“New media” can be defined as any content that is easily accessible via a multitude of digital platforms and media. Rather, older media can be grouped into what we may call traditional forms; Newspapers, radio, television, magazines, etc. Of course, in the 21st century there is a certain degree of overlap where older media can be accessed in a variety of ways, both analog and digital. For example, print media is accessible as PDF downloads, television and radio through various streaming devices, the Internet and applications such as Now TV, iPlayer and TuneIn. However, to analyze the influence of new media on British politics it is necessary to distinguish between traditional forms, although commonly accessible via the Internet, as mentioned above, previously existed in the form of a reception of content via analog radio waves. either on radio or television, or through physical print media such as newspapers and magazines. On the other hand, we can distinguish new media as being only available primarily in digital form and accessible either through the Internet, by mobile application, by streaming, etc. It can be argued that it is the lack of ethics and standards that can make new media problematic. For example, a phrase we see so often these days is “fake news.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayDeliberate misinformation or propaganda is not new and neither is mainstream media free from this substance. However, with the growth of new media and in particular social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, it can be argued that “fake news” has amplified and, therefore, taken on considerable proportions. Coleman et al point out that the new media environment does not convey respect for information, with others able to manipulate published content as they see fit, with limited consequences. Such actions may represent how new media can be used to make politics more accessible, as explained by Coleman et al. regarding the modification of Hansard's reports of parliamentary debates. But also shows how content can be manipulated to produce negative effects. For example, many political groups and schisms, particularly on the right, have used images and quotes out of context or to make false statements to promote their views, distort public perceptions, and potentially incite racial divisions. As such, the lack of rigorous fact-checking or quoting of content on social media has allowed content creators to post information into the public domain and if shared many thousands of times, regardless of its credibility, they can be considered truthful. . This clearly shows how the new media can have a terribly negative influence on British politics, particularly when it comes to informing public opinion. With the fallout from the 2016 EU membership referendum, it was discovered that bots on Facebook and Twitter were potentially being used by Russian entities to spread false information in an attempt to influence the outcome and undermine the British political environment. The media, combined with the new political era of "post-truth", have contributed to the growth of populism in theUK and the West as a whole. An example of this is the use of Facebook groups by far-right and alt-right groups such as Britain First and Football Lads Alliance. The nature by which populism appeals to people's emotions at the expense of rebuttals and fact-checking may be linked to the convenience of social media and the way actors' trust in information is more often based on cues “modernists” trustworthiness according to which trustworthiness is judged primarily on “presentation, number of shares, number of similar articles, and alignment with pre-existing knowledge.” It is much more practical and easier to appeal to people's emotions or judge the credibility of knowledge based on the number of other people "sharing" content rather than engaging in lengthy debates or verification exercises. facts. As a result, the consistent and noisy production of visceral content on social media becomes the primary source of information for many people. On the other hand, the emergence of new media, thanks to which new means of disseminating information on a large scale is positive. created the possibility of circumventing existing traditional media structures and institutions, thereby undermining their monopoly on information in the public consciousness. With politicians embroiled in knowledge wars, fighting for control of the narrative in a process many call “manipulation.” Coleman et al recognize that control of the agenda and its commentary is no longer a duopoly or an exclusive club, and it can be argued that reducing the influence of those with power in controlling the agenda cycle information may result in more partial content; that does not seek to divert or mislead the public to protect or advance political causes. This is the result of audience fragmentation due to the proliferation of channels, but also a healthy selection of independent online blogs, commentaries, news sources and even video content like Vice. Social media has also played an important role in providing a platform for independent journalists, commentators and even comedians. However, the creation of a fragmented public due to increased choice has also had a negative impact on British politics. People can now choose the specific content they want to receive. For example, sports fans may only watch sports channels, or people may get rid of the television altogether and, as many do, receive all their digital media content from streaming sites such as Netflix. Ultimately, this demonstrates an unconscious self-exclusion from sources that can provide important informative and analytical information that can increase political awareness and enable one to be more informed. This isolation of news and politics through increased choice undoubtedly represents a worrying example of how new media can have a negative influence on British politics. To the extent that the growth of an increasingly uninformed electorate cannot contribute to the election of demagogues and populists who play on emotion rather than on intrinsic facts that can only be discovered when one is an active consumer of “socially transversal exchanges of experiences, knowledge, and comment.” However, it can be argued that lack of or exposure to such knowledge and commentary via television does not necessarily mean that people are more likely to be misinformed. Although audience fragmentation may mean that fewer.