Despite an awkward (and less than accurate) gerrymandering metaphor, the David Carr essay “It’s Not Just Political Districts. Our News Is Gerrymandered, Too.” is worth a read if you are unfamiliar with selective exposure in the context of news media.
Here’s what I mean, from Markus Prior (Princeton) in Media and Political Polarization (pdf).
Iyengar&Hahn (2009) presented subjects with four news headlines. Randomly assigned, some subjects also saw the logo of a news organization next to each headline (Fox News, NPR, CNN, BBC). Among Republican participants, adding the Fox News logo to a headline increased by about 25 percentage points the chance that participants would want to read the story. Adding the CNN or NPR logo reduced the probability by close to 10 points. Among Democrats, the effects were smaller, with a reduction in selection of just over 10 points when a headline was labeled “Fox News.” (emphasis added)
Annual Review of Political Science, 2013. 16:101–27, dpi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242
In 2004, Pew reported that 36% of Americans “like the news to reflect their own views… Roughly four-in-ten conservatives (43%) likes news that reflects their own opinions, compared with a third of moderates and liberals.”
More generally, people who pay close attention to hard news express a preference for news that suits their point of view. Among those who follow international, national, local government, and business news, 43% say they like news with their point of view. Among those who follow none of these topics closely, just 13% say the same…
Among specific programs, the O’Reilly Factor, religious radio shows and Rush Limbaugh’s show are important news sources for conservatives especially those who like the news to reflect their views. And Comedy Central’s Daily Show, viewed regularly by only 3% of Americans overall, is a staple for 14% of liberals who like news that reflects their point of view.
The regular audiences for Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly continue to be dominated by conservatives: About seven-in-ten or more of each of these audiences describe their political views as conservative, compared with 35% of the general public. And while Republicans comprise just 24% of the public, they make up half or more of the regular audiences of these three news outlets.
Pew Researchers asked four questions designed to measure knowledge of news and current events: which party controlled the House of Representatives, the current unemployment rate, which nation was led by Angela Merkel and which presidential candidate favored taxing higher-income Americans.
Only 14% answered all four questions correctly.
As a general statement, audiences of news organizations that are frequented by liberals/Democrats did better than audiences of news organizations that are frequented by conservatives/Republicans.
Many sources, invisible filters
An individual’s Twitter feed is likely to follow the same path of least resistance.
These filters may be unconscious, but they are made by each of us and we have the power to change that filter.
But as Carr notes, there is another filter in effect for anyone searching for news about a specific event who uses their favorite search engine. That filter is a proprietary (read: opaque, as it not transparent) set of algorithms. And we have no control over it.
It’s why in the fall of 2012, when I was searching the web from central Florida I found it next-to-impossible to discover information about a specific local issue in Seattle. Google kept wanting to serve up info from the southeast, not the northwest.
And for people who get their news from Facebook, understand that there are hidden algorithms here, too. When you “like” posts from someone you are friends with, Facebook will show you more of that person’s posts. The only way to have your news feed be neutral is to like posts from everyone or no one.
But when it comes to news, we say one thing but do another.
“Just the facts”
Consistently, Pew researchers find that most Americans (64%) say they prefer their political news sources “have no particular political point of view” whereas 26% express the opposite view.
And yet look at this distribution: some of us — a significant sum — prefer pundits to reporters. And we want those pundits to reflect our world view. We want to nod in agreement with the tube.
This chart is confirmation bias (pdf) in action. We gravitate towards people and viewpoints that are comfortable, that align with our beliefs. Confirmation bias “can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.”
From You Are Not So Smart:
Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn’t, you hate them.
Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. You watch them not for information, but for confirmation.
Don’t believe me?
A 2009 research study at Ohio State analyzed viewer response to “The Colbert Report.” Researchers found that “political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology.” Moreover, “conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements.”
There is an antidote: be less certain. Ask questions and listen to the answers. Seek out alternative explanations. Be open. In a word, be curious.
We need to put our brains in gear more often and keep our knees discretely beneath us.
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com