"New media" can be defined as any content easily accessible across a multitude of digital media and platforms, in contrast old media can be grouped into what we can call traditional forms; Newspapers, radio, television, magazines, etc. Of course, in the 21st century there is a certain degree of overlap where old media can be accessed in various ways, both analog and digital. For example, print media in the form of PDF downloads, television, and radio can be accessed through a variety of streaming devices, the Internet, and apps such as Now TV, iPlayer, and TuneIn. However, for the analysis of the influence of new media on British politics one must see the distinction where traditional forms, although commonly now accessible via the Internet as mentioned above, previously existed in the manifestation where reception of content was via analog radio waves. to a radio or television or through physical print media such as newspapers and magazines. On the other hand, we can distinguish new media as primarily available only digitally and accessible via the Internet, mobile applications, 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 around so often these days is “fake news.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Misinformation or deliberate propaganda is not new, and mainstream media is not exempt from it either. 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 been amplified and consequently spread dramatically. Coleman et al point out that the new media environment does not convey respect for information with others able to manipulate published content in any way they see fit with limited consequences. Such actions may represent how new media can be used to make politics more accessible, as Coleman et al discuss in relation to Hansard's editing of parliamentary proceedings reports. But it also shows how content can be manipulated to achieve 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 claims to promote their views and distort public perceptions and potentially incite racial divisions. Therefore, the lack of rigorous fact-checking or citation of social media content has allowed content creators to post information in the public domain and if it is shared a few thousand times, regardless of its credibility, it can be taken at face value as truth. . This clearly demonstrates how the new media can have a terribly negative influence on British politics, particularly when it comes to informing the public. In the aftermath of the 2016 EU membership referendum, bots on Facebook and Twitter were found to have potentially been used by Russian entities to spread false information in an attempt to influence the outcome and undermine the British political environment. Essentially, the development of new media combined with the new political era of “post-truth” have contributed to the growth of populism in the UK and the West as a whole. An example of this is the use of Facebook groups by far-right and far-right groups such as Britain First and Football Lads Alliance. The nature with which populism appeals to people's emotionspeople at the expense of rebuttals and fact-checking may be linked to the convenience of social media and the way actors' trust in news is more often based on “modernist” trust signals by which trustworthiness is judged primarily based on “presentation, number of shares, number of similar articles and alignment with pre-existing knowledge”. It is much more convenient and easier to appeal to people's emotions or judge the credibility of knowledge based on the number of other people who "share" the content than to participate in long debates or fact-checking exercises. As a result, the consistent and noisy production of visceral content on social media becomes the main source of news for many people. On the other hand, a positive aspect of the emergence of new media, whereby new means of large-scale information dissemination created the possibility of bypassing existing traditional media structures and institutions, undermining their monopoly on information in consciousness public. With politicians engaged in knowledge wars, fighting for control of the narrative in a process many call 'spin'. Coleman and colleagues recognize that control of the agenda and its commentary is no longer a duopoly or exclusive club, and it can be argued that the reduced influence of those in power to control the news cycle may result in more biased content; that does not seek to divert or mislead the public to protect or advance political causes. This is a result of audience fragmentation due to the multiplication of channels and also through a healthy selection of independent online blogs, commentaries, news sources and even video content such as Vice. Social media has also played an important role in providing a platform for freelance journalists, commentators and even comedians. However, the creation of a fragmented public as a result of increased choice has also had a negative impact on British politics. People can now choose what specific content they want to receive, for example sports fans can only watch sports channels, or people can ditch the TV entirely and, as many do, get all their digital media from streaming sites like Netflix . Ultimately, this demonstrates an unconscious self-exclusion from sources that can provide important informative and analytical news that can increase one's political awareness and allow one to be more informed. This isolation from current events and politics through increased choice is undoubtedly a worrying example of how new media can have a negative influence on British politics. Since the growth of an increasingly uninformed electorate cannot help favor the election of demagogues and populists who exploit emotions rather than intrinsic facts, which can only be found when one is an active consumer of “socially transversal exchanges of experiences, knowledge, and comment." However, it can be argued that the 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 people are getting a diet full of accurate and critical political information via TV, it doesn't mean that they aren't able to get news online, from news apps etc. This shows how new media can have a positive influence on British politics by filling the void of information content left by the multiplication of channels. Furthermore, as Coleman and colleagues identify, new media have brought “sociocultural” benefits..