This document discusses a study on public connections and media consumption among college-educated individuals in Mexico City. Some key findings were that people have an understanding of what public issues are but low trust in politics. Public issues included both politics and social/cultural topics. People's daily lives show a blurring of public and private spheres. Media plays a strong role in how people understand public issues through agenda-setting and priming effects. New forms of participation through social networks were found rather than traditional political channels. The document raises questions about how to define "public" and whether youth are interested in public issues, and how they can participate through new digital means or if this discourages real participation.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=E3h-T3KQNxU
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/vice
-news/yo-soy-132

2. Media and Public Connections
MargaritaTorres, Alfredo Dillon
SalzburgAcademy, 2014

3. • The Economist
• June 29th, 2013

4. Public Connections Project
(Manuel Alejandro Guerrero)
ANTECEDENTS
• 2003-2006 LSE study = Nick Couldry, Sonia Livingstone &Tim
Markham, Media Consumption and Public Engagement, Palgrave
2007.
• Aim of the project:
– to explore people’s understanding of what counted as ‘public issues’
and how their media consumption relate to such understanding.
• This ‘orientation’ was called Public Connection.
• Mexico  same research with two variances:
– only college educated individuals from MexicoCity Metropolitan area
– digital media consumption.

5. Key issues
• Theory says there are relatively conscious citizens of their
rights/obligations…
• How does this work in real daily-life?
• Theory says that the media’s informational role helps
citizens to be updated on common interest public issues
and eventually engage…
• How does this work in real daily-life?

6. Shared transformations
• In different ways, though with similar trends in
urban modern settings:
– Increased amalgamation of news & entertainment
– Increasing predominance of on-line activities
– Increasing variety of services/contents available
– Increased ‘disconection’ from traditional politics, but
higher ‘connection’ to platforms providing
entertainment, private services and social networking.

7. Some hunches
• These changes are contributing to blur among certain users
the frontiers between public/private (i.e. Public actions may
spring out from private practices)
• Traditional ways of surveying are not representing and
mapping these transformations
• Traditional political science models are not accounting for
these transformations (the categories are still so stiff in a way)
• These are relevant for the future and the legitimacy of
democracy

8. Public connection
• What does it mean/feel to be a citizen on a day-to-
day basis?
• In which sort of situations you may feel you’re
acting as a citizen?
• What kind of ‘public issues’ are part of your daily-
life conversations/interests?
• How does the kind of contents you are consuming
on the media relate to such meaning/feeling?

9. Findings (both UK and Mx)
• On “public”
– There is an understanding –more or less clear—of
what public interest issues are.
– There is interest on, and knowledge about, “public
issues”, though low levels of trust in politicians and
politics.
– Public interest issues = mostly politics; but also
references to social, cultural & entertainment topics.
– There is a “theoretical” identification of the division
between public and private, but it blurs in their daily
life practices.

10. Findings (UK and Mx)
• The ‘mediation’:
– Strongly mediated “public connection”
– In Mx, the connection starts with something that is
discussed or listened at home, college, friends, and then
they go and seek further info in the social networks.
– In most topics, though their primary source may not be
mediatic, there is still strong coincidence with the media
agenda (Agenda Setting & Priming strong role).
– Digital media consumption does not replaces traditional
media (many sources are the same. I.e.The web sites of
traditional media to which they arrived viaTweeter).

11. Findings (Mx)
• They do participate, but not through the
traditional channels. New concepts are needed in
political science to forms of participation that are
sometimes not even recognized as such by the
actors themselves.
• Constant activity in social networks
• Incipient forms of deliberation (exchanges with
authorities are frequent!)
• The basis for them to “feel” their citizenship is to
be informed… from there they act, or not.

12. What about us, here?

13. 1) What is “public”?

14. = audience?

15. = related to the government?

17. ≠ private / domestic?

18. = famous?

19. = open, accessible?

20. ≠ secret?

21. = affecting the community?

22. Think of your friends & other people
of your age…

23. … specially the ones that didn’t
actually come to Salzburg

24. 2) Are the young interested in
public issues?

25. 2.1. What issues are young people
most interested in?
2.2. Why are those issues
important to you/them?

26. … in a “traditional” way
Chile, 2013 Spain, 2012
Two examples of youth participation…

27. 3) How can young people participate
in the public sphere?

28. a) Is “liking” a form of
participation…?

29. … or does it disencourage real
participation?

30. b) Consider the digital divide…
Internet users per 100 inhabitants
Source: InternationalTelecommunications Union

31. … remember the 5 A’s of
media literacy!
ACCESS
Source:

32. Survey
•http://bit.ly/sacpublic

33. Discussion time!
1) Select a public issue that is relevant for
young people in your country (choose only
one in each table).

34. 2)Think of a target:
1. Politician from the Government
2. Politician from the opposition
3. Journalist from a traditional media
4. Journalist from a new, “alternative” media
5. International NGO
6. Local NGO

35. 3)What are the challenges that you would face
if you were trying to get your issue into this
agent’s agenda?
4) In one sentence:What would be the best
strategy to reach your target?