{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02780269058295964, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4293948126801155, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Convergent Media and Privacy by Tim Dwyer

Pluralism, Neuman’s final concept, stands in contrast to polarization. Whereas polarization is rigid, contentious, and authoritarian, pluralism is tolerant, dialogic, and democratic. Unfortunately, pluralism is also tenuous. Pluralism is subject to a number of countervailing political forces. Neuman warns that these forces become even more challenging to research and policy making because fostering an open and dynamic marketplace of ideas is a global concern in this digital era of satellite broadcasting and the Internet. The features of polysemy, profusion, and polarization and the hope for pluralism require a shift in the model of media effects, according to Neuman. Traditional approaches of measuring the effects of media exposure on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors developed during an era of push media are now inadequate, and long-standing concerns about strong and weak effects are irrelevant. In their place, Neuman urges researchers to acknowledge the interactivity and pull characteristics of digital media. “The diversity and complexity of messages in social context leads the analyst to shift from message ‘x’ potentially affecting attitude ‘y,’” says Neuman, “to a question of which of the multitude of messages appear to resonate with public consciousness, which attract attention or comment, which are passed on, and which are sustained over time.” This shift requires robust audience research and in-depth analysis of Big Data, always with an eye on research reliable conclusions that can contribute to public policy. Polysemy, profusion, polarization, and pluralism, the marketplace of ideas, and push and pull are concepts with histories of media use that long precede digital media. However, that fact hardly diminishes the value of this book. Well-documented, methodical, provocative, and clear, The Digital Difference deserves a prominent place in communication proseminars and graduate courses in research methods because of its reorientation of media effects research and its application to media policy making. It frames the “is” and the “ought” of digital media in ways that can elicit critical discussion and politically relevant research.