Given the extremely large pool of events and stories available, media outlets need to focus on a subset of issues and aspects to convey to their audience. Outlets are often accused of exhibiting a systematic bias in this selection process, with different outlets portraying different versions of reality. However, in the absence of objective measures and empirical evidence, the direction and extent of systematicity remains widely disputed. In this paper we propose a framework based on quoting patterns for quantifying and characterizing the degree to which media outlets exhibit systematic bias. We apply this framework to a massive dataset of news articles spanning the six years of Obama's presidency and all of his speeches, and reveal that a systematic pattern does indeed emerge from the outlet's quoting behavior. Moreover, we show that this pattern can be successfully exploited in an unsupervised prediction setting, to determine which new quotes an outlet will select to broadcast. By encoding bias patterns in a low-rank space we provide an analysis of the structure of political media coverage. This reveals a latent media bias space that aligns surprisingly well with political ideology and outlet type. A linguistic analysis exposes striking differences across these latent dimensions, showing how the different types of media outlets portray different realities even when reporting on the same events. For example, outlets mapped to the mainstream conservative side of the latent space focus on quotes that portray a presidential persona disproportionately characterized by negativity.
Language and ideology Recently, natural language processing techniques were applied to identify ideologies in a variety of large scale text collections, including congressional debates @cite_7 @cite_10 , presidential debates @cite_15 , academic papers @cite_1 , books @cite_30 , and Twitter posts @cite_9 @cite_13 @cite_3 . All this work operates on a predefined dimension of -- political ideology using known slant labels; in the news media domain slant is seldom declared or proven with certainty and thus we need to resort to an unsupervised methodology.
@cite_30 @cite_13 @cite_7 @cite_9 @cite_1 @cite_3 @cite_15 @cite_10
2251738400 560287614 2250773804 1508666480 2095655043 1927374806 2251314334 2483704788
An individual’s words often reveal their political ideology. Existing automated techniques to identify ideology from text focus on bags of words or wordlists, ignoring syntax. Taking inspiration from recent work in sentiment analysis that successfully models the compositional aspect of language, we apply a recursive neural network (RNN) framework to the task of identifying the political position evinced by a sentence. To show the importance of modeling subsentential elements, we crowdsource political annotations at a phrase and sentence level. Our model outperforms existing models on our newly annotated dataset and an existing dataset. We seek to measure political candidates’ ideological positioning from their speeches. To accomplish this, we infer ideological cues from a corpus of political writings annotated with known ideologies. We then represent the speeches of U.S. Presidential candidates as sequences of cues and lags (filler distinguished only by its length in words). We apply a domain-informed Bayesian HMM to infer the proportions of ideologies each candidate uses in each campaign. The results are validated against a set of preregistered, domain expertauthored hypotheses. Previous work on extracting ideology from text has focused on domains where expression of political views is expected, but it’s unclear if current technology can work in domains where displays of ideology are considered inappropriate. We present a supervised ensemble n-gram model for ideology extraction with topic adjustments and apply it to one such domain: research papers written by academic economists. We show economists’ political leanings can be correctly predicted, that our predictions generalize to new domains, and that they correlate with public policy-relevant research findings. We also present evidence that unsupervised models can under-perform in domains where ideological expression is discouraged. Polarizing discussions on political and social issues are common in mass and user-generated media. However, computer-based understanding of ideological discourse has been considered too difficult to undertake. In this paper we propose a statistical model for ideology discourse. By ideology we mean "a set of general beliefs socially shared by a group of people." For example, Democratic and Republican are two major political ideologies in the United States. The proposed model captures lexical variations due to an ideological text's topic and due to an author or speaker's ideological perspective. To cope with the non-conjugacy of the logistic-normal prior we derive a variational inference algorithm for the model. We evaluate the proposed model on synthetic data as well as a written and a spoken political discourse. Experimental results strongly support that ideological perspectives are reflected in lexical variations. Politics and political conflict often occur in the written and spoken word. Scholars have long recognized this, but the massive costs of analyzing even moderately sized collections of texts have hindered their use in political science research. Here lies the promise of automated text analysis: it substantially reduces the costs of analyzing large collections of text. We provide a guide to this exciting new area of research and show how, in many instances, the methods have already obtained part of their promise. But there are pitfalls to using automated methods—they are no substitute for careful thought and close reading and require extensive and problem-specific validation. We survey a wide range of new methods, provide guidance on how to validate the output of the models, and clarify misconceptions and errors in the literature. To conclude, we argue that for automated text methods to become a standard tool for political scientists, methodologists must contribute new methods and new methods of validation. Language is the medium for politics and political conflict. Candidates debate and state policy positions during a campaign. Once elected, representatives write and debate legislation. After laws are passed, bureaucrats solicit comments before they issue regulations. Nations regularly negotiate and then sign peace treaties, with language that signals the motivations and relative power of the countries involved. News reports document the day-to-day affairs of international relations that provide a detailed picture of conflict and cooperation. Individual candidates and political parties articulate their views through party platforms and manifestos. Terrorist groups even reveal their preferences and goals through recruiting materials, magazines, and public statements. These examples, and many others throughout political science, show that to understand what politics is about we need to know what political actors are saying and writing. Recognizing that language is central to the study of politics is not new. To the contrary, scholars of politics have long recognized that much of politics is expressed in words. But scholars have struggled when using texts to make inferences about politics. The primary problem is volume: there are simply too many political texts. Rarely are scholars able to manually read all the texts in even moderately sized corpora. And hiring coders to manually read all documents is still very expensive. The result is that The current research used the contexts of U.S. presidential debates and negotiations to examine whether matching the linguistic style of an opponent in a two-party exchange affects the reactions of third-party observers. Building off communication accommodation theory (CAT), interaction alignment theory (IAT), and processing fluency, we propose that language style matching (LSM) will improve subsequent third-party evaluations because matching an opponent’s linguistic style reflects greater perspective taking and will make one’s arguments easier to process. In contrast, research on status inferences predicts that LSM will negatively impact third-party evaluations because LSM implies followership. We conduct two studies to test these competing hypotheses. Study 1 analyzed transcripts of U.S. presidential debates between 1976 and 2012 and found that candidates who matched their opponent’s linguistic style increased their standing in the polls. Study 2 demonstrated a causal relationship between LSM and third-... In this paper we describe an application of language technology to policy formulation, where it can support policy makers assess the acceptance of a yet-unpublished policy before the policy enters public consultation. One of the key concepts is that instead of relying on thematic similarity, we extract arguments expressed in support or opposition of positions that are general statements that are, themselves, consistent with the policy or not. The focus of this paper in this overall pipeline, is identifying arguments in text: we present and empirically evaluate the hypothesis that verbal tense and mood are good indicators of arguments that have not been explored in the relevant literature. Abstract Propagation of political ideologies in social networks has shown a substantial impact on voting behavior. Both the contents of the messages (the ideology) and the politicians' influence on their online audiences (their followers) have been associated with such an impact. In this study we evaluate which of these factors exerted a major role in deciding electoral results of the 2015 Colombian regional elections by evaluating the linguistic similarity of political ideologies and their influence on the Twitter sphere. The electoral results proved to be strongly associated with tweets and retweets and not with the linguistic content of their ideologies or politicians' followers in Twitter. Finally, suggestions for new ways to analyze electoral processes are discussed.