1Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections: A Promise of Pluralism Social Media Users Hardly Recognize* Ignacio López-Escarcena1 Constanza Ortega-Gunckel2 María Elena Gronemeyer3 Received: 24/04/2022 Sent to peers: 12/05/2022 Approved by peers: 19/07/2022 Accepted: 12/09/2022 DOI: 10.5294/pacla.2022.25.4.6 Para citar este artículo / to reference this article / para citar este artigo López-Escarcena, I., Ortega-Gunckel, C. & Gronemeyer, M. E. (2022). Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections: A Promise of Pluralism Social Media Users Hardly Recognize. Palabra Clave, 25(4), e2546. https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2022.25.4.6 Abstract In this research, we set out to analyze, on the one hand, the promises of pluralism of four television channels in the months before the referendum of October 25th, 2020, in Chile, and on the other hand, how YouTube and Twitter audiences reacted to them. Through a mixed method of content anal- ysis and qualitative analysis, we found that pluralism was not one of the most mentioned aspects by the public in these social media. When there were allusions to it, the assessment was negative. This article seeks to contribute 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9859-5369. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile. islopez@uc.cl 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9182-3827. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile. cortega1@uc.cl 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1034-0538. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile. mgronemeyer@uc.cl * Fondo de Estudios sobre el Pluralismo en el Sistema Informativo Nacional, granted by Chile’s Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID). Code: PLU200002 https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2022.25.4.6 https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2022.25.4.6 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9859-5369 mailto:islopez@uc.cl https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9182-3827 mailto:cortega1@uc.cl https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1034-0538 mailto:mgronemeyer@uc.cl https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.5294/pacla.2022.25.4.6&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2022-11-25 2 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others to studies on pluralism not only in Chile but also at a more general level, focusing on a global phenomenon, such as the possibilities of participation that social media provide to audiences who consume journalistic content. Keywords (Source: Unesco Thesaurus) Pluralism; televised political programs; election period; reactions in so- cial media. 3Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 El debate político en televisión en tiempos de elecciones: una promesa de pluralismo que a los usuarios de las redes sociales les cuesta reconocer* Resumen Esta investigación se propuso analizar, por un lado, las promesas de plura- lismo de cuatro canales de televisión en los meses previos al referéndum del 25 de octubre de 2020 en Chile y, por otro lado, cómo reaccionó el pú- blico de YouTube y Twitter a ellas. Mediante un método mixto de análi- sis de contenido y análisis cualitativo, se encontró que el pluralismo no era uno de los aspectos más mencionados por el público en estas redes socia- les y, cuando hubo alusiones a ello, la valoración fue negativa. Este artículo busca contribuir a los estudios sobre el pluralismo no solo en Chile sino a un nivel más general al centrarse en un fenómeno global, como son las posibi- lidades de participación que las redes sociales brindan a las audiencias que consumen contenidos periodísticos. Palabras clave (Fuente: Tesauro de la Unesco) Pluralismo; programas políticos televisados; período electoral; reacciones en las redes sociales. * Fondo de Estudios sobre el Pluralismo en el Sistema Informativo Nacional, otorgado por la Agencia Nacional de In- vestigación y Desarrollo (ANID) de Chile. Código: PLU200002. 4 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others O debate político em televisão em tempos de eleições: uma promessa de pluralismo que os usuários das redes sociais custam reconhecer* Resumo Esta pesquisa se propôs analisar, por um lado, as promessas de pluralismo de quatro canais de televisão nos meses prévios às eleições de 25 de outu- bro de 2020 no Chile e, por outro, como o público do YouTube e do Twi- tter reagiu a elas. Mediante um método misto de análise de conteúdo e análise qualitativa, constatou-se que o pluralismo não era um dos aspectos mais mencionados pelo público nessas redes sociais e, quando houve alu- sões a ele, a avaliação foi negativa. Este artigo pretende contribuir para os estudos sobre o pluralismo não somente no Chile, mas também num ní- vel mais geral, ao focar-se num fenômeno global, como são as possibilida- des de participação que as redes sociais oferecem ao público que consome conteúdos jornalísticos. Palavras-chave Pluralismo; programas políticos televisivos; período eleitoral; reações nas redes sociais. * Fondo de Estudios sobre el Pluralismo en el Sistema Informativo Nacional, outorgado pela Agencia Nacional de In- vestigación y Desarrollo (ANID) do Chile. Código: PLU200002. 5Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 Introduction In times of increasing polarization of audiences, televised political debates have become a crucial body for understanding different democratic decision- making exercises ( Jenkins et al., 2001). As a result, research on this type of program has increased considerably in recent years. Although the exist- ing literature has focused on presidential debates (see McKinney & Carlin, 2004; Turcotte & Goidel, 2014; Van der Meer et al., 2016), a growing in- terest in understanding the role of audiences in this new media-political scenario has been observed thanks to the irruption of social media. Infor- mation and communication technologies (ICT) have put into play the va- lidity of the unidirectional sender-receiver model (Castillo, 2014). In this context, audiences have taken a more active role. As a result, the media have had to open their “doors” to citizen participation (Masip, 2014), giving rise to a new, more interactive (Fenoll, 2011), accountable (Hasebrink, 2011) communication model committed to providing space for recipients to monitor both the media and journalists (Masip, 2014). This change would not only be presented as a paradigm shift but also have an irreversible impact in the sense of informative pluralism (Picard, 2014) since it allows for interaction spaces that enrich public debate (Suárez- Villegas et al., 2020). Despite the above, few studies (see Anstead & O’Loughlin, 2011; Santander et al., 2020) have effectively examined how audiences monitor the work and commitments of deliberative programs on television. There- fore, this research seeks to continue the line of studies on journalistic prac- tice and the social responsibility of media communication as a guarantor and promoter of freedom of speech and information. The present research work aims, then, to size and evaluate the level of coincidence between the purposes declared by the media about TV shows that focus on political de- bates and the perceptions of viewers who comment on them on social me- dia within the context of the Chilean referendum of 2020. Specifically, to achieve the proposed objective, the promises of plu- ralism of four political discussion programs on four television channels 6 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others were compared—Tolerancia cero (CNN Chile), Pauta libre (La Red), Es- tado nacional (TVN), and A esta hora se improvisa (Canal 13)—with the reactions of the public on YouTube and Twitter. For this, a mixed method- ological approach of content analysis and qualitative analysis was adopted to observe a scarcity of references to pluralism in the audience’s comments and a mostly negative assessment of the offer of pluralism when there were mentions about it. With this article, we hope to contribute to the discussion about plu- ralism in the media and how the audience evaluates compliance through digital platforms such as Twitter and YouTube. For this research, we focus on the Chilean reality due to contingency. However, it is an empirical case that can undoubtedly dialogue with other studies worldwide that address the phenomenon of social media, the forms of participation they allow for, and to what extent the audience plays a supervisory role in the work of the traditional media. Theoretical framework 1. Role of audiences in a digital media context With the breakdown of unidirectional communication, the relationship be- tween the media and the audience has moved towards a more horizontal, col- laborative, accessible, and decentralized format (Del Valle, 2018). Thanks to tools and settings such as blogs, chats, forums of opinion, emails, WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, among others, new actors have had the opportunity to make themselves heard, engaging in new behaviors outside the patterns imposed by the traditional media (Anderson, 2011; Hallvard & Ytre-Arne, 2021).4 Although authors such as MacGregor et al. (2011), Nielsen (2014), and Peters and Witschge (2015) have argued that traditional media contin- ue to control public discussion, Suárez-Villegas et al. (2020), Loosen et al. 4 If we focus this perspective on political participation, various studies have given a significant role to social media (Dimitrova et al., 2014; Keane & Feenstra, 2014; Saldaña et al., 2015; Valenzuela et al., 2012), although they warn that sociocultural factors, news consumption habits, etc. influence the intensity of participation. 7Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 (2020), and Hermida (2014) highlight that these online spaces effectively promote spontaneous and organized debates on matters of public interest and allow for active citizen participation, furthering the proper functioning of democracy (Chirinos & Torres Salas, 2015). Likewise, these spaces—espe- cially social media, such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook—can promote a plural dialogue by facilitating citizen-citizen and media-citizen interactions. Beyond what one might think about the impact of audiences, the influential work of Henry Jenkins (1992) already highlighted—decades ago—the existence of a ‘participatory culture’ regarding television products. Indeed, the massification of the internet provided more tools to this audi- ence that wanted to play a more central role in communication. The emer- gence of digital platforms in recent decades has not only facilitated access to more tools to share, publish, recommend or comment on content but also implied a change in the audience’s expectations, which now demands greater transparency and dialogue (Loosen et al., 2020). The first aspect, the demand for transparency, goes hand in hand with the monitoring role that the audience can have regarding the media, even when it comes to criticizing when they do not fulfill their ethical commit- ments (Mauri-Ríos & Ramon-Vegas, 2015). The second is the possibility of a dialogue in the second-screen television phenomenon (Quintas-Froufe & González-Neira, 2014), where social media and television converge, allowing the audience to comment in real time while consuming television products. One of the first studies that sought to analyze this practice was that of Anstead and O’Loughlin (2011). They investigated reactions on Twitter to political debates on the BBC’s Question Time program in the United King- dom. They suggested that the comments of the audience challenge media and political institutions in terms of integrating these forms of participation. The same platform was studied by Santander et al. (2020) in the context of the presidential elections in Chile in 2017: the authors reported a mutu- al influence between the media and the audience. Rodríguez Fernández and Saavedra Llamas also studied audience engagement on Twitter but with a focus on how political parties and audiences interact, as well as the 8 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others strategies employed online by local TV networks, in the context of a po- litical debate in Spain (Rodríguez Fernández & Saavedra Llamas, 2018; Saavedra-Llamas & Rodríguez Fernández, 2018). Similarly, González Nei- ra et al. (2020) examined the role different social media platforms, includ- ing Twitter, played during televised debates in Spain. More recently, Acosta (2022) observed how Twitter worked as a tool that increased political po- larization in the 2019 presidential debate in Argentina. These transformations driven by the internet involve changes in the possibilities of participation and the nature of the journalistic exercise. As Del Valle and Carreño (2020) state, digital communication is currently one of the main formats for accessing public information; thus, it is connected to the concept of informative pluralism, which, at the same time, is relat- ed to central aspects of journalism such as freedom of speech and the press. 2. Importance of the audience’s supervision of the development and promotion of media pluralism In theoretical discourses, pluralism is often understood as a highly abstract value whose meaning is continuously debated and discussed without try- ing to give it some empirical form (Karppinen, 2013). In this sense, plu- ralism is similar to freedom since it is valued as an abstract principle and is best conceived when understood as a general intellectual orientation (Mc- Lennan, 1995). Most of the discussion about the concept has been around two approaches from which this term has been conceptualized. The first approach, known as the pluralism of the market of ideas, understands pluralism as a normative value that acts as a necessary condi- tion for human progress (Keane, 1991). In contrast, the second approach understands pluralism as an agency of deliberation and public debate, re- placing the market metaphor with the public forum by emphasizing the role of dialogue as the encounter and interaction of different perspectives (Karppinen, 2013). The approaches described have been considered in most attempts to define the concept of media pluralism. Although there are other approaches when seeking to systematize this term, it is usual to work with those men- 9Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 tioned. An example of the above is the definition by Gillian Doyle (2002) and the European Commission (1999). They understand pluralism as the presence of various independent voices and media, making it possible to get different political opinions and representations of culture. Similarly, Raeijmaekers and Maeseele (2015) have understood plural- ism as any difference in ideologies, practices, and discursive strategies that occurs in the (re)production of identities and concerns. Hallin and Manci- ni (2004) focused on the concept of political parallelism and have under- stood it as how media content reflects different political tendencies and the degree and nature of the relationships established by the media with politi- cal parties and other social organizations (Humanes et al., 2013). Other authors, in turn, have tried to deconstruct and classify what media pluralism means. For example, Denis McQuail (2007) proposed four normative frameworks: reflection, where the media are expected to proportionally reflect the political, cultural, and social variations existing in society; equality, meaning that the media should strive to give equal ac- cess to any point of view or any group in society, regardless of their popu- larity; the option that conceptualizes diversity from the perspective of an individual consumer (among channels, programs); and finally, openness, which emphasizes innovation and difference, valuing new ideas and voic- es for their own good. Based on this proposal, several authors have tried to clarify the con- cept, even more, coming to understand pluralism as 1) the offer of mes- sages of a particular medium, both in its informative and editorial offer (internal pluralism) (Zárate, 2016), 2) the diversity of information sourc- es and a plurality of actors related to the media producers, editors, and own- ers (external pluralism) (Gibbons, 2015), and 3) the organization of the set of actors, (structural pluralism) (Zárate, 2016). Nevertheless, despite the efforts to clarify this concept, there needs to be more clarity about what this element implies. It is remarkable how plu- ralism has been used as a buzzword or decontextualized concept taken for granted (Raeijmaekers & Maeseele, 2015) and more so in a context where 10 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others exercise and control are essential for the development of democratic pro- cesses (Mendel, 2014). 3. The Chilean case: An example to understand the role of televised political programs in promoting more active audiences Chile, because of its history, has a particular practice of journalism. After the military dictatorship in 1990, Chilean journalists began to professionalize within a typically West- ern media system with constitutional protection focused on freedom of speech and in the promotion of pluralistic practices that favor the expression of the country’s social, cultural, political, and regional di- versity (Law 19,733). (Mellado, 2012) For this reason, televised political communication programs acquire a unique role as democratization promoters when electoral processes oc- cur, such as elections or referendums. It was the case during the months before the 2020 referendum for a new Constitution. During this period, national television channels broad- casted a series of political discussion programs where the referendum was one of the central issues. Their main objective was to provide plural spac- es of expression while providing information on this electoral process (see Domínguez Cortina, 2011, who elaborates on this purpose in political com- munication programs). To achieve this, the four political discussion pro- grams with the highest ratings—Tolerancia cero, Pauta libre, Estado nacional, and A esta hora se improvisa—committed to: 1. Analyze the different perspectives. 2. Achieve reflections like those that “occur in a press room, but with cameras” that show this process. 3. Broadcast diverse programs with free panelists who raise the level of political debate. Thus, in making political life visible, these deliberative programs on television have positioned themselves as privileged spaces for the practice of 11Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 political-electoral discussion to settle, share and compare the projects of different political actors (Domínguez Cortina, 2011; Waldvogel, 2020). Likewise, both in Chile and in the world, these programs, as part of what is understood as confrontational televised broadcasts, allow the discourse and counter-discourse-controversially or cooperatively-to be oriented to- wards the construction of social consensus, conflict reduction, and greater tolerance to opposing points of view (Camaj, 2021; Plantin, 2005). To this, we might add the possibility that audiences have today of in- teracting with the participants in televised political programs through so- cial media because this type of broadcast also acquires new roles, such as political efficacy, the promotion of political participation in public life, or the mere creation of spaces for interactive and reciprocal conversation. De- liberation theorists and practitioners try to find more inclusive ways of de- liberating because they have established that broad participation facilitates deliberative legitimacy (Maddux, 2021). Maddux (2021) collects evidence that, in modern democracies, the media are the communicative space par excellence for public deliberation on a broad scale and that citizens are exposed to these deliberative offers, especially on television, to receive the more significant portion of their po- litical information, during or between electoral periods. In their research on presidential debates, Porath et al. (2019) high- light the ability of these broadcasts to generate greater citizen involvement in limited periods and easy consumption by viewers. The public expects broadcasts with regular and invited panelists, such as the programs con- sidered in this research, that give them access to political pluralism, which, according to Stange et al. (2018, p.1826), “is a value recognized as essen- tial for the development of political debate in contemporary societies and, therefore, an attribute of the journalistic discourses produced within these political regimes.” Accordingly, our research questions are as follows: - To what extent do the purposes declared by the media about these de- bates match the audiences’ perceptions expressed during their broad- cast on social media? 12 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others - Do audiences act in social media as inspectors of the media’s promises and claimants of their fulfillment? Method This research was exploratory with a mixed design. A quantitative phase was carried out, followed by a qualitative phase, to answer the research questions. The intentions publicly expressed by the television channels for the broadcast of the political deliberation programs that we analyzed served as the basis for the construction of the variables of the quantitative study. In summary, it was determined that the channels wanted to summon relevant actors—permanent and guest panelists—to a pluralistic and open dialogue on national issues, legitimize the democratic system through deliberation, and increase public trust in a context of social crisis and ad portas of a con- stitutional referendum process. From this, a sample of 2,130 posts was classified to first empirically establish relevant features of Twitter and YouTube users during the broad- cast of political programs before the October 2020 referendum and ana- lyze the function and focus of their comments and their assessment of the pluralistic or diverse quality of these transmissions. These correspond- ed to the approximately 100 first chronological posts on the two plat- forms with the official hashtag of each of the 12 programs aired between the following dates: August 23 and 24, September 20 and 21, and October 25 and 26, 2020. Regarding data collection, Python was used for Twitter comments, and in the case of YouTube, the comments were downloaded directly from the comments section. Each textual comment on the two social media platforms constitut- ed an overt or explicit content observation unit. A tested codebook guided the training and work of a group of codifiers under the supervision of the researchers. Four political discussion programs from four television chan- nels, three private and one public, were considered: Tolerancia cero, from CNN Chile; Pauta Libre, from La Red; A esta hora se improvisa, from Chan- nel 13, and Estado Nacional, from the public channel Televisión Nacion- al de Chile, TVN. 13Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 A subsample of 213 cases (10 % of the total) underwent an intercoder reliability test. The results of the test yielded a coincidence index of .965 for the type variable “Account identification” (average Kappa = .928), .968 (av- erage Kappa = .941) for “Gender,” .987 (average Kappa average of .709) for “Function of the comment,” .982 (average Kappa of 0.572) for “Approach of the comment,” and .993 (average Kappa of .829) for “Pluralism” and “As- sessment of pluralism.” Once the material was classified, we conducted the content analysis, including the above variables. For the general analysis of the qualitative data, axial coding was car- ried out on the 2,082 tweets that did not explicitly mention pluralism us- ing the Atlas.ti program (version 8.4.4) in three analysis phases. Based on open coding, 648 units of analysis related to programs and participants were identified in the first phase. Subsequently, after a selective coding process, a constant comparison was made among the leading emerging conceptual frameworks, which allowed us to find six general thematic units. Finally, a qualitative analysis of the 48 posts coded explicitly as those that mention ideological pluralism/diversity was carried out to observe spe- cific patterns that the content analysis does not necessarily detect in detail. Results In this section, we will show the findings of the study. As already detailed in the Method section, the analysis will begin with the quantitative and then the qualitative phases. Quantitative Phase Findings Elements of the profile of social media users Two characteristics stood out regarding the profile of Twitter and YouTube users who commented on televised political discussions during their view- ing. One is the probability of identifying them, and the other is related to the gender variable. Regular anonymity prevents the commenter from tak- ing responsibility for the opinions, data, or ideas shared in these public fo- rums (Table 1). However, there is a noticeable difference between Twitter 14 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others and YouTube users. Those who identified themselves on YouTube more than doubled those on Twitter; conversely, anonymous Twitter users ac- counted for 76.5 % of all unidentifiable commenters in the sample. This circumstance prevents a complete knowledge of the audiences of political discussion programs willing to take responsibility for their opinions. How- ever, it is crucial to remember that, as researchers, we must take these de- tails at face value since any of these profiles could be fake. In other words, although we considered this issue throughout the analysis, it still seems rel- evant to point out how users identified themselves. Table 1. Identification of social media users commenting on televised debates. N = 2,130  Program Identified user Anonymous user  Total Twitter YouTube Subtotal Twitter YouTube Subtotal Tolerancia cero 77 185 262 223 114 337 599 A esta hora se improvisa 61 67 128 239 31 270 398 Pauta libre 76 216 292 223 61 284 576 Estado nacional 72 181 253 229 75 304 557 Total 286 649 935 914 281 1195 2,130 Source: Own elaboration. The distribution of users according to gender, where this variable could be established from the account’s name, matters in analyzing the di- versity of those who publicly express their opinion or share political or so- cial information. To this, we should add that there is an underrepresentation of women in different areas of Chilean reality, including politics. This low female participation was also observed in this research, where women who commented during the political programs were practi- cally half compared to men (Table 2). However, this result should be inter- preted with caution due to the high percentage of users with undetermined gender (56 %). This lower female participation in politics on Twitter and YouTube also challenges the media to seek to increase their contribution to diversify the voices in socially relevant matters. 15Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 Table 2. Gender of social media users commenting on televised debates. N = 2,130 Program Female Male Undetermined Total Tolerancia cero 79 183 337 599 A esta hora se improvisa 37 91 270 398 Pauta libre 136 156 284 576 Estado nacional 71 182 304 557 Total 323 612 1,195 2,130 Source: Own elaboration. Function and focus of interest of the comments on social media The comments of the sample related to the programs being watched or that included opinions or provided information unrelated to them revealed their function (Table 3). Only 2.3 % of the posts referred to the format of the po- litical discussion program itself. Of all the comments on matters other than the program format itself, several were unrelated to the discussion. Twit- ter and YouTube users behaved similarly: During political programs, users do not lean toward giving their opinion on the contents of the discussions but rather on related or unrelated topics. Table 3. The function of comments on televised debates by program and social medium. N = 2,130   Allusive to the debate format Not allusive to the debate format   Program Twitter YouTube Subtotal Twitter YouTube Subtotal Total Tolerancia cero 1 10 11 299 289 588 599 A esta hora se improvisa 11 2 13 289 96 385 398 Pauta libre 3 10 13 296 267 563 576 Estado nacional 11 2 13 290 254 544 557 Total 26 24 50 1,174 906 2,080 2,130 *The difference with the total of 2,130 cases is due to records classified as “not applicable,” which were not considered in the analysis. Source: Own elaboration. This analysis was deepened by observing the comment’s focus of in- terest (Table 4). Once again, there was minimal reference to the programs 16 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others and their protagonists. The minimal interest from YouTube users in refer- ring to the guests was striking, and it was non-existent on Twitter. The pro- tagonists were the panelists. This finding matters since the interest of the TV channels was to offer diverse voices, which had to be ensured by the pan- elists and guests. The comments on social media do not reveal that these guests captured the viewers’ interest, which, in turn, would have contrib- uted to a pluralist or open discussion. Table 4. The focus of comments on televised debates by program and social medium. N = 2,130 Program as a whole Journalists or panelists Guests Program Tw itt er Yo uT ub e Su bt ot al Tw itt er Yo uT ub e Su bt ot al Tw itt er Yo uT ub e Su bt ot al Total Tolerancia cero 0 6 6 1 2 3 0 2 2 11 A esta hora se improvisa 6 2 8 5 0 5 0 0 0 13 Pauta libre 2 3 5 2 6 8 0 1 1 14 Estado nacional 6 0 6 5 0 5 0 2 2 13 Total 14 11 25 13 8 21 0 5 5 51 * The difference with the total of 2,130 cases is due to records classified as “not applicable,” which were not considered in the analysis. Source: Own elaboration. References to pluralism A final look at the positive or negative manifestations of Twitter and You- Tube users to pluralism—in its dimensions of political pluralism and ideo- logical diversity—that the deliberation programs proposed showed that this was practically not a topic. In the cases concerning it, its assessment was 87.5 % negative (Table 5). The few allusions to pluralism in the political discussion programs es- tablished in this exploratory phase raise several questions that deserve to be deepened with a qualitative observation. For example, what users express 17Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 when they refer to this topic, how they express their assessment of plural- ism or its absence, and whether users express themselves in explicit or la- tent terms about pluralism in these broadcasts. Table 5. Presence and positive or negative assessment of pluralism/diversity in political programs on TV Program Positive Negative Total Tolerancia cero 1 10 11 A esta hora se improvisa 0 11 11 Pauta libre 3 10 13 Estado nacional 2 11 13 Total 6 42 48 Source: Own elaboration. Findings of the qualitative analysis When analyzing all the comments in which no direct allusion to media plu- ralism was made, we observed that, regardless of whether they were posts made on YouTube or Twitter, users focused their interventions on the pro- gram (as infrastructure), participants, and other topics that were related to national events. Therefore, it was not considered in the analysis since they are not linked to the project’s objectives. The comments that alluded to the program were positive (67 men- tions) or negative (334 mentions). In the case of the former, they were di- vided into two types: evaluations (26 mentions), which were all the posts mentioning why users believed they were good programs that promoted discussion and expression of diverse voices, and opinions (41 mentions), simpler comments, where through brief phrases, a program was congratu- lated or praised without explaining the reason for this assessment. The negative comments could be classified into three types: the first was evaluations (112 mentions), which were mainly critical of the exe- cution and dynamics of the program. In these comments, users expressed dissatisfaction when the program format did not promote the discussion 18 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others of ideas among the participants. In fact, among all the types of comments, this was one of the few where the audiences showed a more inspective atti- tude by expressing that things were not being done as they should meet the promised objectives. On the other hand, the opinions (148 mentions)—as in the case of the positive comments—were also short and simple phrases that showed the users’ dissatisfaction with the content they were consum- ing. Finally, concerning the third type of comment, classified as intention (74 mentions), it was possible to see that, unlike the two types above, these had a different focus. Here, the program was not criticized, but the inten- tions that they could have regarding how their political position would af- fect the development of a pluralistic debate were denounced. Now, regarding the comments that alluded to participants (50 men- tions) (regardless of the platform where the post came from), the vast ma- jority of the posts questioned the lack of diversity and performance of those who attended the programs for not deepening the topics discussed. In the case of the journalists/panelists (272 mentions), they were crit- icized for not being incisive enough in uttering their personal opinions. In this sense, a paradox could be observed when users refer to their actions. On the one hand, they were criticized for being very “soft and permissive” with the interviewees since they allowed them to express themselves re- gardless of their position or gender. On the other, they were reproached for attacking and not letting these people make their points of view known. As for the positive comments, even though they were the fewest, they could be seen when the person moderating promoted a discussion with high-mindedness. For users, it was imperative that the participants—es- pecially journalists and panelists—could participate and develop an envi- ronment where ideas could be debated. For this reason, when this did not happen, the moderator’s political position, performance, and moral qual- ity were criticized. Finally, about guests (113 mentions), they have alluded to the lack of diversity and representation in the debate along with the constant criticism of the program and its developers for inviting “the same people as always.” 19Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 Qualitative analysis of the 48 references to pluralism/diversity We focus on the 48 posts coded “Pluralism/diversity” for this analysis. It should be remembered that this category corresponds to comments allud- ing to the inclusion in the debate program of people, groups, or segments of different political currents or an explicit allusion to the expression of var- ious discourses, showing conflicting ideas or perspectives regarding facts. First, we will analyze those instances in which users used the words “pluralism” or “diversity” and whether their allusion to these concepts was positive or negative. Then, we will delve into the posts where there was an evaluation of the presence or absence of diversity/pluralism, but without using those terms specifically. Of the 48 posts already mentioned, 38 included implicit references, which suggests a tendency on the part of users to opt for non-direct ways to assess the absence/presence of pluralism/diversity. Explicit references to pluralism/diversity Users on both YouTube and Twitter seemed to invoke the concepts of plural- ism and diversity to highlight how little the different programs are offering. An example of the above is this tweet about Estado nacional (see Ex- ample 1), which allows us to appreciate a trend in this program, but also in Pauta libre and Tolerancia cero: the audience’s criticism of a left-wing bias. Example 1 (Twitter) #enacional where is the plurality when everyone on the panel thinks the same and goes for the opposition “I approve,” @CNTVChile please regulate. This tweet included a question about the place of plurality in a pan- el where all the participants supposedly supported the Approval option in the National Referendum of October 25th, 2020. As already mentioned, since it was broadcast before the campaign with views on the referendum, TVN did not issue statements promoting what Estado nacional would con- tribute to the public discussion. However, this post illustrates how audience 20 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others members did not seem to have perceived pluralism in the panel’s structure, which gains more relevance if we consider that it is a debate program on the public channel whose editorial mandate is to be plural. There were also posts in which a direct reference to pluralism/diver- sity was combined with, for example, puns (see Example 2). In this com- ment on YouTube about Tolerancia cero, we are again faced with criticism of a left-wing bias during the broadcast. In this way, the lack of diversity of this version of the program compared to previous iterations was specifically and directly denounced, but “team apruebonao” was also mentioned: The option to vote for Approval in the National referendum seems to be mixed with the insult “ahuevonado” (from Chilean Spanish “ahuevonado,” mean- ing “dumbass”) or, its even more informal version, “ahueonao.” Example 2 (YouTube) What a crap of a show, nothing like it once was when there was a diversity of thought on the panel and topics were discussed without involving propaganda. I can’t get over the fact that the entire anti- police “team apruebonao” is acting like anti-system supporters when this is the system, the message that CNN transmits is the system, the propaganda made by the media is the system, Piñera and Lavín approve, they are the system!!!! Wake up and REJECT the destabili- zation of Chile. In terms of CNN Chile’s promises about what they wanted to offer with the return of Tolerancia cero, comments like this reflect not only the aforementioned unfavorable comparison with previous versions of the pro- gram but also a hostile reception of the mixture sought among journalists and academics, in addition to the guests. In the next section, we will analyze how Twitter and YouTube users reacted to the programs’ offer of pluralism/diversity without explicitly re- ferring to these concepts. Implicit references to pluralism/diversity A linguistic resource repeated to criticize the lack of pluralism indirectly was the idea of “lefties” and its variations to highlight a left-wing bias. 21Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 In the case of Estado nacional (see Example 3), the mocking or angry tone of the tweet can be appreciated from the beginning, with the use of “wuaaajjjaaa” (a mocking Chilean onomatopoeia) and the subsequent qual- ification of those who participate in the program as a “nest of lefty rats,” an- nouncing the change of channel and the conclusion that they are not only “lefties,” but also “boring.” In addition to the use above of “lefty” as some- thing eminently pejorative—doubly, in this case—here we can observe the allusion to a “nest of rats,” a mammal that tends to be associated with dirt and the underground or something hidden. Example 3 (Twitter) #EstadoNacional wuaaajjjaaa nest of lefty rats. I change the channel because, besides being lefties, they are boring On the other hand, A esta hora se improvisa was the program that gath- ered the most complaints for a right-wing bias. One of them (see Example 4) appears in the form of a rhetorical question on Twitter, where it is stat- ed that the three communes that voted for Rejection in the National Ref- erendum—Vitacura, Las Condes, and Lo Barnechea—are represented in the panel of A esta hora se improvisa, which suggests an overrepresentation, considering that the program has four panelists. Beyond the vote in the referendum, these three communes, in particular, carry a substantial social burden: the east side, mentioned in the tweet, is the wealthiest in Santiago, making the notion of “the three communes” encompass precisely the peo- ple with higher incomes or at least most of them. Example 4 (Twitter) #AEstaHoraSeImprovisa is it me, or those 3 communes of the east side that voted for Rejection are represented on the panel? Channel 13’s promises before the launch of this new version of A esta hora se improvisa referred to open and pluralistic dialogue without dogmat- ic positions from different perspectives. In addition, they sought to distance themselves from the usual politicians and highlight young figures who found common ground through conversation. As shown in this example, the au- dience’s reactions refer precisely to the opposite: a notion of homogeneity, of participants from the same socioeconomic sector. 22 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others The complaints of a right-wing bias involved, as might be supposed, the ideological, but they incorporated a critical vision about people who live or work in sectors with particular characteristics: those usually associated with the right-wing world, wealthy neighborhoods, and entrepreneurship. In the case of “lefty” and its derivatives, this pejorative adjective does not seem to be necessarily connected to social classes and neighborhoods in particular; it seems to be, instead, a criticism that remains strictly political. Discussion and Conclusions Social interaction platforms have contributed to a two-way relationship between audiences and the media (del Valle, 2018). For the same reason, today, there is an implicit commitment to exercising a journalistic prac- tice that allows receivers to inspect both the media and journalists (Masip, 2014). This research compared the promises of pluralism of four televised political discussion programs (A esta hora se improvisa, Pauta libre, Estado nacional, and Tolerancia cero) with the perception of Twitter and YouTube audiences. Thus, we sought to measure and evaluate the coincidence be- tween the media’s purposes and the perceptions of viewers who comment on them on social media and to what extent the audience plays a monitor- ing role on those platforms. Both analyses show that the audiences’ references to fulfilling the plu- ralism offers were scarce. Also, it should be noted that the audience’s com- ments contradict the media’s promises. If the television channels announced, in general, a diversity of voices, the criticism of the public points to an ab- sence of that diversity, which allows us to assert that the media’s purposes do not match the perceptions of those commenting on digital platforms. Two of the chief complaints about a lack of pluralism mentioned by the au- dience have to do with a perceived absence of ideological diversity within the TV shows and also regarding the characteristics of the people that par- ticipate in them (their socioeconomic background, for instance). To this, we must add that the data show the audience’s tendency to give an opinion on the exercise of journalism, either positively or negatively. So, we could speak of the fulfillment of an inspector role that goes beyond the offer of pluralism but applies to the evaluation of media work more broad- 23Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 ly, which goes hand in hand—in a certain way—with what was proposed by Suárez et al. (2020), Loosen et al. (2020), Hermida (2014), and Chiri- nos and Torres Salas (2015). Although the focus of the inspection was not the promised pluralism, spontaneous and organized debates on matters of public interest were sparked. In this way, this paper aligns with studies that have concentrated on how audiences react to political content on social media (Twitter, mostly) and play a part in shaping the content that emerg- es from what is broadcasted on TV (Acosta, 2022; Anstead & O’Lough- lin, 2011; González Neira et al., 2020; Rodríguez Fernández & Saavedra Llamas, 2018; Saavedra-Llamas & Rodríguez Fernández, 2018; Santand- er et al., 2020). Although, as stated, the references to pluralism are few compared to the total sample, this result is consistent with the literature in that there currently needs to be more clarity regarding what pluralism means. If it is already complex to materialize it into something that goes beyond raising “pluralistic discussions,” it is even more complicated for audiences to iden- tify it. Nevertheless, despite the above, it is still inspected. Therefore, it is necessary to continue investigating perceptions of pluralism in journalism in, for example, other platforms where information is delivered and differ- ent social media. There is still much to be studied about the effects of televised polit- ical discussions on the audience and the media themselves. In this sense, future research could interview media executives and investigate how they evaluate the public’s reactions on digital platforms and if it is something that somehow determines the aired content. Also, due to the focus of this project on textual reactions to pluralism offerings, we did not cover visu- al content, such as memes, but that is undoubtedly a promising possibili- ty for future studies. References Acosta, M. (2022). El debate presidencial en Argentina. Twitter, líde- res de opinión y discusión polarizada. Más Poder Local, 48, 114- 134. https://doi.org/10.56151/298.46.7 https://doi.org/10.56151/298.46.7 24 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others Anderson, C. W. (2011). Deliberative, agonistic, and algorithmic audienc- es: Journalism’s vision of its public in an age of audience transpar- ency. International Journal of Communication, 5, 529-547. Anstead, N., & O’Loughlin, B. (2011) The emerging viewertariat and BBC Question Time: Television debate and real-time commenting on- line. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 440-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415519 Camaj, L. (2021). Real time political deliberation on social media: can tele- vised debates lead to rational and civil discussions on broadcasters’ Facebook pages? Information, Communication & Society, 24(13), 1907-1924. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1749695 Castillo, Q. L. (2014). Interactividad y audiencias en los periódicos digi- tales. Estudio de tres medios mexicanos. Intersticios sociales, 8, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.55555/IS.8.71 Chirinos, E., & Torres-Salas, L. (2015). La participación ciudadana: un de- safío para el ciberperiodismo. Temas de Comunicación, 31, 123-148. Del Valle, R . (2018). Las audiencias activas y la credibilidad de los medi- os de comunicación en México. Universidad Complutense de Ma- drid, Facultad de Ciencias de la Información. http://eprints. ucm. es/47825/1, 39971 Del Valle, N., & Carreño, F. (2020). Diversos pero concentrados: percep- ciones de los comunicadores sobre el pluralismo de los medios digitales en Chile. Comunicación y Medios, 29(42), 30-43. https:// doi.org/10.5354/0719-1529.2020.57636 Dimitrova, D. V., Shehata, A., Strömback, J., & Nord, L. W. (2014). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211426004 https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415519 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1749695 https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-1529.2020.57636 https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-1529.2020.57636 https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211426004 25Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 Domínguez Cortina, R . (2011). Los debates político-electorales televisa- dos en México en la voz de dos generaciones y votantes: un estu- dio de recepción en el ámbito de la comunicación política. Global Media Journal México, 8(15), 98-122. https://www.redalyc.org/ articulo.oa?id=68718411005 Doyle, G. (2002). Media Ownership. Sage. European Commission. (1999). Principles and Guidelines for the Community’s Audiovisual Policy in the Digital Age. Communication from the Com- mission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and So- cial Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(1999)657. Fenoll, V. (2011). Usuarios activos y pasivos. La interactividad de la audi- encia en los medios digitales: el caso de la Fórmula 1 en Valencia. Aposta: Revista de ciencias sociales, 2-26. Gibbons, T. (2015). Active Pluralism: Dialogue and Engagement as Ba- sic Media Policy Principles. International Journal of Communica- tion, 9, 1932-8036. González-Neira, A., Berrocal-Gonzalo, S., & Zamora-Martínez, P. (2020). Fórmulas de emisión y consumo de los debates televisivos en Es- paña en las elecciones legislativas de 2019. El profesional de la in- formación, 29(2), e290221. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020. mar.21 Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems. Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511790867 Hallvard, M., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2021). The Democratic Significance of Ev- eryday News Use: Using Diaries to Understand Public Connec- tion over Time and beyond Journalism. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1850308 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=68718411005 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=68718411005 https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.mar.21 https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.mar.21 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790867 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790867 https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1850308 26 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others Hasebrink, U. (2011). Giving the audience a voice: The role of research in making media regulation more responsive to the needs of the audience. Journal of Information Policy, 1, 312-336. https://doi. org/10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0321 Hermida, A. (2014). Twitter as an ambient news network. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and Society (pp. 359-372). Peter Lang. Humanes, M. L., Sánchez, M. D. M., de Dios, R . M., & López-Berini, A. (2013). Pluralismo y paralelismo político en la información tele- visiva en España. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (68), 24- 16. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2013-990 Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Cul- ture. Routledge. Jenkins, R ., & Mendelsohn, M. (2001) The News Media and Referendums. In M. Mendelsohn & A. Parkin (Eds.), Referendum Democracy. Pal- grave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403900968_11 Karppinen, K. (2013). Rethinking media pluralism. Fordham Univ Press. https://doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823245123.001.0001 Keane, J. (1991). Media and Democracy. Polity Press. Keane, J., & Feenstra, R. (2014). Democracia monitorizada en España. Nue- vas formas de participación política en el marco de la era digital. Telos: Cuadernos de comunicación e innovación, 98, 48-57. Loosen, W., Reimer, J., & Hölig, S. (2020). What journalists want and what they ought to do (In)Congruences between journalists’ role con- ceptions and audiences’ expectations. Journalism Studies, 21(12), 1744-1774. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1790026 https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0321 https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0321 https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2013-990 https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403900968_11 https://doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823245123.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1790026 27Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 MacGregor, P., Balcytiene, A., Fortunati, L., Nuust, V., O’Sullivan, J., Roussou, N., & Sarrica, M. (2011). A cross-regional comparison of selected European newspaper journalists and their evolving attitudes towards the internet – including a singlecountry focus on the UK. Journal- ism, 12(5), 627-646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910388231 Maddux, K . (2021). Viewing deliberation: daytime television’s public pedagogy of inclusion, Argumentation and Advocacy, 58(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1936786 Masip, P. (2014). Audiencias activas, democracia y algoritmos. Anuario Think EPI, 8, 260-263. Mauri-Ríos, M., & Ramon-Vegas, X. (2015). Nuevos sistemas de rendición de cuentas de la información periodística. Exploración del esce- nario online español. Profesional de la Información, 24(4), 380-389. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2015.jul.04 McLennan, G. (1995). Pluralism. Open University Press. McQuail, D. (2007). Rev isiting Diversity as a Media Polic y Goal. In A . M. Werner & J. Trappel (Eds.), Power, Per formance and Politics: Media Policy in Europe. Nomos. https://doi. org/10.5771/9783845202938-41 Mellado, C. (2012). The Chilean journalist. In D. Weaver & L. Willnat (Eds.), The Global Journalist in the 21st Century (pp. 382–399). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003070740-34 Mendel, T. (2014). Tuning into development: International comparative sur- vey of community broadcasting regulation. UNESCO. Nielsen, C. E. (2014). Coproduction or cohabitation: Are anony- mous online comments on newspaper websites shaping news content? New Media & Society, 16(3), 470-487. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444813487958 https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910388231 https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1936786 https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2015.jul.04 https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845202938-41 https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845202938-41 https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003070740-34 https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487958 https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487958 28 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others Peters, C., & Witschge, T. (2015). From grand narratives of democracy to small expectations of participation, Journalism Practice, 9(1), 19- 34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.928455 Picard, R . G. (2014). Twilight or new dawn of journalism? Evidence from the changing news ecosystem. Digital Journalism, 2(3), 273-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.895531 Plantin, Ch. (2005). La argumentación. Editorial Ariel. Porath, W., Ortega Gunckel, C., & Rojas Soto, A. (2019). La evolución de los formatos de debates presidenciales en la televisión chile- na: 1989-2017: Un caso de especiación. Comunicación y Sociedad, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.32870/cys.v2019i0.7198 Quintas-Froufe, N., & González-Neira, A. (2014). Audiencias activas: Par- ticipación de la audiencia social en la televisión. Comunicar, 22(43), 83-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C43-2014-08 Raeijmaekers, D., & Maeseele, P. (2015). Media, pluralism and democra- cy: what’s in a name? Media, culture & society, 37(7), 1042-1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443715591670 Rodríguez Fernández, L., & Saavedra Llamas, M. (2018). Debate elector- al 13-J: la audiencia social en la estrategia digital de los partidos políticos. Tripodos, (41), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.3916/C43- 2014-08 Saavedra-Llamas, M., & Rodríguez Fernández, L. (2018). Las cadenas de televisión españolas frente al debate del 13J: estrategias de pro- gramación y audiencia social. Fonseca, Journal of Communication, 17(2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc201817125136 Saldaña, M., McGregor, S., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2015). Social media as a public space for politics: Cross-National comparison of news con- sumption and participatory behaviors in the United States and the https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.928455 https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.895531 https://doi.org/10.32870/cys.v2019i0.7198 http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C43-2014-08 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0163443715591670 https://doi.org/10.3916/C43-2014-08 https://doi.org/10.3916/C43-2014-08 https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc201817125136 29Palabra Clave - eISSN: 2027-534X - Vol. 25 No. 4. e2546 United Kingdom. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3304– 3326. https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc201817125136 Santander, P., Elórtegui, C., & Buzzo, C. (2020). Twitter, debates pres- idenciales y economía de la atención: una simbiosis entre au- diencia televisiva y usuarios de redes sociales en época de campaña. Communication & Society, 33(3), 51-65. https://doi. org/10.15581/003.33.3.51-65 Stange, H., Salinas, C., Yáñez, C., & Santa Cruz, E. (2018). Pluralismo in- formativo y burocratización del trabajo periodístico en dos con- textos de prensa diaria. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 24(2), 1825-1843. https://doi.org/10.5209/ESMP.62249 Suárez-Villegas, J. C, Rodríguez, R ., & Ramon, X. (2020). Pluralismo in- formativo en la era de la deliberación digital: percepciones de pe- riodistas y ciudadanos. Profesional de la información, 29(5), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.sep.25 Turcotte, J., & Goidel, R. K. (2014). Political knowledge and exposure to the 2012 US presidential debates: Does debate format matter? PS: Po- litical Science & Politics, 47(2), 449-453. https://doi.org/10.1017/ s1049096514000377 Valenzuela, S., Kim, Y., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2012). Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online polit- ical participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr037 Van der Meer, T. W., Walter, A., & Aelst, P. V. (2016). The contingency of voter learning: how election debates influenced voters’ ability and accuracy to position parties in the 2010 Dutch election campaign. Political Communication, 33(1), 136-157. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10584609.2015.1016639 https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc201817125136 https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.3.51-65 https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.3.51-65 https://doi.org/10.5209/ESMP.62249 https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.sep.25 https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096514000377 https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096514000377 https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr037 https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1016639 https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1016639 30 Political Discussion on Television in Times of Elections... - Ignacio López-Escarcena and others Waldvogel, T. (2020). Applying Virtualized Real-Time Response Mea- surement on TV-Discussions with Multi-Person Panels. Statis- tics, Politics and Policy, 11(1), 23–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/ spp-2018-0013 Zárate, S. (2016). Pluralismo en el Sistema Informativo. Temas de la Agen- da Pública, 11(88), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2018-0013 https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2018-0013