I do believe that social media plays a major role into providing a wide range of ideas when it comes to civics and politics. However, I think the area where one could argue either way, is the question of which site or webpages do you look for comments? For example, in this week's Democratic Presidential Debate, if you turn to social media pages that focus on democrats only, then you will be constrained to look at more narrow viewpoints. However, if you visit a site such as CNN, you are more inclined to see a variety of posts that may provide a wider scope of ideas. Thus, if the discussion is about a certain topic and you only see a democratic point of view in the discussion, then you may tend to believe it because there are little alternatives. However, if you see a webpage with a wider scope and you see a Republican point of view, then you will have a broader view of the topic which should help you to make a clearer decision.

Hi,

Yes...... Its true.  

Social media promotes exposure to a wide variety of viewpoints when it comes to civics and politics.

Kindly refer the following links: for your question.

http://ypp.dmlcentral.net/sites/all/files/publications/Online%20Diversity.pdf

http://www.civicsurvey.org/sites/default/files/publications/Digital_opps_civ_ed.pdf

http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A100BrundidgeRice2009.pdf

http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/3254/1432

http://dmlhub.net/wp-content/uploads/files/International_Journal_Communication.pdf

Maybe indivudual media platforms are one sided and less pluralistic, but through the net you can enter a number of them, so that does not limit your choice to a small pool of views. It depends on you.

I think so. I'm not much of a politically engaged person, but I get some of my information through social media. For example, I saw Donald Trump's image gif going around the social media where he is making different funny faces. I thought this was hilarious and wanted to know why he was making such weird faces. This then led me to watch the presidential debate where the gif image came from and ended up watching more than I had planned. From these little video excerpts I gained more knowledge about some of the candidates. 

As social media is an interactive medium, it promotes more exposure and comments than any other medium.

Media does an very important task to bring the facts before the viewers may be on the political & economical reviews where within the line for which they deserve the compliments .

Very often they calls in their program both of the government & opposite parties together for lively discussion & quite often opposite party side tracking the main issue argument with the abused of course  media conveyor quite intelligently  tackle the issue however in such cases very often political parties fail their role  in such important areas .

Instead of gathering the various groups media should bifurcate the events with the selected few parties so that viewers can enjoy & also appreciate the program .

Media carry out program for economical discussion in a very right manner & with their presentation they give right justice to the viewers .

I do believe that social media plays a major role into providing a wide range of ideas when it comes to civics and politics. However, I think the area where one could argue either way, is the question of which site or webpages do you look for comments? For example, in this week's Democratic Presidential Debate, if you turn to social media pages that focus on democrats only, then you will be constrained to look at more narrow viewpoints. However, if you visit a site such as CNN, you are more inclined to see a variety of posts that may provide a wider scope of ideas. Thus, if the discussion is about a certain topic and you only see a democratic point of view in the discussion, then you may tend to believe it because there are little alternatives. However, if you see a webpage with a wider scope and you see a Republican point of view, then you will have a broader view of the topic which should help you to make a clearer decision.

There is much debate on this point. Research suggests  in general that social media, rather than expanding the public sphere, are creating "sphericles" composed by like-minded individuals. As Prof. Hörcher points, It depends on the individual find a variety of information on the Web. Unfortunately, not all people have the motivation or skills to face that kind of research .

I wrote a paper about this. It is in Spanish, but  if someone is interested it includes updated bibliography in English .

Article La comunicación política en las redes sociales. Enfoques teó...

I can understand why it is that some fear social networks may equate to social cocoons.  Homophilly, and the tendency to be friends with people who are like you, is an aspect of human nature.  If the only views you encountered on social media agreed with your own existing views, then this could lead to a cocooning effect.  On the other hand, I see many people in my online social networks expressing views that I am strongly opposed to.  This may be because many people in my online social networks are not people I have close friendships with offline, but are people I know through work, business, school and the various communities I belong to.  Many are people I have never met.  So, if anything, my online social networks rather broaden my horizons, and help me understand that in a democracy we must have a lot of compromise in order to be able to achieve positive change.  In my experience, social media exposes me to a broader range of civic and political viewpoints than would otherwise be the case.