Same Words, Different Meanings: Interpretable Predictions of Polarization Trends in Broadcast Media Language and Granger Causal Effects on Public Discourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08832v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 23:59:26 GMT
• Title: Same Words, Different Meanings: Interpretable Predictions of Polarization Trends in Broadcast Media Language and Granger Causal Effects on Public Discourse
• Authors: Xiaohan Ding, Mike Horning and Eugenia H. Rho
• Abstract summary: We investigate the relationship between broadcast news media language and social media discourse. By analyzing a decade's worth of closed captions from CNN and Fox News along with topically corresponding discourse from Twitter, we show how semantic polarization between these outlets has evolved. Our results demonstrate a sharp increase in polarization in how topically important keywords are discussed between the two channels, especially after 2016, with overall highest peaks occurring in 2020.
• Score: 7.0525662747824365
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the growth of online news over the past decade, empirical studies on political discourse and news consumption have focused on the phenomenon of filter bubbles and echo chambers. Yet recently, scholars have revealed limited evidence around the impact of such phenomenon, leading some to argue that partisan segregation across news audiences cannot be fully explained by online news consumption alone and that the role of traditional legacy media may be as salient in polarizing public discourse around current events. In this work, we expand the scope of analysis to include both online and more traditional media by investigating the relationship between broadcast news media language and social media discourse. By analyzing a decade's worth of closed captions (2 million speaker turns) from CNN and Fox News along with topically corresponding discourse from Twitter, we provide a novel framework for measuring semantic polarization between America's two major broadcast networks to demonstrate how semantic polarization between these outlets has evolved (Study 1), peaked (Study 2) and influenced partisan discussions on Twitter (Study 3) across the last decade. Our results demonstrate a sharp increase in polarization in how topically important keywords are discussed between the two channels, especially after 2016, with overall highest peaks occurring in 2020. The two stations discuss identical topics in drastically distinct contexts in 2020, to the extent that there is barely any linguistic overlap in how identical keywords are contextually discussed. Further, we demonstrate at scale, how such partisan division in broadcast media language significantly shapes semantic polarity trends on Twitter (and vice-versa), empirically linking for the first time, how online discussions are influenced by televised media.

Related papers

• Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies: Social Media vs. News Outlets [56.67097829383139]
  We focus on the nuanced distinctions in framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. We observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T06:40:21Z)
• Bias or Diversity? Unraveling Fine-Grained Thematic Discrepancy in U.S. News Headlines [63.52264764099532]
  We use a large dataset of 1.8 million news headlines from major U.S. media outlets spanning from 2014 to 2022. We quantify the fine-grained thematic discrepancy related to four prominent topics - domestic politics, economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs. Our findings indicate that on domestic politics and social issues, the discrepancy can be attributed to a certain degree of media bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-28T03:31:37Z)
• Computational Assessment of Hyperpartisanship in News Titles [55.92100606666497]
  We first adopt a human-guided machine learning framework to develop a new dataset for hyperpartisan news title detection. Overall the Right media tends to use proportionally more hyperpartisan titles. We identify three major topics including foreign issues, political systems, and societal issues that are suggestive of hyperpartisanship in news titles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-16T05:56:58Z)
• Unveiling the Hidden Agenda: Biases in News Reporting and Consumption [59.55900146668931]
  We build a six-year dataset on the Italian vaccine debate and adopt a Bayesian latent space model to identify narrative and selection biases. We found a nonlinear relationship between biases and engagement, with higher engagement for extreme positions. Analysis of news consumption on Twitter reveals common audiences among news outlets with similar ideological positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-14T18:58:42Z)
• Shifting Polarization and Twitter News Influencers between two U.S. Presidential Elections [92.33485580547801]
  We analyze the change of polarization between the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections. Most of the top influencers were affiliated with media organizations during both elections. 75% of the top influencers in 2020 were not present in 2016, demonstrating that such status is difficult to retain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-03T20:08:54Z)
• Reaching the bubble may not be enough: news media role in online political polarization [58.720142291102135]
  A way of reducing polarization would be by distributing cross-partisan news among individuals with distinct political orientations. This study investigates whether this holds in the context of nationwide elections in Brazil and Canada.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-18T11:34:04Z)
• Political Polarization in Online News Consumption [14.276551496332154]
  Political polarization appears to be on the rise, as measured by voting behavior. Research over the years has focused on the role of the Web as a driver of polarization. We show that online news consumption follows a polarized pattern, where users' visits to news sources aligned with their own political leaning are substantially longer than their visits to other news sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T22:35:46Z)
• Exploring Polarization of Users Behavior on Twitter During the 2019 South American Protests [15.065938163384235]
  We explore polarization on Twitter in a different context, namely the protest that paralyzed several countries in the South American region in 2019. By leveraging users' endorsement of politicians' tweets and hashtag campaigns with defined stances towards the protest (for or against), we construct a weakly labeled stance dataset with millions of users. We find empirical evidence of the "filter bubble" phenomenon during the event, as we not only show that the user bases are homogeneous in terms of stance, but the probability that a user transitions from media of different clusters is low.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-05T07:13:18Z)
• Fringe News Networks: Dynamics of US News Viewership following the 2020 Presidential Election [22.116891169190886]
  Using data from before the November 3rd, 2020 US Presidential election, recent work has demonstrated the viability of using YouTube's social media ecosystem to obtain insights into the extent of US political polarization. This paper looks at the sharp transformation of the relationship between news consumers and here-to-fore "fringe" news media channels in the 64 days between the US presidential election and the violence that took place at US Capitol on January 6th.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-22T03:42:36Z)
• Publishing patterns reflect political polarization in news media [1.5039745292757671]
  We show how contributors' publishing trajectories tend to align with outlet political leanings. We also show how contributors who cross partisan divides tend to focus on less explicitly political topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-13T13:26:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.