AI-DRIVEN MEDIA CONSUMPTION AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v7.i8s.2026.7712Keywords:
AI-Driven Media, Selective Exposure, Public Discourse, Agenda-Setting, Framing, CultivationAbstract [English]
Artificial intelligence now plays a major role in how we interact with the news and talk about politics. Despite this, we still don't have a clear picture of how algorithms actually change which issues get noticed, how they are presented, or how we see the state of public conversation. This study examines the connection between our dependency on AI-driven media and the tendency to focus exclusively on material we already agree with, which can give the impression that public discourse is collapsing.
This study develops and evaluates a theory-driven model that connects selective exposure and subsequent perceptions of discourse fragmentation to AI-driven media dependence. The fundamentals of this study are based on well-established agenda-setting, framing, and cultivation theory. The study uses a survey-experimental design with 200 participants and a 2 × 2 embedded manipulations contrasting AI-personalized versus non-personalized feeds and conflict versus solution framing. The expected measures include AI-driven media reliance, selective exposure propensity, congruent headline choice, issue salience, perceived discourse fragmentation, civility, trust in news, and algorithmic awareness.
Statistical analyses include Cronbach’s alpha, Pearson correlations, chi-square tests, ordinary least squares regression with robust standard errors, and constructed communication. Results show that AI-driven media reliance significantly predicts selective exposure propensity (β = .32, p < .001). Exposure to AI-personalized feeds increases issue salience (B = 1.11, p < .001) and the likelihood of high congruent headline selection, χ²(1, N = 200) = 31.25, p < .001, Cramér’s V = .23. Conflict framing significantly increases perceived discourse fragmentation (β = .29, p < .001) and reduces perceived civility (β = −.21, p < .001). Mediation analysis indicates that selective exposure partially affects the relationship between AI feed exposure and discourse fragmentation (indirect effect = .11, 95% CI [.07, .16]).
The findings suggest that AI systems do not merely transmit information efficiently, but they also participate in structuring the public sphere by shaping what users attend to, how they interpret social conflict, and how fragmented they believe civic life has become. The study contributes a testable model of algorithmic public discourse and offers implications for platform governance, media literacy, and the future of public opinion research.
References
Arguedas, A. R., and Simon, F. M. (2023). Automating Democracy: Generative AI, Journalism, and the Future of Democracy. Oxford Internet Institute.
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. , Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. , Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., and Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media can Increase Political Polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Brantner, C., Karlsson, M., and Kuai, J. (2025). Sourcing Behavior and the Role of News Media in AI-Powered Search Engines in the Digital Media Ecosystem: Comparing Political News Retrieval Across Five Languages. Telecommunications Policy, 49(5), 102952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102952
Cardenal, A. S., Aguilar-Paredes, C., Cristancho, C., and Majó-Vázquez, S. (2019). Echo-Chambers in Online News Consumption: Evidence from Survey and Navigation Data in Spain. European Journal of Communication, 34(4), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323119844409
Dekker, C. A., Baumgartner, S. E., and Sumter, S. R. (2025). For you vs. for Everyone: The Effectiveness of Algorithmic Personalization in Driving Social Media Engagement. Telematics and Informatics, 101, 102300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2025.102300
Einarsson, Á. M., Helles, R., and Lomborg, S. (2025). Algorithmic Agenda-Setting: The Subtle Effects of News Recommender Systems on Political Agendas in the Danish 2022 General Election. Information, Communication and Society, 28(2), 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2334411
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Evans, R., Jackson, D., and Murphy, J. (2023). Google News and Machine Gatekeepers: Algorithmic Personalisation and News Diversity in Online News Search. Digital Journalism, 11(9), 1682–1700. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2055596
Fletcher, R., and Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis. New Media and Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170
Gerbner, G., and Gross, L. (1976). Living with Television: The Violence Profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x
Iyengar, S., and Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
Joy, J (2026). Social Media As A Catalyst For Social Welfare: Enhancing Snehitha Initiative Visibility In Wayanad, Kerala., ShodhVichar: Journal of Media and Mass Communication., 2(1), 42-47. https://dx.doi.org/10.29121/ShodhVichar.v2.i1.2026.77
Kubin, E., and von Sikorski, C. (2021). The Role of (social) Media in Political Polarization: A Systematic Review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
McCombs, M. E., and Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making Sense of Credibility on the Web: Models for Evaluating Online Information and Recommendations for Future Research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20672
Moravec, V. (2025). Algorithmic Personalization: A Study of Knowledge Gaps and Digital Media Literacy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04593-6
Mutz, D. C. (2011). Communication and Public Opinion: Plus ça Change? Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 1018–1044. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr052
Nechushtai, E., and Lewis, S. C. (2019). What Kind of News Gatekeepers do we Want Machines to be? Filter Bubbles, Fragmentation, and the Normative Dimensions of Algorithmic Recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.043
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Eddy, K., and Nielsen, R. K. (2025). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Prior, M. (2007). Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878425
Sehl, A., Fletcher, R., and Picard, R. G. (2023). News Personalization and Public Service Media: User Expectations, Engagement, and Democratic Implications. Journalism Studies, 24(8), 1057–1075.
Steppat, D., Castro Herrero, L., and Esser, F. (2022). Selective Exposure in Different Political Information Environments: How Media Fragmentation and Polarization Shape Congruent News Use. European Journal of Communication, 37(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231211012141
Valkenburg, M., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I. I., and Keijsers, L. (2023). Social Media Use and Adolescents' Self-Esteem: Heading for a Person-Specific Media Effects Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 73(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa039
van Aelst, , Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D. N., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T., and Stanyer, J. (2017). Political Communication in a High-Choice Media Environment: A Challenge for Democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551
Webster, J. G. (2014). The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9892.001.0001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sagar Kanojia , Yogendra Kumar Pandey, Rashmi Gautam, Jitendra Dabral, Swati Kanaujia, Swati Gupta
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
