Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Steve steveson**

Social media and internet not cause of political polarisation

New Oxford University research suggests that social media and the internet are not the root of today’s fragmented society, and echo chambers may not be the threat they are perceived to be. In fact, only a small proportion of the population, at most, is influenced by echo chambers.

The argument against echo chambers is well documented: helped by social media algorithms, we are increasingly choosing to interact in safe spaces, with people who think and act like us - effectively preaching our opinions to the converted. As a result, this behaviour is distorting our world view and, in the process, our ability to compromise, which in turn, stimulates political polarisation.

As well as being the home of social media the internet is also a hub of other media choices. These include online news websites and links to print newspapers and magazines, as well as offline media such as TV and radio platforms. Many of our conversations with friends and family also take place online, via our social media and email platforms.

Using a random sample of adult internet users in the UK, researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Ottawa examined people’s media choices, and how much they influenced their interaction with echo chambers, against six key variables: gender, income, ethnicity, age, breadth of media use and political interest. The findings reveal that most people use multiple media outlets and social media platforms, and rather than encouraging the use and development of echo chambers, the breadth of multimedia available actually makes it easier for people to avoid them.

Dr Grant Blank, co-author and research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, said: ‘Whatever the causes of political polarisation today, it is not social media or the internet.

‘If anything, most people use the internet to broaden their media horizons. We found evidence that people actively look to confirm the information that they read online, in a multitude of ways. They mainly do this by using a search engine to find offline media and validate political information. In the process they often encounter opinions that differ from their own and as a result whether they stumbled across the content passively or use their own initiative to search for answers while double checking their “facts”, some changed their own opinion on certain issues.’

The research shows that respondents used an average of four different media sources, and had accounts on three different social media platforms. The more media outlets people used, the more they tended to avoid echo chambers.

While age, income, ethnicity nor gender were found to significantly influence the likelihood of being in an echo chamber, political interest significantly did. Those with a keen political interest were most likely to be opinion leaders who others turn to for political information. Compared with the less politically inclined, these people were found to be media junkies, who consumed political content wherever they could find it, and as a result of this diversity they were less likely to be in an echo chamber.

Dr Elizabeth Dubois, co-author and Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa, said: ‘Our results show that most people are not in a political echo chamber. The people at risk are those who depend on only a single medium for political news and who are not politically interested: about 8% of the population. However, because of their lack of political engagement, their opinions are less formative and their influence on others is likely to be comparatively small.’

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-02-21-social-media-and-internet-not-cause-political-polarisation

Pretty much confirms what I thought, and what I think we see on Dakka. There is a huge range of political opinion on here, we discuss openly and are forced to back up our points and arguments, and do change our views. The odd person who comes on complaining about it all being right or left wing bias generally quickly gets shot down. And those with no interest in politics don't read it anyway and are not going to have their views changed.

**sebster**

I think there's a big assumption that politics is more polarized. US politics are more polarized, but I'm not sure that's the case in that many other countries. And US political polarization began before the internet, and has proceeded at about the same pace since its advent.

We don't like to admit it, but even in an age where we all have a voice, we are still mostly led by a handful of people. They give their arguments, and most of us just repeat them. Even other media people are mostly following. This is why, for instance, FOX News can have an audience of about half of 1% of the adult population, but drive so much of the narrative. So even if we're on the internet, giving our own point of view, thinking our thoughts are independent, they're coming from somewhere.

So what really matters is whether those thoughts are coming from leaders who are reasoned, and considerate. In most places around the world those voices are mostly reasonable, and so what follows is mostly reasonable debate by everyone. Mostly. More or less.

But in places where a lot of the leading voices are not responsible, either because they pursue partisan arguments with no interest in facts, or they're just bonkers or whatever, well then that flows through to the rest of the population.

**Kroem**

Oh interesting, I can see the point about the sheer amount of news making finding different opinions easier.
Certainly I do try make a point of reading the Guardian every now and then so that I can see what the 'leftie' views on the issues of the day are. I can't imagine that I'm the only one who tries to read articles which they won't necessarily agree with.

I think politics is more polarised in the UK than it has been in the past, however we have had decades of rule by centrist Prime Ministers (Blair, Cameron etc.) so it is to be expected that opinions would drift out to the wings again.
After all, it is easy to have all the answers when you are not in power

**Frazzled**

Yeah...that's just a lie.

**Easy E**

Frazzled wrote:
Yeah...that's just a lie.

Which part? I ask for the sake of clarity only.

**BobtheInquisitor**

The part that's clearly Maskirovka.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Yeah...that's just a lie.

Which part? I ask for the sake of clarity only.

This part:

Using a random sample of adult internet users in the UK, researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Ottawa examined people’s media choices, and how much they influenced their interaction with echo chambers, against six key variables: gender, income, ethnicity, age, breadth of media use and political interest. The findings reveal that most people use multiple media outlets and social media platforms, and rather than encouraging the use and development of echo chambers, the breadth of multimedia available actually makes it easier for people to avoid them.

This part. Its hard to find a news source that is relatively unbiased. People hole themselves into "news" sources, blogs, and chatrooms that are wholly biased and one dimensional of a viewpoint. Its one reason the OT here is interesting. Multiple viewpoints and issues. I have been banned or shouted down on multiple viewpoints for playing devil's advocate. People are tribing up, at least in the US, on a level approaching Latin America. Moderates need not apply.

**Steve steveson**

Still not sure what your saying is a lie. They are not saying that news sources are unbiased, but that people don’t go looking for media sources just because they support their views and stick to those sources.

**feeder**

No, no. You don't understand. My gut can tell me much more than these ivory tower eggheads. My gut is full of kibbles.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
This part. Its hard to find a news source that is relatively unbiased.

The view you express here is common, and far more problematic than information bubbles producing polarisation.

Bias is not the problem. It is okay to have a viewpoint. The problem comes when reports include false information, or exclude important facts.

**Luciferian**

sebster wrote:

The view you express here is common, and far more problematic than information bubbles producing polarisation.

Bias is not the problem. It is okay to have a viewpoint. The problem comes when reports include false information, or exclude important facts.

...which, as a result of bias, is extremely common in all types of journalism. I agree that having a viewpoint or taking a certain stance on an issue is fine, but it is currently extremely common even in the largest and oldest media organizations to omit facts and context or even include information which is demonstrably false, or to present a totally subjective and fact-free op-ed as researched journalism. Even in papers like the Washington Post and New York Times, when an article does include the relevant facts (which is not always the case even in those publications), those that don't support the editorial narrative are buried under subjective language toward the end of the piece where the eyes of the average reader never venture. There are very few news organizations which present only factual content in dispassionate language in an effort to inform the reader and allow them to decide for themselves how they should feel about any given topic. Perhaps there are none. Bias is unavoidable, but it's manipulative and unethical to hide that bias behind whatever veneer of legitimacy you can get away with instead of being transparent about it. To say that such a view is more problematic than the fact that media corporations both large and small regularly and easily massage public opinion through disingenuous reporting is frankly ludicrous.

How many people read full news articles? Honestly, do you? More and more people read only the first, second or third paragraph, or even simply the headline. You don't even have to omit facts or lie to mislead people through media, all you have to do is put together a carefully worded headline and opening paragraph, and hide any facts you don't like at the end. All you have to do is take what would be an objective and factual account, and jazz it up with subjective and emotionally charged language to tell the reader how they should feel about it. It muddies the waters as well as the public mind. You're right though, the problem isn't bias, it's biased opinion masquerading as legitimate journalism.

**sebster**

Luciferian wrote:
...which, as a result of bias, is extremely common in all types of journalism. I agree that having a viewpoint or taking a certain stance on an issue is fine, but it is currently extremely common even in the largest and oldest media organizations to omit facts and context or even include information which is demonstrably false, or to present a totally subjective and fact-free op-ed as researched journalism. Even in papers like the Washington Post and New York Times, when an article does include the relevant facts (which is not always the case even in those publications), those that don't support the editorial narrative are buried under subjective language toward the end of the piece where the eyes of the average reader never venture. There are very few news organizations which present only factual content in dispassionate language in an effort to inform the reader and allow them to decide for themselves how they should feel about any given topic. Perhaps there are none. Bias is unavoidable, but it's manipulative and unethical to hide that bias behind whatever veneer of legitimacy you can get away with instead of being transparent about it. To say that such a view is more problematic than the fact that media corporations both large and small regularly and easily massage public opinion through disingenuous reporting is frankly ludicrous.

Yes, media organisations will sometimes give biased reports. That isn't in dispute. What I am saying is that when people go for that simplistic story of 'media is biased', they drag all media down to a single level, in which merely having an opinion allows the reader to dismiss the story. The effect of this is people reject stories simply because they're telling them something they don't want to hear because 'its biased', rather than trying to work out if its actually true or not.

This in turn opens up the market for media organisations that focus on telling people what they want to hear, even if its dishonest . Ever notice how the media organisations that complain about bias the most are also the crappiest media outfits? There's a reason for that.

So yes, people thinking the issue is simply 'bias' are the problem, because that is the beginning from which all the other problems flow.

**Uber_Trooper**

I think the requirements for an echoe chamber include a bunch of friends who just say things that confirm your beliefs. of all things, the internet is the last place you want to go to.

**ScarletRose**

Yes, media organisations will sometimes give biased reports. That isn't in dispute. What I am saying is that when people go for that simplistic story of 'media is biased', they drag all media down to a single level, in which merely having an opinion allows the reader to dismiss the story. The effect of this is people reject stories simply because they're telling them something they don't want to hear because 'its biased', rather than trying to work out if its actually true or not.

I think this is pretty much spot on, it's why there's this sort of radical ignorance in a day and age where there's more information available than ever. It's just that repeated "it's biased" meme that allows people to dismiss outside views or anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.

Honestly, I think that's one of the big driver of political polarization, particular the unsettling hard shift to the right in the last few years.

**NinthMusketeer**

Eh... I don't agree with the conclusion that multiple sources = multiple viewpoints. From what I've seen it's just as common for an individual to seek out multiple sources that all agree with a given point of view, and these sources even tend to sync up with each other. I don't so much feel their conclusion is incorrect, I just feel that the evidence presented is insufficient to reach that conclusion.

sebster wrote:
I think there's a big assumption that politics is more polarized. US politics are more polarized, but I'm not sure that's the case in that many other countries. And US political polarization began before the internet, and has proceeded at about the same pace since its advent.

Well Reagan was 1981-1989 (but more specifically one could say the parties were reasonably non-polarized in crafting the 1986 tax reform) and the internet launched in 1991, so the rise of US political polarization and the rise of the internet did coincide more than not. Granted this could be coincidental, correlation rather than causation, but I wouldn't dismiss the internet as a significant contributor either. I would go into more detail, but that would probably take this in an off-topic direction.

**sebster**

ScarletRose wrote:
I think this is pretty much spot on, it's why there's this sort of radical ignorance in a day and age where there's more information available than ever. It's just that repeated "it's biased" meme that allows people to dismiss outside views or anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.

Exactly. There's more information that ever available to be called up with a second's effort, but there's more conspiracy theories than ever, and if anything those conspiracies are getting dumber and more easily rejected. Pizzagate is a lot easier to disprove than the JFK assassination being an inside job. Its almost like the conspiracies now aren't made to last past a few news cycles, after which the job is done. It is, as you say, 'radical ignorance'.

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Eh... I don't agree with the conclusion that multiple sources = multiple viewpoints. From what I've seen it's just as common for an individual to seek out multiple sources that all agree with a given point of view, and these sources even tend to sync up with each other. I don't so much feel their conclusion is incorrect, I just feel that the evidence presented is insufficient to reach that conclusion.

Yep, that's another false idea - that reading multiple sources is an improvement in and of itself. I mean sure, reading more sources is better than just reading one source, but its useless if those sources aren't carefully chosen, and the specific claims made in each source aren't properly considered. Especially when, as you say, a person is selecting a range of sources that all agree with each other.

Well Reagan was 1981-1989 (but more specifically one could say the parties were reasonably non-polarized in crafting the 1986 tax reform) and the internet launched in 1991, so the rise of US political polarization and the rise of the internet did coincide more than not. Granted this could be coincidental, correlation rather than causation, but I wouldn't dismiss the internet as a significant contributor either. I would go into more detail, but that would probably take this in an off-topic direction.

I don't mean to dismiss the role of the internet entirely, just to place it as one part in a greater political drift that's occurred in the US. It's facilitated the process, but so did talk radio and cable news.

The rise of the internet has coincided with the rise of polarized politics, but the US isn't the only country that's adopted this internet thing. Elsewhere politics isn't anywhere near as polarized as the US. So the internet, well it doesn't help, but it won't cause the problem by itself.

**Pink Horror**

It's pretty meaningless if they don't say how they did the categorization of what is and isn't an "echo chamber".

**Jadenim**

This has provoked the thought that how can the internet be a worse echo chamber than the old-school guys who read only one tabloid newspaper, every single day, and just accept that it represents the truth, when most are sensationalist at best and horrendously biased at worst.

Even if that same person read the same paper online, they would at least be exposed to the comments section, so would have a better chance of exposure to different views.

**LordofHats**

Uber_Trooper wrote:
I think the requirements for an echoe chamber include a bunch of friends who just say things that confirm your beliefs. of all things, the internet is the last place you want to go to.

My thoughts exactly. I've been on the internet for awhile and am pretty sure I've encountered more people calling me an idiot/hipster/douche/donkey-cave/libtard/<insert other things> than I've encountered anyone even saying the words "I agree" so yeah. Never bought into this whole echo chamber hypothesize. It makes no sense from its outset cause while my experience is anecdotal it seems to be everyone's experience

And to keep up the spirit of the internet:

echoe

I believe you'll find that the correct spelling is "echo" sir. Now feel my righteous indignation washing over you

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pink Horror wrote:
It's pretty meaningless if they don't say how they did the categorization of what is and isn't an "echo chamber".

I presume the original study did, as well as laid out how it examined and categorized media outlets, but we're just reading a news article about the study (which are notoriously unreliable in my experience, often dumbing down the study to an unbelievable level, if not outright lying about the conclusions, method, and purpose). We'd have to pull out the actual paper or data set to actually parse out how the researchers did what they did.

It's probably worth noting that there is no link to the study in the article, or even a reference/citation.

**AndrewGPaul**

sebster wrote:
Yep, that's another false idea - that reading multiple sources is an improvement in and of itself. I mean sure, reading more sources is better than just reading one source, but its useless if those sources aren't carefully chosen, and the specific claims made in each source aren't properly considered. Especially when, as you say, a person is selecting a range of sources that all agree with each other.

Another thing to bear in mind is that these multiple sources may all be getting their info from the same place, so really, you've only got one source. Examples of that can be seen in the News and Rumours section of this very forum, where you can often see the same leaks reported multiple times as various forum members pick it up from Spiky Bits, Naftka, etc.

**Xenomancers**

This goes against the conclusion of the discussion I just heard on Sam Harris - Waking up. With guest Niall Ferguson.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/117-networks-power-chaos/

Nialls conclusion was that networks lead to polarization and that it is not a new trend. It's being going on for the entire history of networks.

**Spinner**

Jadenim wrote:

Even if that same person read the same paper online, they would at least be exposed to the comments section, so would have a better chance of exposure to different views.

Have...have you ever seen a comments section?

**NinthMusketeer**

LordofHats wrote:
Uber_Trooper wrote:
I think the requirements for an echoe chamber include a bunch of friends who just say things that confirm your beliefs. of all things, the internet is the last place you want to go to.

My thoughts exactly. I've been on the internet for awhile and am pretty sure I've encountered more people calling me an idiot/hipster/douche/donkey-cave/libtard/<insert other things> than I've encountered anyone even saying the words "I agree" so yeah. Never bought into this whole echo chamber hypothesize. It makes no sense from its outset cause while my experience is anecdotal it seems to be everyone's experience

Spinner wrote:
Jadenim wrote:

Even if that same person read the same paper online, they would at least be exposed to the comments section, so would have a better chance of exposure to different views.

Have...have you ever seen a comments section?

That's the thing, when 'exposure to different viewpoints' amounts to 'you are wrong and stupid and should go kill yourself' it reinforces the idea that other viewpoints are NOT legitimate. The bunch of guys reading a tabloid are being told one viewpoint is true--the internet doubles down on that by having a bunch of people (indirectly) tell you that other views are not.

**Luciferian**

sebster wrote:

Yes, media organisations will sometimes give biased reports. That isn't in dispute. What I am saying is that when people go for that simplistic story of 'media is biased', they drag all media down to a single level, in which merely having an opinion allows the reader to dismiss the story. The effect of this is people reject stories simply because they're telling them something they don't want to hear because 'its biased', rather than trying to work out if its actually true or not.

This in turn opens up the market for media organisations that focus on telling people what they want to hear, even if its dishonest . Ever notice how the media organisations that complain about bias the most are also the crappiest media outfits? There's a reason for that.

So yes, people thinking the issue is simply 'bias' are the problem, because that is the beginning from which all the other problems flow.

You're pretty much saying that if, as customers, people take issue with slanted or biased reporting and seek out alternative sources which they believe can serve them better, they're wrong and they should just suck it up and consume the shoddy journalism because that's what's "good for them" in your opinion. Journalists and news organizations don't have any responsibility for transparency and honest reporting? The onus is not on them as profit-seeking companies to retain their customer base by responding to its needs? They aren't accountable for improving the quality of their product? Nope, it's the consumer's fault for being critical. Outstanding.

This is the era of clickbait "journalism". We're not talking about morally righteous public services with the interests of the people at heart, we're talking about multi-million dollar corporations that have a vested financial interest in current events, as well as financial incentives to be as salacious and sensationalist as possible. We're talking about the business model of viral outrage and tribal signaling. You can take two news organizations from different perspectives, give them the same exact sources and facts to report on, and you're going to get two radically different interpretations of events, neither of which is going to be fully supported by the facts. It isn't even that one of them may lie or omit information where the other doesn't - it's that they both spin the story to suit their own agendas. The only way to get past the messaging to a clear understanding of the facts is to totally disregard the actual language used, separate out the raw information, and check the sources for yourself. Basically, you have to do the job the "journalist" was supposed to be doing in the first place. If one doesn't think critically about where their information is coming from, whether or not the narrative vehicle they receive it through is supported by the very facts it claims to represent, and whether or not there is an attempt to lead them in a certain direction that would benefit the party presenting the information, that makes THEM the dupe. Deflecting all criticism or even critical thought about shoddy reporting by saying that one would simply accept it as true if only they were on the right "side" is a FAR greater enabler of bad journalism than aversion to bias. It's also exactly what someone would say if they were trying to protect their own bias and subjective identification from exposure to information they'd find uncomfortable.

**AlmightyWalrus**

So sebster posits that people treat all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another and you attempt to rebut his point by treating all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another. Good job?

**Galas**

Blame british and their sensationalist journalism. They where the ones to invent "clickbait" before clicks were even a thing.

**Luciferian**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So sebster posits that people treat all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another and you attempt to rebut his point by treating all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another. Good job?

What? His argument conflates all criticism of bias with a denial of the facts, and very conveniently enshrines his own bias as unassailable.

But you know what, yes, I treat all media the same. I try to give it all the same level of scrutiny. Even if I agree with one viewpoint over the other, I can still see holes in reporting and call subjectivity for what it is. To me, it says a lot that you guys think that's "problematic".

**NinthMusketeer**

Luciferian wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So sebster posits that people treat all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another and you attempt to rebut his point by treating all media the same by equating all levels of bias with one another. Good job?

What? His argument conflates all criticism of bias with a denial of the facts, and very conveniently enshrines his own bias as unassailable.

But you know what, yes, I treat all media the same. I try to give it all the same level of scrutiny. Even if I agree with one viewpoint over the other, I can still see holes in reporting and call subjectivity for what it is. To me, it says a lot that you guys think that's "problematic".

I think the impression you've gotten of Seb's position isn't accurate. I'll let him address it directly but it seems to me like you have similar opinions phrased from opposite angles. I can see how someone reading what Seb said without prior knowledge of his stance (from previous posting) would come to the conclusion you did. That's just my impression though.

**Luciferian**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the impression you've gotten of Seb's position isn't accurate. I'll let him address it directly but it seems to me like you have similar opinions phrased from opposite angles. I can see how someone reading what Seb said without prior knowledge of his stance (from previous posting) would come to the conclusion you did. That's my impression though.

We do disagree on at least one point. He is saying that, due to some unspecified merit, certain news sources should be treated more leniently than others, and that for all intents and purposes, any claim of bias made against those news sources is due to cognitive dissonance as opposed to legitimate criticism.

I am actually being even more cynical. Yes, I am saying that all media is in some way telling you what you want to hear and buttressing you against outside information. Because they clearly have a rational, if short term, interest in doing so. I'm not buying the "some bias is OK, as long as it's my bias" bit. That, to me, is just the same kind of justification against critical thought he is making claims of bias out to be.

**feeder**

Luciferian wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the impression you've gotten of Seb's position isn't accurate. I'll let him address it directly but it seems to me like you have similar opinions phrased from opposite angles. I can see how someone reading what Seb said without prior knowledge of his stance (from previous posting) would come to the conclusion you did. That's my impression though.

We do disagree on at least one point. He is saying that, due to some unspecified merit, certain news sources should be treated more leniently than others, and that for all intents and purposes, any claim of bias made against those news sources is due to cognitive dissonance as opposed to legitimate criticism.

The "unspecified merit" is including facts in the story. It's ok for a news article to include bias, it's nearly impossible to not have bias in reporting as journalists are people with opinions too.

I am actually being even more cynical. Yes, I am saying that all media is in some way telling you what you want to hear and buttressing you against outside information. Because they clearly have a rational, if short term, interest in doing so. I'm not buying the "some bias is OK, as long as it's my bias" bit. That, to me, is just the same kind of justification against critical thought he is making claims of bias out to be.

Some bias is ok, as long as the facts are in the story. Generally, NY Times, Wall St Journal and WaPo have bias and all or most of the facts. HuffPo and Fox have spin and some of the facts. Breitbart and InfoWars have propaganda and lies. This chart lays it out all very neatly.

Plus it kinda looks like the NCC-1701-D on there so that's pretty cool