In times of violent conflict, how do you get your news: television broadcasts and newspapers, or social media? The answer, according to new research from Binghamton University Political Science Professor Seden Akcinaroglu, may depend on how you view the effectiveness of your government.
Akcinaroglu's research centers on conflict dynamics, focusing on the interactions between states, rebels and citizens in conflict zones. She is co-author of "The role of exposure to violence in citizens' relative trust in media types for conflict-related information and news," which appeared recently in the journal Media, War & Conflict.
Co-authors include media studies expert and first author Aysenur Dal and Efe Tokdemir, who also specializes in conflict dynamics, both of Bilkent University in Turkey. While their research centers on the longstanding conflict between the Turkish government and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), it's also applicable in other contexts and countries.
Citizens are often an understudied group in conflict research, Akcinaroglu acknowledged.
"In many macro-level studies, citizens' attitudes are overshadowed, yet their perceptions play a crucial role in shaping the strategies of both rebels and the state," she said.
Over the years, the Turkish government has expanded its control over the media, largely through the acquisition of major media brands by pro-government conglomerates and by creating significant obstacles for independent journalism, Akcinaroglu said. This has led to increased censorship and content control, particularly in conflict-related coverage. As a result, mainstream legacy media often avoid reporting on sensitive issues.
"However, despite this extensive government influence, the Turkish media landscape remains fragmented, and citizens still have access to alternative sources of news and information through social media," she said. "These platforms are perceived to be beyond the government's complete control and provide an important space for citizens' online political expression."
The researchers found that exposure to violence alone doesn't have a significant effect on citizens' trust in non-regime media when it comes to conflict-related information. Rather, when citizens believe the state has failed to fulfill its obligation to protect them, they become more skeptical of regime-aligned media and seek alternative sources of information.
Rebel-related violence doesn't always lead citizens to blame the rebels, for several reasons. Because the state has an obligation to protect its citizens, violence may be seen as a failure of the state regardless of who committed the act, Akcinaroglu said. Counterterrorism measures also may harm citizens, which can create backlash against the state - although some citizens may blame the rebels instead.
"There is a puzzle here, and we don't yet know exactly how all these dynamics come together," Akcinaroglu said.
News and social media
While both pro- and anti-government actors can use social media to push their views, a wider range of perspectives is available than in traditional media, which is heavily dominated by government narratives. Younger people and those skeptical of the government often turn to social media for political information; exposure to violence can reinforce those tendencies.
Citizens who believe the state is effectively handling the crisis are more likely to rely on traditional newspapers and follow pro-government narratives on social media. Those who see the state as ineffective rely more on social media rather than legacy outlets.
The researchers' framework goes beyond Turkey and conflict settings. While the distinction between regime and non-regime media is especially salient in competitive authoritarian systems, similar dynamics also exist in democracies experiencing partisan polarization and segmented media ecosystems. The pattern also extends to non-conflict situations where information is scarce, controlled or contested - one example being the coronavirus pandemic, Akcinaroglu said.
In short, when information is limited or conflicted, citizens decide which sources to trust - and this choice is based on how effective they believe the government to be in dealing with the crisis.
Tools such as VPNs allow people to access sources of information even in highly censored environments - provided that they're motivated to seek that information out in the first place. Skepticism provides that spark.
As more people seek out diverse perspectives on social media, this demand can eventually influence traditional news outlets.
"Even in countries like Türkiye, where most mainstream media is state-controlled, there are still independent outlets and online platforms providing alternative narratives," Akcinaroglu said.
Choosing trustworthy news outlets, whether traditional or online, requires media literacy. Citizens need to be able to evaluate the credibility of sources and recognize propaganda from all sides.
"Perceptions shape information-seeking behavior, and that has major implications for how people interpret events and make decisions," Akcinaroglu said.
