These past couple weeks, I’ve been studying the relationship between legacy media and social media. As our relationship with media shifts with time, these two modes are often positioned as distinct, concrete entities separated by generations and methods of presenting news and information. During my research, I’ve found myself struck by this binary, and all of its paradoxes, limitations, and implications for how we conduct democratic discussions in 2026.
In the United States, we love to stress our opportunity to have these deep, insightful conversations that heighten American democratic society. Stephen D. Brookfield and Stephen Preskill articulate this idealistic point of view in Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms, “Democracy and discussion imply a process of giving and taking, speaking and listening, describing and witnessing—all of which help expand horizons and foster mutual understanding” (Brookfield and Preskill 3-4).
Expands horizons. Foster mutual understanding. This language speaks to an idealized perception for what political discourse can look like in this country. But does this describe our reality or a hope we learned to dream in high school civics? And how does this idea translate to the political discourse that is currently taking place online?
As many of us have experienced in digital spaces, online political discourse is quite messy as arguments grow more intense, different kinds of information and misinformation spread, and echo chambers create stiff and stubborn echo chambers. And this move to a messier demonstration of democracy has been accompanied by the move from legacy media to new (particularly social) media.
Democratic discussions, in the context of political discourse, are often facilitated by the media and its curation and facilitation of news and information. Up until the past few decades, legacy media, such as broadcast news, radio, and the newspaper was the primary mode for spreading current events and issues.
Legacy media has been traditionally, and stereotypically, characterized by its credibility and gatekeeping of information. As venerated and widely recognized institutions, legacy media organizations are expected to have quality journalism and reliable verification procedures (Sew et al.) Not just any random person can join CNN or TheNew York Times.
“Democratic discussions, in the context of political discourse, are often facilitated by the media and its curation and facilitation of news and information.“
But anybody with a cellphone or computer can join social media. Long gone are the days where people got their news solely from the paper, the radio, or the newscaster. Now, we have more options. Your social media feed can give you the latest Trump controversy. Your friend’s Instagram story will tell you about the latest headline on the most fiery social issue of the day. X will show you every celebrity’s Met Gala ‘fit. Scrolling on livestreams on Twitch or YouTube? You’ll see the same issues covered by HasanAbi and Candace Owens—albeit, from radically different perspectives.
Individuals and communities from all circles and overlaps of political and ideological thought are creating their own spheres on social media, even entire platforms. Whether by simply “lurking” and seeing certain posts (Sherman et al.) or actively creating content, individuals are making social media a hub for the public conversation as headlines, articles, posts, and a swarm of news fills timelines every single day. Newspapers and broadcast news are declining, but social media will get you your headlines and personalize them for your viewing pleasure to boot.
What do these things all have in common? They give you access. Access to the rapid stream of headlines, articles, posts and a swarm of news that fills your timeline everyday. Your presence expands beyond the purview of your own life. The (digital) world becomes your oyster.
The more time we spend online, the more our online presence grants us access to the opinions, views, and experiences of others. These, in combination with our reactions to them, formulate public discussion (Prayogi et al.) But what happens as these things blend together? Is it a stew from which we can taste the benefits of increased democracy? Or a mush of poisonous discourse?
“The more time we spend online, the more our online presence grants us access to the opinions, views, and experiences of others.“
Let me ask you: On social media, do you usually see discussions consisting of “giving and taking, speaking and listening, describing and witnessing” that “expand horizons” and “foster mutual understanding” which Brookfield and Preskill describe? Or do you see something more messy and fraught with frustration, power struggles, and conflict?
Sources:
Brookfield, Stephen D., and Preskill Stephen. “Discussion in a Democratic Society.” Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2005, pp. 1–20.
Prayogi, Aditya, et al. “Media as an Arena of Power: Ideology, Discourse, and the Construction of Social Reality.” Synergy: Journal of Communication and Media, vol. 2, no. 1, 2026, pp. 1–11.
Sew, Cherie, et al. “Influencers vs. Legacy Media on Instagram: Effects on Perceived Credibility and Following Intention.” Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2026.
Sherman, Lauren E., et al. “What the brain ‘Likes’: neural correlates of providing feedback on social media. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 13, no. 7, 7 Apr. 2018, pp. 699–707, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy051.
Home > Democracy in the Comments > The Digital Stew
The Digital Stew
By Jadyn Nolen
Figure 1. Keywords related to political discourse. https://my.lwv.org/california/diablo-valley/article/our-commitment-civil-discourse
These past couple weeks, I’ve been studying the relationship between legacy media and social media. As our relationship with media shifts with time, these two modes are often positioned as distinct, concrete entities separated by generations and methods of presenting news and information. During my research, I’ve found myself struck by this binary, and all of its paradoxes, limitations, and implications for how we conduct democratic discussions in 2026.
In the United States, we love to stress our opportunity to have these deep, insightful conversations that heighten American democratic society. Stephen D. Brookfield and Stephen Preskill articulate this idealistic point of view in Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms, “Democracy and discussion imply a process of giving and taking, speaking and listening, describing and witnessing—all of which help expand horizons and foster mutual understanding” (Brookfield and Preskill 3-4).
Expands horizons. Foster mutual understanding. This language speaks to an idealized perception for what political discourse can look like in this country. But does this describe our reality or a hope we learned to dream in high school civics? And how does this idea translate to the political discourse that is currently taking place online?
As many of us have experienced in digital spaces, online political discourse is quite messy as arguments grow more intense, different kinds of information and misinformation spread, and echo chambers create stiff and stubborn echo chambers. And this move to a messier demonstration of democracy has been accompanied by the move from legacy media to new (particularly social) media.
Democratic discussions, in the context of political discourse, are often facilitated by the media and its curation and facilitation of news and information. Up until the past few decades, legacy media, such as broadcast news, radio, and the newspaper was the primary mode for spreading current events and issues.
Legacy media has been traditionally, and stereotypically, characterized by its credibility and gatekeeping of information. As venerated and widely recognized institutions, legacy media organizations are expected to have quality journalism and reliable verification procedures (Sew et al.) Not just any random person can join CNN or The New York Times.
But anybody with a cellphone or computer can join social media. Long gone are the days where people got their news solely from the paper, the radio, or the newscaster. Now, we have more options. Your social media feed can give you the latest Trump controversy. Your friend’s Instagram story will tell you about the latest headline on the most fiery social issue of the day. X will show you every celebrity’s Met Gala ‘fit. Scrolling on livestreams on Twitch or YouTube? You’ll see the same issues covered by HasanAbi and Candace Owens—albeit, from radically different perspectives.
Individuals and communities from all circles and overlaps of political and ideological thought are creating their own spheres on social media, even entire platforms. Whether by simply “lurking” and seeing certain posts (Sherman et al.) or actively creating content, individuals are making social media a hub for the public conversation as headlines, articles, posts, and a swarm of news fills timelines every single day. Newspapers and broadcast news are declining, but social media will get you your headlines and personalize them for your viewing pleasure to boot.
What do these things all have in common? They give you access. Access to the rapid stream of headlines, articles, posts and a swarm of news that fills your timeline everyday. Your presence expands beyond the purview of your own life. The (digital) world becomes your oyster.
The more time we spend online, the more our online presence grants us access to the opinions, views, and experiences of others. These, in combination with our reactions to them, formulate public discussion (Prayogi et al.) But what happens as these things blend together? Is it a stew from which we can taste the benefits of increased democracy? Or a mush of poisonous discourse?
Let me ask you: On social media, do you usually see discussions consisting of “giving and taking, speaking and listening, describing and witnessing” that “expand horizons” and “foster mutual understanding” which Brookfield and Preskill describe? Or do you see something more messy and fraught with frustration, power struggles, and conflict?
Sources:
Brookfield, Stephen D., and Preskill Stephen. “Discussion in a Democratic Society.” Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2005, pp. 1–20.
Prayogi, Aditya, et al. “Media as an Arena of Power: Ideology, Discourse, and the Construction of Social Reality.” Synergy: Journal of Communication and Media, vol. 2, no. 1, 2026, pp. 1–11.
Sew, Cherie, et al. “Influencers vs. Legacy Media on Instagram: Effects on Perceived Credibility and Following Intention.” Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2026.
Sherman, Lauren E., et al. “What the brain ‘Likes’: neural correlates of providing feedback on social media. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 13, no. 7, 7 Apr. 2018, pp. 699–707, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy051.
Jadyn Nolen