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
2119758323 2024633545 84889933
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. The bias in the news media is an inherent flaw of the news production process. The resulting bias often causes a sharp increase in political polarization and in the cost of conflict on social issues such as Iraq war. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for readers to have penetrating views on realities against such bias. This paper presents NewsCube, a novel Internet news service aiming at mitigating the effect of media bias. NewsCube automatically creates and promptly provides readers with multiple classified viewpoints on a news event of interest. As such, it effectively helps readers understand a fact from a plural of viewpoints and formulate their own, more balanced viewpoints. While media bias problem has been studied extensively in communications and social sciences, our work is the first to develop a news service as a solution and study its effect. We discuss the effect of the service through various user studies. An overwhelming number of news articles are available every day via the internet. Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to peruse more than a handful; furthermore it is difficult to ascertain an article’s social context, i.e., is it popular, what sorts of people are reading it, etc. In this paper, we develop a system to address this problem in the restricted domain of political news by harnessing implicit and explicit contextual information from the blogosphere. Specifically, we track thousands of blogs and the news articles they cite, collapsing news articles that have highly overlapping content. We then tag each article with the number of blogs citing it, the political orientation of those blogs, and the level of emotional charge expressed in the blog posts that link to the news article. We summarize and present the results to the user via a novel visualization which displays this contextual information; the user can then find the most popular articles, the articles most cited by liberals, the articles most emotionally discussed in the political blogosphere, etc.