo chambers and the process of scientific thinking and writing.

For all the learning and experience, I send my sincere gratitude to Professor Jose Mari Lanuza,

who fulfilled a very important role of a supportive and hands-on thesis adviser. Thank you for all

the time and effort you invested on teaching and guiding us throughout the research process

inside and outside the classroom even at the expense of your own time, energy, and convenience.

Thank you for all the patience and moral support that you gave to all your thesis advisee and

thank you for being a very memorable part of our college life as well as our journey into a career

of research and academe.

Thank you for not giving up on us and for trying your hardest to understand what we

wish for our researches to be. Thank you for trusting our ability to provide our own perspective

on our research and thank you for granting us the freedom to interpret our researches based on

the ways we understand them and we are comfortable with. I personally wish I did more in order

5

to give justice to all the sacrifices you made for the good of our thesis. As your thesis advisee, I

will make sure that all your efforts will be worth it by making you proud on my future academic

endeavours.

I would also like to send my gratitude and appreciation to Professor Cleve Kevin

Arguelles who opened the doors of research for me by providing the fundamentals of the

research process in our PS 199.1 (Qualitative Methods) Class. Thank you for providing us the

basic understanding of how to conduct a proper research by teaching us the purpose and

relevance of every part of a research paper. Thank you for guiding us in the process of starting

our thesis by helping us choose research topics of great social and political relevance.

I personally thank you for serving as my mentor inside and outside the confines of the

classroom and for granting me research opportunities from which I was able to explore and

discover my interest and love for research. Because of you, I was able to develop my passion in

learning the various available qualitative research methods available out there and discover how

interesting it is to learn various theories and data interpretation techniques. Above anything else,

I would like to thank you for serving as my personal inspiration, for your convictions and

dedication in upholding the values of freedom, justice and democracy, for serving as my role

model for academic integrity, and for becoming my personal research idol.

I would like to thank Mr. Sammuel Cabbuag and Mr. Rossine Fallorina, the research

panel for our thesis defense, for their valuable insights and expert comments both on my topic

and on my research writing style. Their opinions helped drive my research to its better version.

Thank you for developing a better and more responsible researcher in me through your help.

I would like to thank my family, especially my mother, Cecilia Dela Cruz, for providing

the emotional and financial support needed for the conduct of the research process. Thank you

6

for the patience and understanding for all the times I spent outside writing my paper and the

expenses that the process incurred. Thank for giving me the hope and willpower to fight until the

end.

I would like to thank all my friends who remained to be very supportive in all ways

possible throughout the journey of writing my research. I would like to thank Sherminaylah

Paiso for always staying by my side, giving me the moral and emotional support especially

during the hard times. Thank you for always understanding me especially when times get tough.

Thank you for giving me your honest opinions and insights regarding my research as all these

valuable comments helped push my research to what it is now. Above anything else, thank you

for sharing this struggle with me and thank you for making everything a lot more bearable. I

would also like to thank my other friends like Paolo Jose for giving the critical questions and

opinions that truly tested the validity and effectiveness of the claims, assumptions, questions and

methods I utilized in my research. To all my family, friends, professors, and research subjects,

you are part of this success. Thank you.

7

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

One evening, while waiting for a bus on my way home, I noticed the enthusiastic

scrolling of a person on their phone nodding in agreement while reading Facebook posts. I took a

peek and saw the massive amount of posts from various “pro-Duterte” groups and pages of that

person. Scenarios like this naturally sparks an academic’s curiosity, and so I asked, “Are they

conscious that they are in an echo chamber? That they are seeing only one side of an issue?” “Do

they always agree with and support the president’s and their group’s take on every

policy/political issues?” But putting my biases aside, I also doubted my assumptions, “Is

exposure in echo chambers limited to only one side of an issue? Are there instances when they

do not share similar sentiments?” “Are they passive consumers of information or do they create

and share their own take on issues? Do they challenge ideas different to theirs?” Wanting to

know how echo chambers really work, this caught my interest to write and pursue this research.

Background of the Study

In the Philippines, Facebook news articles that remark on the successes or shortcomings

of President Rodrigo Duterte and his policies get their comments section flocked by messages

expressing support or disagreement ranging from petty personal attacks to well-

researched/reasoned opinions (INQUIRER.net, 2016; Rappler, 2017; INQUIRER.net, 2018).

This is a manifestation of how social media turned into a Habermasian Public Sphere, or simply

public sphere. A public sphere is a common space for political deliberation – a marketplace of

8

ideas where “information is exchanged, preferences are negotiated, and solutions are

deliberated” (Habermas, Lennox, & Lennox, 1974; Gromping, 2014). Social media played the

role of a public sphere, contributing to the formation of political will by providing a

communicative environment conducive for the debates and exchange of ideas (Dahlgren, 2005;

Halpern & Gibbs, 2013).

However, the opinion of political science scholars on the democratizing capabilities of

social media is divided. On the other side of the debate, scholars argue that in many instances

social media platforms enable users to limit their exposure to only political information that they

already support or tend to agree with through selective exposure and echo chambers as aided by

functions such as liking, following, posting, sharing, and making and joining groups. (Gilbert,

Bergstrom & Karahalios, 2009; Garrett, Carnahan, & Lynch, 2013; Colleoni, Rozza &

Arvidsson, 2014).

Selective exposure is defined as the tendency for individuals to subscribe to and seek

information that reinforce their preconceived bias on certain ideas (political issues for example)

and avoid opposing opinions or information that may otherwise disprove their own. Echo

chambers on the other hand refers to the condition where individuals limit their own interaction

to people with the same beliefs and ideas as theirs. Homophily is an umbrella term defined as the

tendency for individuals to limit their interaction exclusively to people they agree or expect to

agree with on key ideas they believe as true by banding together and filtering their exposure to

information in that process. (Iyengar, Hahn, Krosnick, & Walker, 2008; Gilbert, Bergstrom et al.,

2009; Colleoni et al., 2014) Homophily captures the essence of both echo chambers and selective

exposure, and thus will be used in this study to collectively refer to both concepts for

convenience.

9

Why is the existence of homophily in and as aided by social media a concerning political

issue? Even if the benefits of being a public sphere and the harms of accommodating homophily

were proven to coexist, among these two conceptually antagonistic characteristics, the latter is

considered detrimental to the former, which can reverse the assumed political benefits from

social media altogether. The contradiction draws from the heavy reliance of deliberation’s

merits, like exchange of ideas and negotiation of solutions, on the ability of participants to

effectively communicate their opinion or viewpoint to their opposition and reflect on their own

values (Gromping, 2014; Colleoni et al., 2014). Homophily hampers effective and regular

communication due to limits on exposure and obstacles to reflection of values from the

reinforcement of beliefs.

Attention on social media’s tolerance of homophily therefore proves to be significant

because of its implications on the way politics is conducted through public deliberation. New

knowledge born out of research on the subject can help diagnose and resolve the negative

externalities of social media usage on deliberation. This dilemma inspired a trend of studies on

homophily.

Studies on social media echo chambers took different dimensions and approaches on the

issue. A great bulk of the literature confirms the existence of echo chambers using various

quantitative techniques such as collections of attitudes and preferences, measurements that

survey tendency and exposure, and statistical computations that project political biases (Garrett,

2009; Flaxman, Goel, & Rao, 2016; Quattrociocchi, Scala, & Sunstein, 2016). Some analyzed

the effects of echo chambers on the worsening polarization and fragmentation of political

discourse (Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009; Prior, 2013; Dubois & Blank, 2018). Others studied

various phenomena strongly correlated to echo chambers like personality traits and political

10

ideology (Bessi, 2016; Boutyline & Willer, 2017). While a few went an extra mile and tried to

propose solutions using methods promoting conscious impartiality (Baumgaertner, 2014).

Upon evaluation of the available literature on social media political echo chambers, there

is an observable scarcity of researches that takes a qualitative viewpoint of the subject (Gilbert et

al., 2009; Bozdag, 2013; Garrett et al., 2013; Colleoni et al., 2014; Bakshy, Messing & Adamic,

2015). This implies an abundance of unexplored areas for observation, analysis and reporting.

An example that this study will try to bring to the surface is the question of how social media

political echo chambers work by observing the dynamics of forming/shaping policy issue

attitudes, nuancing the nature of such interactions to the way people in echo chambers exploit

and subject themselves to such mechanisms.

It bridges the gap left in the literature by treating opinion manifested as policy issue

attitudes (Guinaudeau, & Persico, 2014) in echo chambers as valid attempts to participate in

deliberative politics, serving a purpose by embodying political values and interests shaped by

interacting with people presumed to support similar political priorities, voicing out such

discourses of values in the form of policy framing and suggestions.

Using quantitative research techniques like the surveys used in the literature subject the

data collection to the first-person bias of the echo chambers members’ limited perception of the

phenomenon. For instance, the sensitivity of political information shared by/asked from subjects

in a survey form such as affiliations/partisanship and news consumption might be self-

incriminating, making subjects unwilling to share or otherwise fabricate or misreport answers

which risks strong data contamination. Using qualitative techniques such as digital ethnography

aided by discourse analysis, the phenomenon can be observed, described and reported in a subtle,

less direct fashion without the reliance on the skewed perspective of the subjects.

11

Another observation on the literature is the dominance of previous studies focusing on

the individual as the unit of analysis, trying to dissect their experiences and perceptions of an

echo chamber. This creates an issue wherein the researchers cannot see the whole picture of the

echo chamber, only relying on a fragmented image formed from bits and pieces of information

the subjects can limitedly observe or experience. Aside from the data, it also affects the way echo

chambers are viewed.

In this study, echo chambers will be observed as a system of discourses, events, and

interactions, with individuals playing a vital role, but not the only focus of observation.

Individuals will not be treated as singular objects that acts as sites and recipients of echo

chambers to whom biased information revolve around, but rather as parts of a bigger system of

echo chamber where many people participate – a system that can exist even outside the confines

of one person’s presence, perception and imagination. Discourses and information will be

observed not on the perspective of how a member makes sense of them, but as they form and

evolve from an individual to a collective (echo chamber).

This research will take a shift from the dominant psychological approach on echo

chambers to the political (Anticipated Agreement and Issue Publics Hypothesis), which will be

further explained in the framework (Iyengar et al., 2008). In this study, the political lens adds to

the original psychological take by looking at the political dimension (political values and policy

issues) of the interactions that happen inside echo chambers, to which members participate in

the conduct of politics (as deliberative mini-publics) (Iyengar et al., 2008; Curato & Boker

2016). This abandons the paradigm that dismisses echo chambers as mere acts of avoiding

cognitive dissonance, devoid of motivations and interest (Iyengar et al., 2008).

12

Considering echo chambers to be politically-oriented suggests possible approaches on

understanding and resolving the intention of their members. This approach gives credence on the

diversity of interests and interactions manifested in an echo chamber which is left out or simply

monolithically and homogeneously observed in the cognitive dissonance approach. It reveals

new opportunities on the study of dynamics and power structures within, and the formation and

development of values in social media political echo chambers. It contributes to the scholarship

of echo chamber research by leaving the assumption that narratives in echo chambers are simply

biased opinions and rather treating such discourses as valid message-carriers of political values

and interest that dynamically evolve and re-form through the efforts of their members.

In summary, the research takes a fresh approach on the study of social media political

echo chambers by tackling the previously underexplored question of how echo chambers work,

introducing a political approach that focuses on the interactions and discourses within echo

chambers, employing qualitative techniques such as digital ethnography and discourse analysis

to unpack how political values/opinions (as embodied in policy-issue attitudes) form and evolve

inside echo chambers.

Research Question

This study aims to answer the question: “How do echo chambers work to create policy

issue attitudes?” Specifically, this study wants to know how social media groups functioning as

echo chambers form, re-form, or affect attitudes, views, and biases on salient issues and/or

policies. This question seeks to unpack how individuals in echo chambers manage to articulate

and forward their political values and interests, in the form of policy issue attitudes, affecting

13

other members of their echo chamber in that process. The study aims to answer the question by

observing the interactions between members of echo chambers, analysing the dominant strategies

manifested by members to help shape and contribute to the discourse of policy issue attitudes

that the echo chamber champions.

Analytical Framework

Semi-Public Microspheres

This study considers online social media groups as semi-public microspheres, which are

defined as spaces of interaction where opinions are discussed and exchanged regularly regarding

issues of collective interest and particular salience for the group (Winocur, 2003). Since this

concept is a subset of the Habermasian public sphere, it follows that these groups also exhibit

traits which are characteristic of a public sphere.

Specifically, these traits are manifested in social media groups through the following: 1)

the availability of spaces that allow members to freely participate in political (micro)deliberation,

2) a means of effective communication readily available to the members anytime without

discrimination for geographic location or socioeconomic status and 3) resources/mechanisms that

allows members to convene to make a call for political action, to make a public demand, or to aid

each other in gathering/generating information necessary for political participation (Habermas et

al., 1974; Winocur, 2003; Dahlgren, 2005; Colleoni et al., 2014). These traits allow the online

groups – functioning as microspheres – to provide arenas of deliberation and meaning-making,

which in turn socializes individual views and perceptions on salient social issues.

14

In the Philippines, the problem of usage, trafficking and proliferation of illegal drugs is a

salient issue due to its politicized nature in the current political climate. The urgency and

relevance of the issue draws from its adverse effects on individuals and communities as

specifically tied to issues of criminality and individual security (Johnson & Fernquest, 2018).

This is the narrative that Duterte capitalized on from his electoral campaign up to the current

period of his leadership from which his administration engaged on an all-out war on drugs

(Barrera, 2017). Revolving around the policy of war on drugs are discourses of human rights and

due process that criticizes the unjust and inhumane extrajudicial killings involved in its

implementation, and on the other end are discourses of criminality that garners support for the

continuation of it (Barrera, 2017; Johnson & Fernquest, 2018).

Thus, deliberation for public support or opposition is vital for political actors. This

immense need to foster public support via deliberation allows microspheres such as online

groups to be arenas of political contest. However, some online groups lose the traits that enable

deliberation and debate; instead polarized content dominates the discourse, which eventually

creates an echo chamber that isolates individuals from the general conversation with different

views and ideas, and instead bombards them with polarized content usually framed with

inflammatory and emotive speech.

Following this phenomenon, this study will look at Facebook groups of both populations

that support and oppose Duterte as echo chambers that manifests signs of being semi-public

microspheres which allows its members to contribute to the discourse of the policy issue known

as the war on drugs, through the formation and re-formation of narratives that strengthen the case

in support or in opposition of the said policy issue. This study follows the logic of how policy

issue attitudes/positions in these groups remain to be products of deliberation as microspheres

15

despite displaying homophilous characteristics (being an echo chamber). This can open

opportunities for possible efforts to bridge the gap and engage echo chambers to be more

deliberative.

Pro- and anti-Duterte Facebook echo chambers will be observed to show how the

characteristics of a semi-public microsphere are strategically utilized as resources to help

contribute in the process of shaping each groups’ attitude on the policy issue of war on drugs as

nuanced to the groups’ collective interests. If manifestations of efforts to further a larger

collective interest can be observed to be present on the discourses of the policy issue (war on

drugs), this model will be able to illustrate how membership in an echo-chamber equates to a

notion of potential benefit to individuals by forwarding members’ interests through the

promotion of policies that the individuals and groups deem to be individually and collectively

beneficial.

This is an important emerging claim in the study of echo chambers as it may reveal that

individuals possibly join echo chambers not only as a result of cognitive dissonance but also

because of their internal motivations to effectively pursue their political interests with the help of

these echo chambers. This directly proves to be in correspondence with the claims of Issue

Publics Hypothesis and Anticipated Agreement Theory. This leads to the next section of the

discussion which also works as the primary assumption for the research question.

Issue Publics Hypothesis and Anticipated Agreement Theory

The Issue Publics Hypothesis claims that the rise of internet and social media allowed

users to create content themselves without restrictions on quantity or quality. Information

production became democratized since anyone with internet access can now produce information

16

on various topics which broke traditional media monopoly on information and narrative

telling/framing. This paved way for alternative media sources’ perspectives to be “sold” in the

“market of ideas” which also generated the inevitable problem of information overload. (Iyengar,

et al, 2008)

The abundance of information makes it difficult for users to focus their attention to the

unlimited amount of issues since they do not have enough resources in terms of time and energy

to read/engage on every issue or news information they encounter on Facebook, for example.

This leads users to focus only to particular policy issues of personal importance to them. The

users then become members of that issue’s “issue public” - the population that support or oppose

certain issues of personal interest. Membership in itself allows the issue public to attach personal

importance towards a policy attitude which is observable from their motivations to express their

own position towards an issue, acquire information to better their opinion on the said issue or

even seek agreement from others to confirm the correctness of their take on the issue. (Iyengar,

et al, 2008)

On the other end, the Anticipated Agreement Theory answers the question of what

rationale or decision-making qualifications should be used in order to choose which information

source to subscribe to or which content to digest and engage with given the abundance of

available political information and the scarcity of time and energy. (Iyengar, et al, 2008)

According to the Anticipated Agreement Theory, users favour sources whom they expect

to agree with by exposing themselves to candidates/parties with a similar take or stand to them

on an issue. Doing so creates a reinforcing effect towards their beliefs and attitudes as it creates a

feeling or it sends a message of confirmation of the soundness or correctness of their take on the

issue while at the same time allowing them the convenience of avoiding a clash of values against

17

individuals that has a different take on the issues and values they initially deem personally

important. In this sense, subscription to the candidate or party of similar values and attitudes

towards issues becomes a rational decision rather than just an attempt to avoid cognitive

dissonance, as it creates an expectation that the candidates will pursue actions and policies that

would further the interests they advocate for in similarity with the priorities of the issue public

that supports them. (Iyengar, et al, 2008)

In summary, the Issue Publics Hypothesis (IPH) and Anticipated Agreement Theory

(AAT) claims that the information overload that social media created contributes to the

development of echo chambers in response to the phenomenon, both as a means to filter

information and as a strategy to forward the political interests of individuals. The assumption of

the study that draws from the themes of IPH-AAT is that political interests (consciously or

subconsciously) plays a vital role in the calculus of joining an echo chamber. From this logic, the

research then aims to discover how these political interests, manifested as narratives utilized in

policy issue attitude deliberations, are forwarded in these echo chambers.

Policy Issues

One integral level of difference between the literature and this study originates from this

study’s attempt to operationalize abstract concepts like “issues”, “values”, and “interests”. The

qualitative nature of the study calls for the operationalization of such concepts using easily-

observable indicators. The operationalization of variables through observable indicators is

necessary to conveniently observe and track how abstractions like interests and values transfer

from one person to another and changes through time by looking at their counterparts that

manifests in reality: discourses. It avoids the ambiguity of certain focuses of analysis like

interests or values and it helps the analysis by labelling discourses and locating them in the

18

theoretical plane so as to integrate them with, and confirm their validity through the theories and

models.

The concept of “policy issues” as used in this study can be simply characterized as

questions of public policy as defined and specified by political actors themselves in order to

propose how policies ought to be. These issues require public policies – certain

positions/attitudes to be taken that will possibly lead to the resolution of those issues once crafted

and implemented. Several positions/attitudes revolve around a policy issue and different actors

can take different positions/attitudes on a policy issue depending on how it will affect their

interests. Policy-issue preferences can simply be defined as addressing an issue (out of many

other issue), giving it more priority and providing reasons for the salience or urgency to prioritize

the issue. Policy-issue attitudes or policy-attitudes on the other hand can be defined as a take or

perspective on a policy-issue that suggests a certain position or course of action based on the

values attached by the person defining it. (Guinaudeau & Persico, 2014)

Using this concept, this study gives image to issues by looking at them as policy-issues –

events or problems that needs to be discussed and acted upon. Framing a policy-issue (taking a

policy position) in this sense can serve as an observable manifestation of values based on the

interests that motivates an individual to take that position. These abstractions are to be derived

from actual discourses on policies (from conversations and exchanges) as observed and

generated from the echo chambers.

In this study, the proliferation of drugs will serve as the policy-issue of great salience for

the groups (Barrera, 2017). Manifestations of a policy-issue preference therefore is any statement

that suggests why drugs is the most pressing issue of the Philippines right now, whereas an

example of policy attitude can be a comment or post advocating for or against the war on drugs

19

as the most effective solution to the drug problem. By simplifying “issues” into policy-issues, the

data can now be limited to the discourses (operationalized as statements, justifications,

arguments or opinions suggesting shared experiences, issue-framing, and/or policy-action

suggestions) revolving around a policy-issue rather than observing all the various possible

manifestations of any vague concept.

Given these definitions, political opinions dominating echo chambers (embodied as

policy attitudes) are considered to be products of members presenting, engaging and deliberating

on the values and interests that they attach in support of a policy (which is viewed as a function

of echo chambers assuming the role of a semi-public microspheres). In order to answer the

research question, this study will focus on the narratives and policy positions (encapsulating

political values and interests) as members use them in shaping, forming or contributing to the

echo chambers’ policy attitudes. This study will observe how such narratives are organized and

delivered as strategies utilized in echo chambers in order to affect or shape its policy attitude.

The analysis will be primarily patterned after the Issue-Selling Model.

Issue-Selling Model

The Issue-Selling Model is an organizational device that originated from the field of

business organizational theory rather than the field of political science. It suggests a bottom-up

in-group series of strategies used for organizational issue-formation and conceptualization

process for policy action/suggestion. In this study, Issue-Selling Model suggests how echo-

chambers work as a political issue-based organization. The model explains how individual

members balance out their personal involvement or benefit with the interests of the group (or

other members of the group), hence increasing the chances of negotiating the group into

complicity towards the pursuit of favourable policies to the individuals employing the

20

strateghies. Initially, issue-selling is not a model that is exclusive to political groups or to the

study of politics. It is a general model used more commonly on business-organizational models

from which individuals try to sell an issue that they strategize to be appealing to the interest of

the group (in that case, the business organization). (Dutton et al, 2001)

Issue-Selling Model proposes three main strategies of selling an issue within an

organizational setup. The first strategy is packaging which is defined as the way an issue or idea

is presented. It can be operationalized through the use of instruments such as narratives or

through issue bundling (connecting an issue to values that have currency or importance within

the group). The second strategy is involvement which is defined by the actors involved within an

issue and the nature of their involvement. It grants individuals the ability to define or highlight a

population that is or should be interested in an issue. Furthermore, it allows individuals to decide

the nature of involvement of a population either as a beneficiary or a responsible actor. The last

strategy involves process moves which can be defined as technicalities that can be used to

strengthen a claim or advocacy for an issue. It is operationalized through preparation (the level of

research done before presenting a case), timing (persistence and opportunism), and the formality

of presenting the issue. (Dutton et al, 2001)

Since Issue-Selling Model is not an actual political organizational model, the researcher

decided to derive concepts from the discipline of politics in order to nuance the model with the

case of social media echo chambers. In this case, the first two strategies can be parallelized with

agenda setting strategies. Agenda can be defined as points of political interests from which

public policies are based and revolves around. Agendas are defined by “objects” or more

commonly referred to as issues from which people present their opinion about, based on their

lived experiences, needs, wants, and understanding. Packaging strategies is similar to the concept

21

of transfer of salience under the agenda setting model. According to transfer of salience, issues

are shaped by discourses (which are observable using the attributes that people attach to issues

and utilized in order to frame and affect the understanding of an issue). Discourses can therefore

be used in order to transfer to other people a way of understanding – what issues to think about

and how (in what perspective) to think about them. (McCombs, 2005)

Hence, under this study, packaging strategies are operationalized through the discourses

that people use in order to share to fellow members of the organization which issues should be

thought about or prioritized and in what framing or perspective (or attitudes) should they be

understood and discussed.

The second method of agenda setting that corresponds with involvement is knowledge

activation from which policy issues are framed based on other people’s pre-existing cognitive

schema (shared experiences, political values and attitudes) which grants an individual a claim of

importance of an issue for the group (or other members of the group). Such strategy strongly

affects the decision making of individuals as well as the collective. This strategy can be

operationalized using measures of confirmation and agreement of other members of the group

through comments. (McCombs, 2005)

In conclusion of this section, the Issue-Selling Model will be used to answer the research

question by providing an analytical instrument that suggests a pattern of strategies that supports

the claim that policy attitude formation in echo chambers follows a deliberative process

involving a negotiation of political interests and values. It also suggests that members of an echo

chamber can play and assume active roles in shaping the values and belief system of an echo

chamber while forwarding their personal interests and issue preferences (individually and

collectively).

22

Overall, the theories assume that the information overload in social media contributed to

the development of echo chambers aimed at both playing the role of a selection/filtering

mechanism and a strategy of forwarding an individual’s political interests (IPH-AAT). The

theories imply that these political interests can manifest as narratives which are used in echo

chambers to deliberate (fulfilling the function of a microsphere) policy attitudes. The theories

suggest that policy attitude-formation in echo chamber follows a bottom-up Issue-Selling

Model/Strategy from which individual interests are negotiated with that of the collective to

generate support for policies assumed to benefit both the individual and the group.

23

CHAPTER II:

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature for this study is divided into three key aspects. The first category of

literature provides a brief narrative on the capacitating ability of social media to increase political

activities and awareness. The first part gives focus on the wider topic of political participation.

This section also discusses some criticisms in relation to the mentioned topic such as problems

on accountability, effectivity and quality of online participation, and the main topic of this paper,

which is homophily. In this category, various theoretical explanations on the rising political

activity on social media were provided by looking at the aspects of increased individual social

capital, and the other aspect of expanding public sphere through alternative environments. These

two key aspects plays an important role as they serve to be the foundations of these study in a

sense that these characterizations paved the way for changing the political landscape of the

Philippines through the use of social media.

The second part of the literature will deal with the existence of homophily and its

conceptual and operative definitions across the literature. This part of the literature will deal with

the studies made on echo chambers in general as well as those specifically framed on the context

of social media (selective exposure and filter bubbles). Related issues will also be discussed like

the controversial issue of filter bubbles generated by the algorithms that various social media

networks employ. This part of the literature will provide a brief background of what was already

known on the topic of homophily and polarization while providing details on the theories and

methods used on the study of the said topic. The last part of the literature will deal with the

deliberative functions of social media and provide a sufficient understanding on the significance

24

of the study of homophily and polarization on the context of public sphere, decision making, and

compromise.

Social Media as a Social Institution

The rise of social media provided a platform to criticize the currently existing media (Gil

de Zuniga et al., 2009). It breaks the power balance between the mainstream media companies

that manipulate discourse and narratives, and the people who serves as the recipients of such

narratives. Social media is considered as an empowering political tool as it prevents

discrimination over race, gender, or ethnicity through equal opportunity of access (Park, 2011).

Surprisingly, even the poor can access the social media. Because of these reasons, the

significance of social media on the everyday life of the people began to rise. More than that,

social media also started to become an alternative dimension for politics to occur. As a form of

media, social media showed promising characteristics that are different from the traditional

media making it more suitable for political engagement and participation. (Effing et al., 2011,

Gil de Ziuniga et al., 2009; Vissers & Stolle, 2014)

Social media, in comparison with the other types of media, encourages a greater sense of

participation and interaction from the readers. It grants users the capability to share their views,

post their comments, and justify their opinions in this media. Unlike the print and mass media

that end with the distribution of information, social media stimulates a greater sense of scrutiny

and a higher level of analysis from the people for they are allowed to discuss about the issues

raised in the society with other individuals. (Park, 2011)

Mass media and print media, distributes information acting as a tool for raising awareness

and building public opinion. However, while all media could fulfill the said role, there is still a

25

disparity in terms of perceived credibility across the various type of media. Print media is

perceived by readers as more legitimate and influential compared to mass media as editorial

comments and professional analyses make it more appealing and perceived as credible (Kiousis,

2009). The same distributive capacity that the two media have is not exclusive to them since the

information generated in social media allows a global level of readership, something that is

difficult for the traditional media unless they have the capital and credibility to do so.

On the question of credibility however, one criticism rises from the claim that user-

generated contents are highly prone to abuse and spam (Park, 2011). It makes the legitimacy of

information found in such media uncertain. Users of social media are more focused on content

creation than consumption (Agichtein et al., 2008). However this criticism is also being

countered by some. According to another research, since social media creates an interconnected

network of people, it can help people on creating a social capital that is enough for them to

possess a credible information and hence check the credibility and legitimacy of the information

that they get on their own through cross-referencing with other sources (DiMaggio et al., 2001).

Also, high probability of user-to-user interactions can contribute to the identification of high-

quality contents (Agichtein et al., 2008). Which means that interactions with fellow users allow

criticism that corrects wrong or misleading information.

As a conclusion, it can be argued that the same benefits of raising awareness and

contributing to the formation of public opinion could exist in social media while disregarding the

accusations of questionable credibility, hence giving it an advantage since media narratives will

no longer be dominated by news media oligarchs and opinion leader monopolies. This is in

addition to the pragmatic benefits of social media on the resolution of actual sociopolitical issues

alone. An example that can be cited is the vital role it plays in raising awareness in times of

26

calamity, just like when an earthquake occurred in Haiti (Yates & Paquette, 2011). Social capital

be generated from social media which raises awareness on these issues. This process, in return,

helps on gathering more support from all over the world (DiMaggio et al., 2001). Spreading

news and sympathy is therefore easier through the use of social media because connections are

more diverse and are not limited by physical distance.

Social Media and Politics

There are many studies that prove how social media can directly affect policy outcomes

and people-to-institution relationships. It was proven that social media can also contribute in

promoting the transparency of government actions. Since openness in social media can provide

people information necessary to fight corruption and help people evaluate the government’s

performance (Bertot, Jaeger & Grimes, 2010). Social media also played a huge role in shaping

political outcomes and creating history. During the Arab Spring for example, social media

proved its capability to mobilize social movements. Social media also paved the way for the

resolution of other social and political issues such as the Delhi Gang Rape case and the Ethnic

Conflict in Assam. It also helped in providing alternative political spaces for political expression

and protest during the Gezi Park Movement in Turkey (Bute, 2014; Demirhan 2014). These

instances proved how powerful social media can be in the field of politics and its potential for

solving other problems in political science.

In line with its rising relevance in politics is a huge body of knowledge that discusses

social media and political participation (Astrom, et al., 2012). Majority of the literature available

on the relationship of social media and politics is dedicated on this topic primarily because social

media creates an alternative avenue for political participation (whether it is an effective

participation or not is still debated by scholars) that changes the power dynamics between the

27

public, the society and governments. This event has implications when discussing (1) measures

for calling out the attention of government institutions as an accountability mechanism and (2)

by creating public pressure when forwarding public and marginalized interests through agenda

setting.

This relationship between social media use and increased political participation can be

explained with the use of two prominent theories that dominates this line of study. These two

theories focus on the capacitating abilities of social media in terms of creating and generating

social capital and networks. These theories also explain the possibility of the existence of this

study. The Civic Voluntarism model of Verba, et al. (1995) for instance explains that resources

(time, money, and skill), engagement (interest, knowledge, and efficacy), and recruitment serves

as explanatory elements of increased political participation. According to Teorell et al., these

capacitating and motivational factors are present in social media and largely influence an

individual’s political action. (Gustafsson, 2012)

It was also argued that social media positively affects political learning as a function of

participation. Despite low attention levels, social media still contribute to the process of learning

political information. People retain some of the political information that they receive online

through short-term recall. This can later on affect their decision making once that they try to

participate in actual politics. Therefore, social media really increase the resources and political

knowledge of the people in support to the theory mentioned above. (Bode, 2008)

On the other hand, Putnam argues that social media increases political participation as it

open up opportunity for connecting with other people and participation in various groups and

organizations. This participation and creation of networks makes an individual more likely to

participate in politics. Putnam explained social capital as features of social life like networks and

28

trust, which allows individuals to pursue shared interests together. Generation of social capital is

hence attributable to involvement in groups and communities. The same factors like group

membership and resource generation were used as definition of social capital for this instance.

(Conroy, Feezell & Guerrero, 2012)

These informal or “parapolitical domains” create a sense of community and an illusion of

a single cultural unit from which individuals submit to certain levels of relatability. Social

networks was further explained by Bode by saying that as social interactions produce

conversations, it also creates a transfer of political information which in turn affects political

preferences and stimulates an individual’s tendency to participate. Bode also delineated social

network from its original conception that is limited by environment and said that it is also the

nteractions which social networks can refer to. (Bode, 2008)

While these models prove the extents from which social media serves as a whole new

space from which politics could exist, it also explains how that separate space could directly

affect political outcomes, activities and decisions in the real world. This is where this study takes

its grounding as well as its foundations. The sense of community that the social media creates

through the construction of social capital does not only provide a simple space for

communication or information dissemination but it also provides a space for political discourse

to exist as well.

There are competing points of view when it comes to the possibility of political discourse

in social media. Some claim that even if social media can provide a deliberative space that may

increase political participation, limited interaction and credibility issues might prevent intensive

exchange from happening (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013). However, counter narratives exist, claiming

that people tend to engage on political discussions and debate online more while they

29

continuously seek and acquire political information online (Gil de Zuniga et al., 2009). However,

an even stronger narrative one again attacked this idea by explaining the people’s tendency to

consume and prefer news that agrees with their pre-existing point of view. It means that while

social media promote greater access to communication, it also discourages debate and discourse

between competing ideas. (Baumgartner & Morris, 2010) This last claim leads the researcher to

pursue the said line of argumentation.

Throughout this study social media will be treated as platform for political discourse.

Studies on homophily argues that social media serves as a “Habermasian public sphere” that

leads to decisions that affect actual offline political participation such as voting for a political

candidate (Robertson, Vatrapu & Medina, 2010). This assumption will be further discussed on

the succeeding sections.

For the first section, it can be concluded by saying that the increased capabilities changed

the political landscape of the society by creating new alternatives for participation, providing

previously unavailable political information, and maintaining a social network and accessible

means for communication. While this posits that social media use should have made the people

supposedly more engaged, it led to new questions on the quality of participation by talking about

the deliberative process that generates public opinion. As mentioned earlier, this research would

focus on that problem by tackling the idea that homophily polarizes opinions preventing such

process from happening.

Homophily and Polarization in Social Media

Political homophily is a significant topic when discussing social media as it constitutes

the structure of the public sphere, whether social media would work as a pool of diverse opinions

30

or an echo chamber. As cited in the literature, Dahlgren, deriving from Habermas, defined public

sphere as “a constellation of communicative spaces in society that permit the circulation of

information, ideas, debates, ideally in an unfettered manner, and also the formation of political

will.” The idea of a healthy public sphere will be further elaborated when the concept of

deliberation is discussed on the last section. For now, it is important to take note of the

significance of debates and engagement when discussing social media as a public sphere. In this

study, homophily will be seen as a counter discourse against the purpose of the public sphere as

it prevents discussion that should lead to deliberation.

Majority of the literature explained homophily using the Cognitive Dissonance and

Selective Exposure Theory. According to the theory, people develop stress and experience

pressure when they are confronted with ideas or information that diverts from what they believe.

Conversely, information that affirms their opinion gives people a sense of relief. Because of this,

people develop a tendency to expose themselves to discussions and information that reinforces

their belief in order to decrease cognitive dissonance. This behavior leads to the creation of

homogeneous groups consisting individuals with the same beliefs, education and social status. In

the realm of politics, homophily results to political polarization and echo chambers.

Psychological approach on the topic dominated the discourse of homophily. The most

common used theory for instance, the dissonance theory explains that selective exposure happens

when people avoid undesirable information or claims that are inconsistent with their beliefs

(defensive avoidance) or when they seek out alternatives that are consistent with their own

beliefs (confirmation bias), screening out perspectives different from them. Counter-attitudinal

exposure triggers negative emotions and rejecting them is rewarding. This behavior (whether

conscious or subconscious) creates a tendency for individuals to self-isolate within groups and

31

polarize the citizenry. Likelihood of screening out other opinions is higher. The reinforcing

function of social media works by feeding its users the evidences they need to support their

claims and biases, proving themselves correct and giving them a network of people that agree

with them.

Another perspective on psychology was used in the topic by applying the concepts of

Social Psychology of Groups in explaining echo chambers and polarizations. Based on this

principle, highly cohesive communities tend to reject individuals who deviate or divert from

them. At the same time, individuals who belong to the said groups tend to develop extreme

values from what they originally believe and become harsher towards the views of outsiders.

What remains to be constant in these theories are the themes of reaffirming ones belief that leads

to isolation and self-censorship.

It was mentioned in the literature that the internet led to increased exposure to political

discussion as supported by previous studies, as political exposure happens more often on spaces

not solely devoted for political discussion. However, the claim was contested by future studies

that found out that people have a tendency to seek political opinions that affirms their values or

not that different from their own. This preference over information that supports their beliefs and

divides political discourse is what was known as homophily. With homophily, social media loose

the value of diversification of political social networks leading to an increased awareness and

political tolerance.

Colleoni, Rozza, and Arvidsson provided evidence on the existence of homophily

through the use of exact technology. However, even before then, many other researches already

made the same claim. In another study, it was also affirmed that social media is indeed

conducive to homophily and further extended that analysis by providing a link between

32

homophily and polarization. According to this study, individuals tend to affiliate with people

who share the same ideas and stances with them. This deliberate association and formation of

groups lead to homophily. What worsens the state of discourse however is the fact that in social

media, in order to manage tensions, people tend to self-censor by refraining from posting.

Basically, echo chambers happen in social media because of great social risks and deliberate

avoidance of tension.

Many other factors were attributed to homophily. It was argued in one study that

homophily is a product of the public’s lack of trust on traditional media. The decreased

confidence of the American public on traditional media as a political institution may be

attributed to the media’s tendency to interpret rather than report news and their tendency to

sensationalize miniscule or irrelevant news. Because of this, the public resorted to social media

in order to cater to their own taste and serve their personal interest. According to the Virtuous

Circle Thesis, news media use and political engagement exists in a reinforcing cycle. Which

means that news media preference and usage affects the level of political interest of users and

vice versa. This in turn worsens the problem of polarization as it continues the cycle of feeding

the interest of the people and making them believe that the information that they get are the only

ones available.

Another research elevated the scholarship on the topic by focusing on echo chambers and

introducing the role of social media itself in the process of homophily through filter bubbles.

While technological advances may lead to exposure to diverse ideas, it also have a tendency to

limit individual exposure to opposing information that may challenge beliefs and values. Echo

chamber is the process from which individuals are exposed to information that came only from

33

individuals with the same beliefs. Filter bubbles on the other hand is a phenomenon that

originated from the algorithms that select content based on previous behaviors.

In principle, the effects of filter bubbles were considered to be very harmful against the

cause of some forms of democracies. For the case of liberal democracies, filter bubbles limit the

choices and liberties of the people. For the case of deliberative democracies on the other hand,

harms civic discourse by preventing the clash of opposing beliefs. For contestatory democracies,

filter bubbles prevent the acquisition of evidences that could back contestation. For agonists,

filter bubbles silence the voice of the minority and the radicals.

Majority of researches on the topic of filter bubble however claims that the effect of filter

bubble on homophily (and polarization) is very miniscule in comparison to the deliberate

attempts of individuals to self-censor or form echo-chambers.

While the given explanations to the existence of homophily are so far dominated by the use of

psychological principles, an alternative was provided by a different study, giving a unique

perspective of the mechanisms that led to homophily. Using the Anticipated Agreement

hypothesis and Issue Publics Hypothesis, this study provided an explanation as to how the rise of

new media paved the way to selective exposure, which allows people to continuously tune in

one-sided sources while actively avoiding those that they do not like.

The Anticipated Agreement hypothesis posits that people, as voters, deliberately

subscribe to information that are consistent with their beliefs and reinforce these attitudes while

they actively avoid information that clashes with their beliefs. However, unlike the other theories

on selective exposure such as the cognitive dissonance theory, the researchers that utilized this

hypothesis suggest that this behavior is not just a product of people unconsciously trying to avoid

34

incongruent information for consistencies sake but rather a result of their social background and

environment.

In support for this, the Issue Publics hypothesis states that the wide abundance of policy

issues make it impossible for voters to digest them all. Because of this, voters try to focus only

on issues that they deem to be relevant to them hence becoming a part of that issue’s “issue

public” and at the same time, in order to choose the candidate that will best represent their

interest, the voters try to seek information that agrees with their position in relation to the issues

that they chose. It only suggests that voters do not solely rely on partisan selectivity and

candidate-based selection but is also highly affected by issue-based selection.

Political elites, which refer to those who run for positions or hold political power, or for

some cases, have strong influence over the politics and policy of the state even if they do not

hold government positions themselves are becoming polarized as portrayed by strongly opposing

ideological positions and stances. However, this claim only holds true for the American

experience (the study is focused on the existence of selective exposure and polarization of the

American public) as the state of politics in the Philippines is entirely different.

The unique character of internet news media that differentiate it from traditional and print

media is its lack of incentive to be politically moderate or to lean towards the center of the

political spectrum. Stronger partisan attitudes are more present on alternative news media, hence

making it an environment that is very conducive to polarization. Selective exposure may

decrease with the use of continuous exposure to continuous choice of content. Participants were

shown to take a more centrist or even an opposite view from what they previously have.

Selective exposure is a determinant of citizen polarization. However, partisan selective exposure

is just one stage in the long process of polarization.

35

The tendency for individuals within like-minded groups to agree with each other prevents

critical examination of information making them more inclined to develop extreme views. There

is a necessity for a balanced evaluation of arguments that homophily prevents from happening.

Group polarization, which is defined by a group leaning towards a certain opinion that moves

further into that same direction is a result of homophily. However, Polarization poses even more

harms in two levels. Since group dynamics are affected by naturally goal-directed nature of

humans to process information that supports pre-existing bias, hence within a group, there is a

lack of alternative or conflicting views and no incentives for self-criticism due to share values.

More than that there is a tendency for individuals to seek social acceptance by adjusting to the

dominant position in a group which makes it more polarized.

In summary, the existence of echo-chambers and selective exposure were generally

accepted to be the main contributory factors to political polarization in social media.

Polarization, which was defined earlier as the tendencies of groups with firm identities to have

extreme beliefs , is highly regressive against deliberative democracies as it prevents discussions

from occurring. Polarization in general discourages exchange of ideas which in turn reduces the

quality of discursive participation.

Therefore, even though deliberation as a political process is seen as beneficial to both

individual and the society, these benefits are being prevented by the problem of homophily.

Deliberation generally have a positive contribution on the level and quality of political

engagement and participation as it allows inclusivity through fair and equal representation of

interests. However, the state of the public sphere and the quality of participation in the present

is highly subjected to homophily. Homophily polarizes discourse and skews interaction as people

36

develop extreme views that prevent them from taking into consideration opposing ideas. This

makes deliberation counterproductive.

The researcher however will try to deviate from some traditions in the scholarship on

homophily. Rather than accepting the psychological approach the researcher will argue that it is

not enough to explain how politics work in a framework wherein people have to compete in

order to further their own interest. The researcher criticizes the assumptions of the psychological

approaches because these approaches easily concede that the behaviour being observed in the

study were products of a “natural tendency” as if it is something that is inherent to human

psychology.

The researcher argues that it is not a natural tendency that people subconsciously do, but

rather the people who experience homophily are fully aware of their actions.they consciously

choose to avoid and subscribe to information and that they align or join groups for certain goals.

These goals may include furthering ones interest by supporting policy makers or political courses

of action. More conclusion will be further derived as the study continues.

Political culture and history will be taken into consideration as to how people came up with such

decisions. More importantly, the literature lose important aspects with the lack of qualitative

studies. It fails to look at the perspective of the people and it lacks explanatory power on how

microlevel decisions are made by individuals that affects the group dynamics of their echo

chambers that would further lead to polarization. However, some information from the literature

will still be used to draw conclusion out of observations.

37

CHAPTER III:

METHODOLOGY

Methods, Sampling and Research Plan

This research will use groups (Facebook groups) as the unit of analysis. The researcher

will focus on two classifications of groups in Facebook, the Pro-Duterte groups (Duterte

Supporters and Rody Duterte die hard Supporters International) and the Anti-Duterte Groups

(The Silent Majority and Leni Robredo Solid Supporters). These groups are chosen because of

the number of members that they have (ranging from two-hundred twenty thousand to one

thousand, chosen to have a point of comparison between larger and smaller groups) and the

activity in terms of posting and sharing (10+ posts a day, determined by Facebook indicators).

The researcher will use a digital ethnographic type of research that will mix many other types of

qualitative methods (semiotics for symbols and images, discourse analysis for narratives). The

reasoning for this is due to the fact that the phenomenon that would be observed in this study

cannot be answered with the simple use of an interview. There is a need for the researcher to

understand the world of meanings of the subjects in order to provide an informed claim of how

the phenomena happens as guided by the theories.

More than that, the experience of an ethnographic view would give an insider perspective

of how people under homophily reacts in terms of attitudes and content. However, it does not

mean that the research will be limited to observations alone. The interpretation of the images and

contexts that the researcher will gather will be backed by the literature (using a coding scheme

for War on Drug Narratives, and Political Organizational Models for issue navigation).

38

Special considerations will be taken for conducting a digital ethnography of the topic.

Similar to ordinary research sites, the internet also show unique forms of social interaction. Each

community also have their own performed culture and artefacts (in form of videos and images)

which could give the researcher an idea on the motivations of the users and the values that they

try to protect or further in their actions. Social media is limited by the lack of actual physical

sites and fast-moving realities. On the other hand, digital ethnography is advantageous as social

media is strongly embedded in the everyday life of its physically distant members.

Social media research is more likely to illicit more truthful, more personal and more

intimate responses which is important for this study since it covers values and beliefs that leads

to certain courses of action that for a very long time, taken as norms due to their “naturalness”

under the psychological approaches. It allows a deeper analysis of discourses in textual and

visual forms, something that is difficult to observe in an actual site. The time-element of internet

ethnography allows access to interactions that took place for a very long time before since

interactions are automatically archived in the process. Even though there is a lack of access to

physical indicators such as gestures and facial expressions, internet ethnography compensates

through other forms of indicators (through the use of capitalizations, spacing, emoticons, meta-

messages, images, videos)

For this research, the researcher will look for indicators of policy-issue preference and

attitude navigation techniques by individual posters and commenters while constantly forming

and reforming the standards and operational definitions of the subject in order to adapt to the

unique character of Philippine political culture wherein parties are not particularly different from

each other and people do not necessarily subscribe or identify with certain ideologies. Hence, in

the process of ethnographic research, the researcher will try to develop a set of values and

39

attitudes that pro-Duterte supoorters hold in contrast with anti-Duterte people. With the use of

the operational definitions earlier, the researcher will observe manifestations of narratives used

as strategy (packaging, involvement, and process moves) to form discourses and ways of

thinking about a policy-issue.

The researcher classified the groups as echo-chambers due to the preference of the

following activities which are common indicators of homophily:

• Constant liking, sharing, and commenting on posts that support ones beliefs (beliefs and

attitudes characterized based on the description of the group)

• Not liking, sharing, and commenting (or antagonistic commenting) on posts that opposes ones

beliefs

The researcher chose to focus on a single issue that remains to be a prominent issue for

the current administration, that is, the war on drugs. Limiting the study to one issue will make it

easier to focus on a single set of discourses accurately and with precision. A coding scheme will

be provided in the analysis that strongly derives from the discourses defined in the literature of

war on drugs in the Philippines (Barrera, 2017; Johnson & Fernquest, 2018; Reyes, 2016).

Following the strategies suggested by the Issue-Selling Model, the discourses on war on drugs

that will be used in the analysis of posts and comments will greatly focus on policy-attitudes on

solving the drug problem, the values involved in the issue, personal and collective narratives and

sub-narratives, and the roles of the government and the society with regards to the issue, based

on the perspective of pro- and anti-Duterte groups (Barrera, 2017; Johnson & Fernquest, 2018;

Reyes, 2016).

40

At the end of this research, the researcher aims to provide and develop a mechanism that

suggests a possible model proposing how social media echo-chambers work (with similarity to

other forms of political organizations such as political parties) by looking deeper into the process

and experiencing it in the perspective of those who live the reality of the phenomena first hand.

Coding Scheme

The first level of codes labels the narratives used in discussing the war on drugs. These

are common themes that frequently emerge on discussions of war on drugs as an issue as

observed by the scholars cited in the literature. Codes at this level will be used to imply and

confirm that a post or comment involves a discussion of the war on drugs if related themes are

projected in a certain piece of raw data. The codes include perspectives on the issue, policy

suggestions, and objectives and motivations.

The second level of coding aims to provide an answer to the research question. The codes were

generated through the help of various organizational models and agenda setting concepts in order

to simulate a working system of interaction that follows the theory.

Practical and Ethical Considerations

There is a wide variety of reason for choosing an ethnographic approach for the research.

First of all, the lack of available data on candidate identification and attitudes make it difficult to

establish a base line or matrix that can be used to identify narratives that indicate the use of

political organizational strategies not just for echo-chambers but to social media groups in the

Philippines as well in general. This is partly due to the fact that majority of the researches

available cater towards a party-based politics, whereas Philippine politics differ significantly due

to the lack of established easily distinguishable parties leading to politician-based and issue-

41

based variants of politics. More importantly, given the theories that would be adapted, an

ethnographic approach will be necessary to create an assessment of values and importance of

issues based on the responses of other members of the echo-chambers.

For ethical considerations, the researcher decided to conduct an undercover participant

observation on the above mentioned communities. This is necessary in order to get a first-hand

observation of the attitudes of the people. Gathering this type of data will be difficult without an

undercover research since entry to the community will be automatically impossible partly due to

the position of the researcher as a UP student and as someone who does not align with most

values of the said communities. More than that, this method is the most efficient way of getting

truthful behaviour without making the people wary of any form of perceived threat since the

issues that will be tackled may be seen as sensitive and controversial. Directly interacting with

the researcher might lead to falsified behaviour because of fear or contempt.

Basic ethical considerations will be followed in the study including anonymity and

privacy. Strict measures will also be taken in terms of handling any information or data gathered

from the subjects. No information will be disclosed about the subjects’ information details

outside the study. Any personal information from the discourse analysis will be anonimized and

censored. No participant will be harmed, physically or psychologically during the study. Lastly,

responsible handling, storage and disposal of data will be done by the researcher.

Case Selection

There is currently a wide selection of literature that tackles this concept. However, there

are still a lot of things to be learned in the subject that are not yet touched by experts probably

because of the fact that the subject matter is relatively new in comparison with other topics in

42

political science. Majority of the literature available on the subject tries to reinforce the claim

that social media is a new form of public sphere and in line with this, many also tried to prove

the existence of homophily in the social media and almost all, if not all, of these papers

succeeded in doing so. Other than that, many literatures also tried to relate homophily on the

existence of other cases that are deemed to be problematic especially under the conception that

social media is a public sphere. These concerns involved the relationship between homophily in

social media and the way policy issue attitudes are formed around them through certain

discourses, and the mechanism from which homophily on social media can lead to other sort of

political actions.

While the current literature succeeded in proving the existence of homophily in social

media, the literature failed to provide a substantive explanation on how the phenomena occur.

Historically, many theories were already provided to explain the occurrence of homophily,

however, such theories were not yet applied for the case of social media. Even if there are some

who already succeeded on applying these theories (assuming that there already are), those who

tried to do so are small in numbers, hence conducting the study could still benefit the literature

by linking these theories specifically to social media and affirming (assuming that it was already

done before) previous studies that did the same. More than that, literatures that theorized on

homophily and related cases such as echo chambers and selective exposure failed to give an in-

depth discussion of how the matter occurs internally and their dynamics especially in terms of

focusing on the behaviour of individuals under homophily.

Given these, the study will try to fill the gap on the literature by trying to study

homophily based on the theories provided by the literature, explaining how political values and

policy-issues are navigated to promote and forward said values, and nuancing it to the

43

occurrence of the phenomenon for the case of social media and the Philippine political

experience specifically. More than that. The study would also try to dwell on the personal or

individual level of the phenomenon by looking at the actions of the people inside echo-chambers

and their awareness of the existence of homophily and the responding implications of it. As a

contribution on the larger study of public spheres, this research would also try to prove the

existence of a strategy whether conscious or unconscious that tries to forward interests while at

the same time considering a collective benefit.

This research will focus on a two opposite cases of homophily based on the experience of

the Philippines and the social media usage of its population. Before giving an elaborate

explanation of the phenomenon, it would be necessary to justify why the set parameters of this

research were chosen as they are. Firstly, Facebook was chosen by the researcher as a specific

example of social media network to give focus on the study because for three main reasons.

Firstly, based on a research conducted by the Pew Research Center, Facebook is the most

popular social media platform all around the globe with a significant difference in terms of

subscribers in comparison with other popular social media networks such as Twitter and

Instagram (Facebook remains the most popular social media platform, November 10, 2016).

Secondly, and what seems to be the most important consideration, is Facebook’s ability to

provide a necessary environment for discourse given the possibility of making long informative

and detailed posts, create posts from which people could also share news, videos, and images,

and with these posts also allowing other people to show sympathy, agreement or disagreement,

and share their opinion through commenting.

More than that, Facebook also shows the factors needed for the maintenance of a public

sphere such as enough social capital provided by its wide viewership from which people could

44

try to connect and reconnect with friends, co-workers and other people that they know in real

life, as well as Facebook’s ability to create groups and pages that categorizes people based on

their hobbies, values, beliefs, and interests.

More importantly, indicators of homophily are more observable on Facebook especially

with consideration to other boundaries such as spatial boundary. For spatial boundary, the

researcher chose the Philippines for two reasons. First is because it was declared as the 6th

largest consumer of Facebook across the globe as of 2017 with 69 million Facebook users

(Leading countries based on number of Facebook users as of July 2017 (in millions), July 2017).

Second is because of its previous and current experiences on the intermingling of social media

and politics to be further explained later. The researchers deems it to be an important case

primarily because the usership of Facebook in the Philippines is a good example that can be

generalized with the experiences of other countries but more importantly, the usage of Facebook

in the Philippines is a good example of how social media can cross the boundaries of gender,

ethnicity, language, religion, socio-cultural origins, and socioeconomic location.

While majority of the literature on social media and politics talks about experiences on elections

just like the US elections, it can be said that that kind of perspective is a little bit narrow and not

widely encompassing. Capitalizing on this example, the experience of the Philippines however is

not much different. In the previous 2016 election in the Philippines social media played a

significant role in driving public opinion and changing the tides of the election. The reason why

elections were chosen as case studies for the research on homophily is probably because of the

fact that indicators of homophily and its effect, such as polarization, are more observable during

these events. However, the experiences of the Philippines are entirely different in a sense that

elections are not ideology based. This can be attributed to various factors such as the lack of

45

difference between the “ideologies” of the mainstream parties and politicians, and the persistence

of individualized politician-based politics rather than a party-based politics, and the clientelist

nature of the Philippine political culture from which politicians are motivated more by creating

policies that would gain them more votes rather than having an ideology while the voters,

consequently base their votes not on ideologies or values but on outcomes and policies, and

many other factors.

This is where the problem would arise. First, is the concept of homophily limited to

ideologies, and secondly, is it possible for homophily to exist without an environment that caters

to the existence of ideologies? While majority focused on ideologies, these researchers cannot be

blamed at all because they based their research on personal experiences readily available in their

environment. However, it leaves a gap on the literature. In order to solve this problem, the

research will use the experience of the Philippines in its current experiences where people in the

social media are divided based on values that are not attributable to ideologies.

This lack of attribution comes from the Philippine history of its political culture and the

rule of Rodrigo Duterte, the current president who also happened to be a populist without a clear

ideology, but whose rule can be easily characterized and distinguished by policies that caters to

his own conception of what the Philippine problem is and his proposed solutions. Even if there is

a lack of ideology that divides the country, the Philippine experience on the current rule of

Duterte distinguishes the people from those who support the administration and those who do

not, making an implicit divide with characterized and recognizable values such as prioritization

of the war on drugs, human rights being secondary to the “security” of the people and other

things.

46

The study aims to apply various theories in studying the subject matter. First is the

application of Habermas’s conception of public sphere and applying it to social media. In

support of this, Putnam’s social capital theory that relates the factors provided by social media,

such as social network and trust, as factors for stimulating deliberation, an important concept in

the study of public spheres. However, these theories and principles are only explanatory of social

media being a public sphere and having the necessary criteria to facilitate deliberation and hence

not the primary theory of the study. The main goal of the study is to generate a model that can

display the political aspects of echo chambers not as homogenous groups but as conscious sites

of political interaction.

In summary, this research is a single within case level of theory centered research,

focusing on the current homophily experience of the Philippines in Facebook aimed at improving

or modifying the theory that states that homophily is caused by personal interests that people

calculated over their decisions by following this assumption and peering into the processes,

mechanisms and dynamics that confirms the benefits that people ought to get from joining echo-

chambers. The study is case oriented since it describes cases as wholes, assuming that the causal

mechanism provided by the process of individuals forwarding their political values and policy-

issue interests within echo-chambers. The study is descriptive in a sense that it proposes a model

from which people utilize organizational strategies, considering their audience to have shared

experiences and interests with them.

47

Chapter IV

Data Presentation and Analysis

This chapter details the themes of the observations and narratives generated throughout

the data collection and analysis process. The discussions organize and try to make sense of the

gathered data based on the available theories and models previously discussed. This chapter

provides an explanation on how the data answers the research question and the possible

explanations linking the actual data to their theoretical implications. The literature will provide

the theoretical backing for the analysis. For emerging themes that the initial coding scheme and

model failed to take into considerations, various alternative explanations will be provided based

on the things currently known regarding the topic while suggesting measures and instruments

that can help verify such analyses.

This chapter is divided into four major sections. The first section presents an

ethnographic descriptions of the process of accessing and entering the communities. The second

section provides ethnographic descriptions of the site, to be divided into two sub-sections: 1) the

digital location and setting and 2) the social environment. The third section provides the themes

generated from the posts and comments on the case study of war on drugs. This section will be

divided into three subsections. The first subsection discusses the narratives that dominate the

discourse of war on drugs which helps springboard the succeeding discussions. The second

subsection discusses the meta-discourses that directly responds to the research question,

analysing the interactions, strategies and mechanisms using the theoretical backing of the model

nuancing it to the formation of policy issue attitudes. The fourth section discusses the

ethnographic reflections of the researcher and the results of the discourse analysis in relation to

the theory.

48

In the first level of discourse analysis proved to be more simplistic than what was

expected from the initial coding scheme. For the pro-Duterte groups, majority of instances

showed no strong use of words or phrases that signify support for the war on drugs. However, it

should not mislead the analysis since the placing of the support or agreement in the policy is

present in the tone and contextual cues of the conversations. A dominant part of the content were

in passive agreement of the punitive-proactive approach (coded I.A.1, I.B.2.) on the drug issue.

In this sense the data are passive since they do not voice out words of agreement or disagreement

however, the context takes the current punitive-proactive approach as passable and not

contestable. Furthermore, advanced levels of coding (to be discussed on the next section) will

show other cues that indirectly signify support such as promoting the political actors that support

the policy or praising the achievements of the policy.

The pro-Duterte groups also followed the expected pattern of motivations that utilize

narratives of deterrence (I.C.1.a.) and the safety and protection of the greater society from drug-

related individuals (I.C.1.b.). The case for anti-Duterte groups is different in many ways. The

level of engagement of members is far lower than those in pro-Duterte groups. Call-outs against

the drug war are more vocal and straightforward. However, unlike the Duterte-groups where the

framing of discourse in support for punishment clearly draws from the narrative of criminality,

the policy preference is not very much pronounced in the case of anti-Duterte groups. Remarks

that condemn the “inhumane” drug war were common but the expected alternative of

rehabilitation (I.A.2. and I.A.3.) did not come out as often. On the very rare occasions that

rehabilitation came out as a narrative, the distinction between the medical and social framing of

the drug issue was not distinguished or articulated. The distinction between reactive

implementation for anti-Duterte groups and proactive for pro-Duterte groups is as clear as night

49

and day because the discourses the implies these characteristics are almost always present

directly (human rights and due process) or indirectly (zero-tolerance on drugs)

Moving on to the second level of analysis, these narratives will now be given some

meaning and purpose. Following the coding scheme, the use of Exposed Agenda is always

present in almost all instances of engagement (comments and posts) and a very good explanation

for this is due to the fact that the single-issue words effectively serve their purpose as

determiners of support towards a policy-issue. Majority of the examples include drug-use and

criminality for the pro and human rights and due process for the anti.

The discussion of salience (II.A.I) is relatively common in almost all groups however, it

changes its forms and orientation in various ways depending on the dynamics of usage. For

example, when the war on drugs is discussed inside the pro-Duterte echo chambers as an

effective policy, members of the groups champions its success and salience as a very relevant

issue. However, when news of engagement from the opposition condemning the horrors of the

war on drugs get reported, pro-Duterte members retort to narratives of throwing a different issue

(supposedly more salient), such as poverty and economy which they claim the oppositions

should focus on resolving rather than criticizing Duterte. However, this is not a homogenous

response since in various instances it can also be observed that pro-Duterte groups would still

fight for the relevance of the policy issue even in face of criticism, arguing on the difference of

what is salient for the elites and for the common people. At this point, it can be established that

inconsistencies exist inside echo chambers brought by minor differences at looking at an issue.

However, the difference is not theoretically or conceptually significant to offer a difference in

values in unison with such difference.

50

The themes of diagnosis and prognosis are the most overused strategies utilized by both

posters and commenters from the pro-Duterte groups. Through the use of narratives the supply

information on nature of the drug issue in the Philippines and why the war on drugs is the best

policy to counter it. In frequent instances, both diagnosis and prognosis coexist in a post or

comment. The prognosis may also appear in a subtle less direct manner, sometimes even absent

physically, as if it was left for the reader of the post or comment to figure out how the state of

things as discussed leads to the war on drugs as the best solution.

The diagnosis and prognosis can be said to be the most creative and elaborate strategy of

forming and shaping policy issue attitudes. Through the process, members get to utilize personal

and collective narratives that will change or clarify the perspective on the matter. The narratives

previously mentioned in the first level of discourse analysis gets their full utility in the way

members of echo chambers try to frame the issue to their interest. For instance, the narratives of

criminality, as they connected to the results of rampant drug-use, commonly gets exploited by

describing vivid images of the rape, murder and other heinous crimes, strengthening the support

for their preferred solution by making people averse of the alternative they try to paint.

More importantly, this is the strategy members use to frame the effectiveness of the

policy issue to their advantage. This is commonly present to pro-Duterte groups where

discourses of deterrence are used to describe how, as they claim logically, people are now more

afraid to do drugs due to the violent consequences and hence if the policy is doing its job, then it

should be retained. Moreover, this strategy is utilized to portray how the policy is at the same

time not as effective as what it could have been, by using narratives of human rights and the

presence of an opposition both portrayed to play as obstacles to fully implementing the drug war

without holding back. Surprisingly enough, the use of discourses to describe conditions and

51

policy options is not as present in anti-Duterte groups. However, it should be noted that this

could also be a product of a significant lack of engagement from their members compared to the

pro.

In conclusion of the first part of the second level of analysis, it can therefore be said that

the use of agenda exposing strategies is more common among pro-Duterte echo chambers than

the anti-Duterte ones. However, even among pro-Duterte groups, the framing of such strategies

still vary, but not to the extent that it creates a space for interest fragmentation or contradiction.

This implies that pro-Duterte echo chambers project more efforts to make their policy visible and

get them through to the other members.

On the mechanisms that explores the microsphere aspect of the echo chamber, themes

II.B.2. and II.B.3 did not manifest. Reporting of political information (II.B.4.) manifested in

many ways through news articles shared in both pro-and anti- groups. In a variety of instances,

the two sides even share the same articles in their groups to those with the other (although the

captions vary in terms of digesting and framing the news). Alternative forms of news reporting

or citizen journalism did not manifest however it is observable that pro-Duterte share a

significant amount of news and statistics from non-mainstream news sources, some of even

questionable integrity due to a lack of professional background. Call for political participation is

the most dominant and most common strategy that vocally suggests for an action in both sides.

However, political action in this sense is limited to campaigning and calling for votes for a

political candidate alone. Other forms of political participation were not included.

What these findings suggest is that, even within echo chambers, the groups still function

as a microsphere with the capabilities that the groups can provide that contribute to the political

knowledge of its members. However, it should still be noted that the political knowledge

52

provided in these groups are not absolute, they are still subjected to selective exposure that feeds

on the initial biases of the members. Even though calls for political participation can be classified

as deliberative as it promotes political activity and engagement, such observation is also subject

to various interpretations. It can be a function of the campaign season which is a very likely

explanation on how policies are attached to such personalities and voting for them could imply

pursuing such policy action.

Tackling both issue ownership and attention at once, the observations are very

straightforward, pro-Duterte groups claim ownership over the issue of drugs since it is Duterte’s

choice of policy importance from his campaign up to his administration. On the other hand, anti-

Duterte groups try to engage at the same issue, converging their interests with those of the other

group. In terms of attention, both groups manifest presence (although indirect) of the opposing

opinion in their groups through shared news articles. Surprisingly, both groups engage the

articles offensively, directly attacking both character and policy positions of their oppositions.

What it means is that the claim that echo chambers get limited exposure to ideas can be

falsifiable for this case. However, it should be noteworthy that the presentation of the idea takes

a foreign form, an imported opinion rather than grown from the roots of the echo chambers

themselves. This implies that exposure within echo chambers might diversify, but the

composition of the audience still remains the same.

Lastly, on issue selling, which is the main model of this study. All strategies (II.E.1,

II.E.2., and II.E.3.) manifested in the data collected. In many instances, both pro and anti-Duterte

produced posts and comments that claim a common or shared interest among the members. For

instance, pro-Duterte members would directly or indirectly assume that they all value “the

53

security of their families” to sell the narrative of supporting the drug war, where as anti-Duterte

groups would evoke narratives of valuing human life in order to campaign against the killings.

In terms of involvement, a new theme emerged which focuses on the identity of the

people involved in the discourse of the war on drugs. It can be divided into three sub-themes

namely those who promotes the policy, those who are against the policy, and those who are

affected or for whom the policy is. The first sub-theme is used as a strategy to garner political

support to those “expected to further the interests of the group” through actual political

participation. Those who are against the policy automatically gets negative reactions from the

members. The last however is the most relevant and defining manifestation if involvement. This

is where members of the echo chamber utilize and combine various policy issue strategies in

order to make it appealing by claiming that they (together with the group) possesses an exclusive

identity, constructed through a common goal and interest, bonded by a shared experience,

possesses a different take on the policy issue which cannot be grasped by their constructed other.

Such construction is very visible among pro-Duterte groups who claims that the elite

“Dilawan” do not experience the harms of being victimized by drug addicts. Lastly is on process

moves, where, almost all of the posts contain news articles or statistics with them which helps in

gaining legitimacy.

What this section implies is that, with regards to the research question, policy issues

undergo various stages of formation from agenda exposure where values and their themes get

labelled and prepared for recognition, up to issue selling where in strategic methods were used to

increase credibility and legitimacy not just in the supposed quality of issue being sold, but also as

actors playing as members of the groups. In terms of transformation, the research question falls

54

since the observation proved that intrinsically, there are no substantial conceptual differences

between members of the same echo chamber.

However, there are various ways to interpret such findings. 1) The data confirms the

dominant narrative that the members of echo chambers indeed agree in all levels at all times. 2)

Since these social media echo chambers are informal political organizations – they do not have

the coercive strength to get people to engage (which is otherwise a hassle to these individuals).

People will not lose if they do not share their differing opinion whereas, there are harms of

getting kicked out of the group or getting mobbed by fellow members in social media if one

shares their different opinion. This aversion towards the discussion however still follows

selective exposure phenomenon - an intrinsic filter that prevents people from engaging those

with different ideas. 3) Facebook built-in mechanisms provide homophilous capabilities from

which FB group administrators can select which posts to allow to get through, which comments

can be deleted etc. While this is perfectly plausible - proof cannot be established since data that

will prove such claim is only available to the admins themselves – however this is not an

impossible research venture and can be tackled on future researches.

55

Chapter V

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study aims to answer the question: “How do echo chambers work in forming policy

issue attitudes?” Throughout the course of the study, the data proved and disproved various

claims regarding the study of echo chambers. In one hand, the data confirmed that within echo

chambers, a large majority of the vocal population of the members display homogenously similar

policy attitude preferences. There are no theoretically significant differences on the members’

positions and takes with that of their corresponding echo chambers when it come to the policy

issue of the war on drugs for both pro- and anti-Duterte Facebook echo chambers. This is

consistent for both Facebook posts and comments, the two most usual forms of engagement

within echo chambers. However, it is noteworthy that the motivations or framing of reasons

behind such policy positions appear to show slight differences but such differences are not

enough to contradict the claims of others who support similar positions.

The data also debunked one major claim on echo chambers: that echo chambers only

show one side of an issue. According to the data, echo chambers also show the perspective and

opinion of key political actors from the other side of the policy through the use of news articles.

However, it should be emphasized that the opposing views still remain to be a foreign opinion

(meaning, something that did not come from the members of the echo chambers themselves but

from outside the group). It implies that even at the presence of an opposing perspective, the

overall attitude of the echo chambers still remain to be homogenous. However it should also be

noted that the presence of these opposing opinions allow the members of echo chambers to

engage with the other end of the policy issues. More than that, opposing opinions serve various

functions to the groups such as in terms of establishing differences in and strengthening claims

56

over group identities (against their oppositions), and in terms of reducing the credibility of the

opposition by attacking the soundness of their claims or the credibility of their character.

Secondly, even if the echo chambers, based on the observable data gathered from

comments and posts, were confirmed to be homogenous in nature, such groups still displayed

various manifestations of attempts to sell issue framings and policy issue attitudes strongly based

on exploiting shared interests, experiences and identities. This could lead to various conclusions

on the functions that issue selling serves for these echo chambers. It shows that even without

contestation, the conscious process of policy attitude formation and transformation manifests in

echo chambers either to serve as a pre-emptive engagement towards those outside the echo

chambers (especially their direct oppositions) or to convince those who are not yet fully

convinced members of the echo chambers who remain close to the middleground of the policy

spectrum. Such developments in the framing of their policy attitudes helps them engage with

imported knowledge from their opposition while, and as a microsphere, prepares them for

possible engagements or tangible political actions beyond their digital groups.

The study projects promising results in terms of searching for a middleground to which

researchers can engage echo chambers. The deliberation strategies, albeit not direct

manifestations of deliberation, suggests that rationality and legitimacy are values that still remain

relevant inside echo chambers. Discourses that can involve actual deliberation of policies

through the introduction and engagement of an opposing perspective can still possibly exist if

done deliberately and effectively through the use of evidences and interests articulation of any

echo chamber populations.

There are still a lot to learn from echo chambers in the way they work and affect the

everyday life of many people by various means. Because of this, it is safe to assume that

57

approaches like this study helps in dissecting the mechanisms and motivations of echo chambers

by abandoning biases and trying to look at the conscious political efforts present in the actions of

those people who, providing more knowledge on the reasons and interests that they have and

help every one of us achieve better understanding of each other.

58

References

Aceron, J. (2009). It’s the (Non-) System, Stupid!: Explaining ‘Mal-development’of Parties in the

Philippines. Reforming the Philippine Political Party System, 5-22.

Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008, February). Finding high-

quality content in social media. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on

web search and data mining (pp. 183-194). ACM.

Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2002). Agenda setting and the “new” news: Patterns of issue

importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times.

Communication Research, 29(2), 180-207.

Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-

participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government

Information Quarterly, 29(2), 142-150.

Asur, S., Huberman, B. A., Szabo, G., & Wang, C. (2011, July). Trends in social media: Persistence

and decay. In Fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.

Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and

opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.

Balkin, J. M. (2004). Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression

for the information society. NyuL rev., 79, 1.

Barrera, D. J. (2017). Drug war stories and the Philippine president. Asian journal of criminology,

12(4), 341-359.

59

Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2010). MyFaceTube politics: Social networking web sites and

political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 24-44.

Baumgaertner, B. (2014). Yes, no, maybe so: a veritistic approach to echo chambers using a

trichotomous belief model. Synthese, 191(11), 2549-2569.

Bélanger, É., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote

choice. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 477-491.

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency:

E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies.

Government information quarterly, 27(3), 264-271.

Bessi, A. (2016). Personality traits and echo chambers on facebook. Computers in Human

Behavior, 65, 319-324.

Bode, L. (2008, April). Don't judge a Facebook by its cover: Social networking sites, social

capital, and political participation. In Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science

Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in

ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551-569.

Boyd, D. (2017). Hacking the attention economy. Data and Society: Points. Available at:

https://points. datasociety. net/hacking-the-attention-economy-9fa1daca7a37.

Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and information

technology, 15(3), 209-227.

60

Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics

and Information Technology, 17(4), 249-265.

Bute, S. (2014). The role of social media in mobilizing people for riots and revolutions. In Social

media in politics (pp. 355-366). Springer, Cham.

Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation,

and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 7,

315-344.

Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting

political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal

of communication, 64(2), 317-332.

Conroy, M., Feezell, J. T., & Guerrero, M. (2012). Facebook and political engagement: A study of

online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in

Human behavior, 28(5), 1535-1546.

Curato, N. (2015). Deliberative capacity as an indicator of democratic quality: The case of the

Philippines. International Political Science Review, 36(1), 99-116.

Curato, N., & Böker, M. (2016). Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research

agenda. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 173-190.

Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and

deliberation. Political communication, 22(2), 147-162.

61

Demirhan, K. (2014). Social media effects on the Gezi Park movement in Turkey: Politics under

hashtags. In Social Media in Politics (pp. 281-314). Springer, Cham.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the

Internet. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 307-336.

Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of

political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729-

745.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue

selling and organizational change. Academy of Management journal, 44(4), 716-736.

Effing, R., Van Hillegersberg, J., & Huibers, T. (2011, August). Social media and political

participation: are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems?.

In International conference on electronic participation (pp. 25-35). Springer, Berlin,

Heidelberg.

Esteves, P. (2016, May 13). Social media changes landscape of Phl elections. Retrieved

November 15, 2018, from

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/05/13/1583095/social-media-changes-

landscape-phl-elections

Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news

consumption. Public opinion quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.

62

Franklin, C. H. (1984). Issue preferences, socialization, and the evolution of party identification.

American journal of political science, 459-478.

Froehlich, R., & Rüdiger, B. (2006). Framing political public relations: Measuring success of

political communication strategies in Germany. Public Relations Review, 32(1), 18-25.

Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among

Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265-285.

Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure

to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35(1), 113-134.

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Veenstra, A., Vraga, E., & Shah, D. (2010). Digital democracy: Reimagining

pathways to political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(1),

36-51.

Gilbert, E., Bergstrom, T., & Karahalios, K. (2009, January). Blogs are echo chambers: Blogs are

echo chambers. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp.

1-10). IEEE.

Green‐Pedersen, C., & Mortensen, P. B. (2015). Avoidance and engagement: Issue

competition in multiparty systems. Political Studies, 63(4), 747-764.

Grevet, C., Terveen, L. G., & Gilbert, E. (2014, February). Managing political differences in social

media. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative

work & social computing (pp. 1400-1408). ACM.

63

Grömping, M. (2014). ‘Echo Chambers’ Partisan Facebook Groups during the 2014 Thai Election.

Asia Pacific Media Educator, 24(1), 39-59.

Guinaudeau, I., & Persico, S. (2014). What is issue competition? Conflict, consensus and issue

ownership in party competition. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 24(3),

312-333.

Gustafsson, N. (2012). The subtle nature of Facebook politics: Swedish social network site users

and political participation. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1111-1127.

Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964).

New German Critique, (3), 49-55.

Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the

affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human

Behavior, 29(3), 1159-1168.

Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2010). Political framing strategies and their impact on media framing in

a Swiss direct-democratic campaign. Political Communication, 27(2), 141-157.

Hoeken, H., & Fikkers, K. M. (2014). Issue-relevant thinking and identification as mechanisms of

narrative persuasion. Poetics, 44, 84-99.

INQUIRER.net (2016) 13 August. Available at:

https://www.facebook.com/inquirerdotnet/posts/10154745193114453 (Accessed: 1 May 2019).

INQUIRER.net (2018) 27 November. Available at:

https://www.facebook.com/inquirerdotnet/posts/10157453441789453 (Accessed: 1 May 2019)

64

Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Walker, J. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign

communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. The

Journal of Politics, 70(1), 186-200.

Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative

media establishment. Oxford University Press.

Johnson, D. T., & Fernquest, J. (2018). Governing through killing: The war on drugs in the

Philippines. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 5(2), 359-390.

Jones, D. A. (2004). Why Americans don’t trust the media: A preliminary analysis. Harvard

International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(2), 60-75.

June, P. (2011). Social media's impact on policy making. SERI Quarterly, 4(4), 125.

Karpowitz, C. F., & Mendelberg, T. (2007). Groups and deliberation. Swiss Political Science

Review, 13(4), 645-662.

Kiousis, S. (2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information

age. Mass Communication & Society, 4(4), 381-403.

Klüver, H., & Sagarzazu, I. (2016). Setting the agenda or responding to voters? Political parties,

voters and issue attention. West European Politics, 39(2), 380-398.

Kobayashi, T., & Ikeda, K. I. (2009). Selective exposure in political web browsing: Empirical

verification of ‘cyber-balkanization’in Japan and the USA. Information, Communication

& Society, 12(6), 929-953.

65

Kruikemeier, S., & Shehata, A. (2017). News media use and political engagement among

adolescents: An analysis of virtuous circles using panel data. Political Communication,

34(2), 221-242.

McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism studies,

6(4), 543-557.

Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for

social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837-855.

Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage. Pew research center, 52-68.

Postill, J., & Pink, S. (2012). Social media ethnography: The digital researcher in a messy web.

Media International Australia, 145(1), 123-134.

Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-

127.

Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Echo chambers on Facebook. Available at

SSRN 2795110.

Rappler (2017) 24 August. Available at:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1742830822404360 (Accessed: 1 May 2019)

Reyes, D. A. (2016). The Spectacle of Violence in Duterte's “War on Drugs”. Journal of Current

Southeast Asian Affairs, 35(3), 111-137.

Robertson, S. P., Vatrapu, R. K., & Medina, R. (2010). Off the wall political discourse: Facebook

use in the 2008 US presidential election. Information polity, 15(1, 2), 11-31.

66

Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). “To Thine Own Self Be True” Values, Framing,

and Voter Decision-Making Strategies. Communication Research, 23(5), 509-560.

Steinmetz, K. F. (2012). Message received: Virtual ethnography in online message boards.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(1), 26-39.

Strandberg, K., Himmelroos, S., & Grönlund, K. (2019). Do discussions in like-minded groups

necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group

polarization. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 41-57.

Van de Donk, W., Loader, B. D., Nixon, P. G., & Rucht, D. (2004). Cyberprotest: New media,

citizens and social movements. Routledge.

Vettehen, P. H., Nuijten, K., & Peeters, A. (2008). Explaining effects of sensationalism on liking

of television news stories: The role of emotional arousal. Communication Research,

35(3), 319-338.

Vissers, S., & Stolle, D. (2014). Spill-over effects between Facebook and on/offline political

participation? Evidence from a two-wave panel study. Journal of Information

Technology & Politics, 11(3), 259-275.

Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It's complicated:

Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election. CyberPsychology, behavior,

and social networking, 14(3), 107-114.

Wagner, M., & Meyer, T. M. (2014). Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and

party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics, 37(5), 1019-1045.

67

Wallsten, K. (2005, September). Political blogs and the bloggers who blog them: Is the political

blogosphere and echo chamber. In American Political Science Association’s Annual

Meeting. Washington, DC September (pp. 1-4).

Westerwick, A., Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2017). Confirmation biases in

selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias.

Communication Monographs, 84(3), 343-364.

Winocur, R. (2003). Media and Participative Strategies: The Inclusion of Pr ivate Necessities in

the Public Sphere. Television & New Media, 4(1), 25-42.

Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online

discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?. Journal of

communication, 59(1), 40-56.

Yates, D., & Paquette, S. (2010, October). Emergency knowledge management and social media

technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. In Proceedings of the 73rd

ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem-Volume 47

(p. 42). American Society for Information Science.

Zhu, J. H. (1992). Issue competition and attention distraction: A zero-sum theory of agenda-

setting. Journalism Quarterly, 69(4), 825-836.

68

Appendix

1.1 Coding Scheme

I. 1st Set of Codes: Narratives on the War on Drugs

A. Policy Objectives

1. Punishment: drug-use is a criminal issue; product of personal choice;

criminals must be held accountable

2. Rehabilitation (A): drug-use is a medical issue; drug users are patients;

patients must be treated

3. Rehabilitation (B): drug-use is a societal issue; there are social and

economic reasons for drug involvement; rooted from poverty and

corruption; they must be helped

B. Policy Implementation

1. Reactive: drug users are individuals corrupted by the society; they must be

protected by the society; invoke human rights and due process; inclusive

2. Proactive: communitarian/common good; violence is allowed; zero-

tolerance; exclusive

Punitive-Proactive Policies: protection of the “good” law abiding citizens

and the policemen who are just doing their job

C. Motivations

1. Vehicle for Political Message (supports the policy)

a. Narrative of Deterrence

b. Narrative of Safety and Protection (for the greater society)

2. Violence from ordinary citizens and vigilante groups (supports the policy)

69

3. Intrinsic value of life and humanity (supports the policy)

4. Opportunities for redemption (supports the policy)

II. 2nd Set of Codes: Strategies of Policy Issue Attitude Formation

A. Exposed Agenda: use of single-issue words in order to thematically distinguish

a policy agenda; manifests as codes following how the codes of “I. Narratives on

the War on Drugs” are used as single-issue distinguisher

1. Salience: Which issues to think about

2. Diagnosis: Discusses the Nature of the Policy Issue

3. Prognosis: Proposes a Policy Issue Attitude/Solution

B. Microshpere: discussions of issue for collective interest; commonly refers to

actual political actions and resources

1. Call for political participation for the group’s interest

2. Plan for collective public demand

3. Request assistance for political information

4. Reporting of political information/alternative journalism and news

reporting

C. Issue Ownership: claims over a policy issue (best issues vs. salient issues, or a

combination)

1. Ownership

2. Avoidance

3. Convergence

D. Attention to the Opposition

1. Offensive

70

2. Defensive

E. Issue Selling

1. Packaging: connecting narratives with the dominant organization values (ex.

claims of shared interests)

2. Involvement: who are involved

a. Defining the group vs. the other

b. Formal (main actors involved) vs. Informal (indirect involvement)

3. Process Moves: technical strategies that appeal to credibility (ex. preparations,

research, statistics, sources)

71

1.2 Sample Coding Scheme (Tabular Form)

A0208-A1 A0208-A2 A0210-A1 A0210-B1 A0210-B2

I.A. Yes

I.A.1. Yes

I.A.2. No

I.A.3. No

I.B. Yes

I.B.1. No

I.B.2. Yes

I.C. Yes

I.C.1. Yes

I.C.1.a. Yes

I.C.1.b Yes

I.C.2. No

I.C.3. No

I.C.4. No

II.A. Yes

II.A.1. Drugs

II.A.2. Criminality

II.A.3. EJK

II.B. N/A

II.B.1. N/A

72

II.B.2. N/A

II.B.3. N/A

II.B.4. N/A

II.C. War on

Drugs

II.C.1. Yes

II.C.2. No

II.C.3. No

II.D. Yes

II.D.1. Yes

II.D.2. No

II.E. Yes

II.E.1. Filipino

Concern

II.E.2. Yes

II.E.2.a. Mahihirap

(poor)

II.E.2.b. Dilawan

II.E.3. News Article

(Non-

Mainstream)