Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
“This puts Black @nytimes staff in danger”: New York Times staffers band together to protest Tom Cotton’s anti-protest op-ed
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Oct. 20, 2014, 12:27 p.m.
LINK: files.nyu.edu  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   October 20, 2014

One of the most common complaints about social media is about filter bubbles — the idea that, because you choose your own universe of friends or accounts on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, you risk cocooning yourself in a world of likeminded perspectives. Conservatives only hear from fellow conservatives, the argument goes, liberals from fellow liberals, and everyone ends up with hardened, more extreme positions. The result: increased political polarization.

But this new paper from NYU’s Pablo Barberá argues that that’s not true. The core of his argument: Social media encourages connections between people with weak ties — not just your best friends, for instance, but also your high school classmates, that guy you met on a business trip who friended you, and the local guy you heard was funny on Twitter. Those people tend to be “more politically heterogeneous than citizens’ immediate personal networks,” which exposes you to more perspectives, not fewer.

I apply this method to measure the ideological positions of millions of individuals in Germany, Spain, and the United States over time, as well as the ideological composition of their personal networks. Results from this panel design show that most social media users are embedded in ideologically diverse networks, and that exposure to political diversity has a positive effect on political moderation…Contrary to conventional wisdom, my analysis provides evidence that social media usage reduces mass political polarization.

This is just one paper, but it adds to a growing body of knowledge that shows that the connection between media consumption and political polarization is much more complicated than conventional wisdom has it. Add this to Alan Abramowitz’s work showing that knowing more about politics correlated with more extreme views on both left and right and Pew’s findings that show viewers of one cable news network are more likely to watch other cable news channels. (In other words, regular Fox News viewers are more likely to watch MSNBC than the average American, and vice versa.) The filter bubble narrative is more complicated than it seems. Barberá:

Contrary to a growing body of work that suggests that the Internet functions as an “echo chamber,” where citizens are primarily exposed to like-minded political views, my findings demonstrate that most social media users receive information from a diversity of viewpoints…I have provided empirical evidence from a panel design showing that exposure to political diversity on social media has a positive effect on political moderation, and that it reduces mass political polarization.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
“This puts Black @nytimes staff in danger”: New York Times staffers band together to protest Tom Cotton’s anti-protest op-ed
“It has never been my expectation that every piece the New York Times publishes will confirm my personal worldview, but it was also never my expectation The Times would run an op-ed calling for state violence.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s journalists of color are taking a “sick and tired day” after “Buildings Matter, Too” headline
“We’re tired of shouldering the burden of dragging this 200-year-old institution kicking and screaming into a more equitable age.”
VizPol takes a cue from bird-watching apps to help journalists identify unfamiliar political symbols
Built by researchers at Columbia University’s journalism and engineering schools and launched as an invite-only beta this week, VizPol can currently recognize 52 symbols.