The hypothesis of selective exposure assumes that people seek out information that supports their views and eschew information that conflicts with their beliefs, and that has negative consequences on our society. Few researchers have recently found counter evidence of selective exposure in social media: users are exposed to politically diverse articles. No work has looked at what happens after exposure, particularly how individuals react to such exposure, though. Users might well be exposed to diverse articles but share only the partisan ones. To test this, we study partisan sharing on Facebook: the tendency for users to predominantly share like-minded news articles and avoid conflicting ones. We verified four main hypotheses. That is, whether partisan sharing: 1) exists at all; 2) changes across individuals (e.g., depending on their interest in politics); 3) changes over time (e.g., around elections); and 4) changes depending on perceived importance of topics. We indeed find strong evidence for partisan sharing. To test whether it has any consequence in the real world, we built a web application for BBC viewers of a popular political program, resulting in a controlled experiment involving more than 70 individuals. Based on what they share and on survey data, we find that partisan sharing has negative consequences: distorted perception of reality. However, we do also find positive aspects of partisan sharing: it is associated with people who are more knowledgeable about politics and engage more with it as they are more likely to vote in the general elections.
Computer scientists have proposed different news aggregating systems that encourage politically diverse news consumption. For example, BLEWS @cite_13 and NewsCube @cite_18 gather and visualize news articles on the same subject matter but with different political leanings, making people aware of the existence of media bias. Munson and Resnick have studied how different presentation techniques make politically diverse news articles more appealing than others. It turns out that making hostile news more appealing is quite challenging @cite_35 .
@cite_35 @cite_18 @cite_13
1119807432 2217796615 2119758323 2073775149
It is widely thought that news organizations exhibit ideological bias, but rigorously quantifying such slant has proven methodologically challenging. Through a combination of machine learning and crowdsourcing techniques, we investigate the selection and framing of political issues in 15 major U.S. news outlets. Starting with 803,146 news stories published over 12 months, we first used supervised learning algorithms to identify the 14 of articles pertaining to political events. We then recruited 749 online human judges to classify a random subset of 10,950 of these political articles according to topic and ideological position. Our analysis yields an ideological ordering of outlets consistent with prior work. We find, however, that news outlets are considerably more similar than generally believed. Specifically, with the exception of political scandals, we find that major news organizations present topics in a largely non-partisan manner, casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light. Moreover, again with the exception of political scandals, there is little evidence of systematic differences in story selection, with all major news outlets covering a wide variety of topics with frequency largely unrelated to the outlet's ideological position. Finally, we find that news organizations express their ideological bias not by directly advocating for a preferred political party, but rather by disproportionately criticizing one side, a convention that further moderates overall differences. Social news aggregator services generate readers’ subjective reactions to news opinion articles. Can we use those as a resource to classify articles as liberal or conservative, even without knowing the self-identified political leaning of most users? We applied three semi-supervised learning methods that propagate classifications of political news articles and users as conservative or liberal, based on the assumption that liberal users will vote for liberal articles more often, and similarly for conservative users and articles. Starting from a few labeled articles and users, the algorithms propagate political leaning labels to the entire graph. In cross-validation, the best algorithm achieved 99.6 accuracy on held-out users and 96.3 accuracy on held-out articles. Adding social data such as users’ friendship or text features such as cosine similarity did not improve accuracy. The propagation algorithms, using the subjective liking data from users, also performed better than an SVM based text classifier, which achieved 92.0 accuracy on articles. Is a polarized society inevitable, where people choose to be exposed to only political news and commentary that reinforces their existing viewpoints? We examine the relationship between the numbers of supporting and challenging items in a collection of political opinion items and readers' satisfaction, and then evaluate whether simple presentation techniques such as highlighting agreeable items or showing them first can increase satisfaction when fewer agreeable items are present. We find individual differences: some people are diversity-seeking while others are challenge-averse. For challenge-averse readers, highlighting appears to make satisfaction with sets of mostly agreeable items more extreme, but does not increase satisfaction overall, and sorting agreeable content first appears to decrease satisfaction rather than increasing it. These findings have important implications for builders of websites that aggregate content reflecting different positions. In this paper we introduce the novel problem of understanding visual persuasion. Modern mass media make extensive use of images to persuade people to make commercial and political decisions. These effects and techniques are widely studied in the social sciences, but behavioral studies do not scale to massive datasets. Computer vision has made great strides in building syntactical representations of images, such as detection and identification of objects. However, the pervasive use of images for communicative purposes has been largely ignored. We extend the significant advances in syntactic analysis in computer vision to the higher-level challenge of understanding the underlying communicative intent implied in images. We begin by identifying nine dimensions of persuasive intent latent in images of politicians, such as "socially dominant, " "energetic, " and "trustworthy, " and propose a hierarchical model that builds on the layer of syntactical attributes, such as "smile" and "waving hand, " to predict the intents presented in the images. To facilitate progress, we introduce a new dataset of 1, 124 images of politicians labeled with ground-truth intents in the form of rankings. This study demonstrates that a systematic focus on visual persuasion opens up the field of computer vision to a new class of investigations around mediated images, intersecting with media analysis, psychology, and political communication.