Analog Çapalar ve Dijital Yüzücüler: Dijital Okuryazarlık ve Haber Şüpheciliğine İlişkin Tutumlar – Karşılaştırmalı Anketten Elde Edilen Bulgular

Öz

Bu makale; yaş grupları ve dil temelli katılımcı grupları genelinde dijital okuryazarlık, haberlere yönelik şüphecilik ve şüpheci olmama tutumlarını incelemektedir. Nicel araştırma, 1.662 katılımcıdan oluşan kolayda ve kartopu örnekleme yöntemleri kullanılarak çevrimiçi ortamda gerçekleştirilmiştir; katılımcılar ya Yunanca (n = 1.020) ya da İngilizce (n = 642) bir anket doldurmuştur. Dijital okuryazarlık, Teknoloji Entegrasyon Güveni Ölçeği (TIC) kullanılarak ölçülürken; haberlere yönelik şüphecilik ve şüpheci olmama durumları, haber üretimi ve sunumuna yönelik mevcut tutumları inceleyen Likert tipi maddelerle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, iki katılımcı grubu arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklar olduğunu belgelemektedir, ancak gözlemlenen etki büyüklükleri küçüktür; iki katılımcı grubu yaş, eğitim ve devşirme (işe alım) bağlamı açısından demografik olarak eş değer olmadığından, gruplar arası tüm karşılaştırmalar keşfedici olarak kabul edilmiş ve gruplar arası ölçüm değişmezliği resmi olarak test edilmemiştir. İngilizce anket dolduran katılımcılar daha yüksek dijital okuryazarlık ve biraz daha yüksek şüpheci olmama seviyeleri gösterirken, Yunan katılımcılar biraz daha yüksek şüphecilik seviyeleri sergilemiştir. Yaş temelli analizler ise genç katılımcıların daha yüksek dijital okuryazarlık puanları aldığını, yaşça daha büyük katılımcıların ise hem şüphecilik hem de şüpheci olmama konularında biraz daha yüksek seviyeler bildirdiğini ortaya koymuştur; bu bulgular, hem kuşaksal hem de bağlamsal faktörlerin izleyicilerin dijital medya ile etkileşimini şekillendirdiğini öne sürerek dijital okuryazarlık ve haber tutumları üzerine yürütülen güncel tartışmalara katkıda bulunmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Okuryazarlık
• Medya Okuryazarlığı
• Haber Tüketimi
• Haber Şüpheciliği
• Kuşak Farklılıkları
• Analog Capalar
• Dijital Yuzuculer

Etik Beyan

Bu araştırma makalesinin verileri Selanik Aristoteles Üniversitesi Gazetecilik ve Kitle İletişim Bölümü Etik Kurulu'nun aldığı karar izniyle elde edilmiştir.

Analog Anchors and Digital Floaters: Attitudes in Digital Literacy and News Skepticism – Evidence from Comparative Survey

Öz

This paper examines attitudes in digital literacy, news skepticism and non-skepticism across age groups and language-based respondent groups. Quantitative research was conducted online, using a convenience and snowball sampling of 1,662 participants. The participants completed either a Greek-language questionnaire (n = 1,020) or an English-language questionnaire (n = 642). Digital literacy was measured using the Technology Integration Confidence Scale (TIC). Skepticism and non-skepticism toward news were assessed through Likert-scale items, assessing attitudes toward news production and presentation. The findings document statistically significant differences between the two respondent groups, though the observed effect sizes are small and must be interpreted with caution given the demographic non-equivalence of the two groups in terms of age, education, and recruitment context; accordingly, all cross-group comparisons are treated as exploratory, and measurement invariance across groups was not formally tested. Participants who completed the English-language questionnaire presented higher levels of digital literacy and slightly higher levels of non-skepticism, whereas Greek respondents presented slightly higher levels of skepticism. The age-based analyses revealed that younger participants presented higher digital literacy scores, while older participants reported slightly higher levels of both skepticism and non-skepticism. The findings contribute to current discussions on digital literacy and news attitudes by suggesting that both generational and contextual factors shape audience engagement with digital media.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Literacy
• Media Literacy
• Analog Anchors
• Digital Floaters
• News Consumption
• News Skepticism
• Generational Differences.

Destekleyen Kurum

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Etik Beyan

The data for this research article were obtained with the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Kaynakça

1. ALLEA. (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity (Revised ed.). https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC
2. Anzak, S., Sultana, A., & Fatima, A. (2021). Impact of digital technology on health and social well-being of digital natives. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 9(3), 531-539. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9354
3. Ashley, S., Maksl, A., & Craft, S. (2013). Developing a news media literacy scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 68(1), 7-21.
4. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007). The 'digital native' and 'digital immigrant': A dangerous opposition. In Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE).
5. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
6. Browne, J. (2009). Assessing pre-service teacher attitudes and skills with the technology integration confidence scale. Computers in the Schools, 26(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560802688240
7. Bryanov, K., & Vziatysheva, V. (2021). Determinants of individuals' belief in fake news: A scoping review. PLOS ONE, 16(6), e0253717. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253717
8. Bulger, M., & Davison, P. (2018). The promises, challenges, and futures of media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(1), 1-21.

9. Eristi, B., & Erdem, C. (2017). Development of a media literacy skills scale. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(3), 249-267.
10. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520.
11. Hobbs, R. (2013). Media literacy. In R. Hobbs (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of children, adolescents and media (pp. 443-450). Routledge.
12. Hobbs, R. (2019). Media literacy foundations. In R. Hobbs & P. Mihailidis (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media literacy. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238.ieml0063
13. Hoes, E., Aitken, B., Zhang, J., Gackowski, T., & Wojcieszak, M. (2024). Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(8), 1545-1553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01884-x
14. Kyriakidou, M., Morani, M., Cushion, S., & Hughes, C. (2023). Audience understandings of disinformation: Navigating news media through a prism of pragmatic scepticism. Journalism, 24(11), 2379-2396.
15. Lakew, Y., & Olausson, U. (2019). Young, sceptical, and environmentally (dis)engaged: Do news habits make a difference? Journal of Science Communication, 18(4), A06.
16. Lin, T. B., Li, J. Y., Deng, F., & Lee, L. (2013). Understanding new media literacy: An explorative theoretical framework. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 160–170.
17. Marta-Lazo, C., & Grandío Pérez, M. D. M. (2012). Critical insights in media literacy research in Spain: Educational and political challenges. Medijske Studije, 3(6), 139-150.
18. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andi, S., Robertson, C. T., & Kleis Nielsen, R. (2021). Digital news report 2021. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021
19. Orfanidou, A. G. (2026). From digital immigrants to digital floaters: Rethinking generational media literacy in the platform era. Journalism and Media, 7(1), 5.
20. Pangrazio, L., Godhe, A. L., & Ledesma, A. G. L. (2020). What is digital literacy? A comparative review of publications across three language contexts. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(6), 442-459.
21. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
22. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
23. Quiring, O., Ziegele, M., Schemer, C., Jackob, N., Jakobs, I., & Schultz, T. (2021). Constructive skepticism, dysfunctional cynicism? Skepticism and cynicism differently determine generalized media trust. International Journal of Communication, 15, 22.
24. RobbGrieco, M., & Hobbs, R. (2013). A field guide to media literacy education in the United States. https://mediaeducationlab.com/sites/default/files/Field%20Guide%20to%20Media%20Literacy%20_0.pdf
25. Selçuk, O. (2022). Yeni medya ve sosyal hizmet: Sosyal medyanın sosyal hizmet alanındaki yeri. İmgelem, 6(11), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1104481
26. Tsfati, Y., & Barnoy, A. (2025). Media cynicism, media skepticism and automatic media trust: Explicating their connection with news processing and exposure. Communication Research, 00936502251327717.
27. Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Why do people watch news they do not trust? The need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychology, 7(3), 251-271.
28. White, D. S., & Le Cornu, A. (2017). Using “Visitors and Residents” to visualise digital practices. First Monday, 22(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i8.8003
29. Wuyckens, G., Landry, N., & Fastrez, P. (2022). Untangling media literacy, information literacy, and digital literacy: A systematic meta-review of core concepts in media education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 14(1), 168-182.