More

HuffPost Social Reading

As Internet Use Grows, Is It Polarizing Political Views?

Internet Politics

First Posted: 03/29/2011 7:19 pm Updated: 05/29/2011 5:12 am

Even as an increasing number of Americans go online for political news, more than half of U.S. Internet users are wary of the web’s influence and view the Internet as a catalyst for political extremism.

Between 2002 and 2010, the share of Americans who primarily relied on the Internet for elections news more than tripled from 7 percent to 24 percent, according to a study from the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project.

Yet, 55 percent of American web users said the Internet is increasing the influence of people with extreme political views. And over half of the web users polled said the web has made it easier to connect with other users who share their own political views, with 34 percent saying they seek out news sources that reinforce their beliefs.

For more than a decade, professors, pundits and politicians have debated the effect of the Internet on political views and news coverage. Whether or not the web has pushed conservatives to become more conservative, or liberals more liberal, Pew's research suggests Americans are concerned about the Internet's effect on civic discourse.

"It's not surprising that people have some apprehension looking at the Internet because the Internet is clearly changing how we learn about politics," said Kelly Garrett, assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University. "Any time you see politics changing rapidly, people are rightly concerned."

The ease with which one can access extreme opinions online is likely contributing to the perception that the web has given rise to more polarized political views. Whereas before extremist groups would have to fight for newsprint or airtime, today those same organizations can speak freely from websites or Twitter accounts that are accessible in just a few clicks.

"It comes down to the fact that we can see extreme views that were previously hidden from us when we go online. It's not necessarily that there are so many more people that are holding extreme views," said Matthew Gentzkow, a professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. "On the one hand, it's good to know what the other side thinks. On the other hand, I think it creates anxiety and fear."

The existence of these extremist sites does not necessarily mean they are influencing people's political views. While both Republicans, who constituted 44 percent of the poll respondents, and Democrats, who constituted 37 percent, prefer political news from sources that share their beliefs, previous studies have shown that what users say about their news consumption habits differs significantly from their actual behaviors. Research Gentzkow published in 2010 found that people with relatively extreme political views not only viewed more extreme sites, but also spent more time on centrist sites and even sites that diverged with their points of view.

"There is little evidence that the Internet is leading people to segregate ideologically and become polarized in news consumption," said Gentzkow. "There is not a lot of evidence for echo chambers--that liberals only read liberal stuff, while conservatives only read conservative stuff."

Polarization is only one element of the heated debate surrounding the Internet's effect on politics. In addition to the fear that the web may give rise to more extreme political opinions, there is also the worry that the web will enable Internet users to tune out political news altogether.

Former MoveOn.org executive director Eli Pariser has warned that personalization via sites like Facebook and Google, which customize the content shown to users based on their browsing activity and other factors, will show users only what they want to see, but not what they need to see, shielding them from new view points that may conflict with their own.

"You give people choice and you're going to see people tuning out," Garrett said. "This personalization stuff is giving us what we want, which is insulating us."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,255
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (22 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
gomezrules 11:04 PM on 03/29/2011
Polarizing views? You mean sites like the HP?

"The ease with which one can access extreme opinions online is likely contributing to the perception that the web has given rise to more polarized political views."

I'll wager that 'extremist' in this case means anyone who disagrees with another's views! The concerns about 'discourse' are as phony as some of the other criteria presented here. No  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
02:38 PM on 04/05/2011
One reason that America has become so polarized is that it has become so easy to avoid those with differing opinions and congregate among the like-minded. A single mindset, without exposure to diversity of thought, reinforces itself - becomes more extreme, more fanatic, more entrenched.
Whether it is generations of gerrymandering, the pervasiveness of personal transportation, social networking, language barriers that do not fall, or other factors, we have at least partially migrated from the melting-pot to the smelting-pot.
photo
HufferDave87
Give me the facts, then I'll decide...
11:52 PM on 03/30/2011
"Whereas before extremist groups would have to fight for newsprint or airtime, today those same organizations can speak freely from websites or Twitter accounts that are accessible in just a few clicks...It comes down to the fact that we can see extreme views that were previously hidden from us when we go online."

That's really funny you should say that, because I could have sworn that, more importantly, the "extreme views" I perceive are, in fact, speaking freely from ONE TV NEWS SOURCE.

If anything, the internet actually provides some VARYING viewpoints to some people who previously would be more inclined to get ALL their news from ONE source that can control political discourse at its whim.

Go sell crazy some place else. I hear they're paying a premium for it over at Fox.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:33 PM on 03/30/2011
Nothing shouts "arrogant", "condescending" and "sanctimonious" louder than headlines and statements like:

"As Internet Use Grows, Is It Polarizing Political Views?"

"...sites like Facebook and Google, which customize the content shown to users based on their browsing activity and other factors, will show users only what they want to see, but not what they need to see..."

Seriously, why do responsible liberals allow their entire community to be so negatively characterized by the words of a few dangerous extremists who deem themselves solely capable of determining what constitutes "Polarizing Political Views" or "what they [Facebook and Google users] need to see?"

Imagine the outcry from free speech advocates had anyone of influence in the conservative community had made similar remarks at the height of the anti-war movement while GWB was in office.
03:45 PM on 03/30/2011
There are three simple solutions:
1. No anonymity. Anyone who posts a comment posts his or her e-mail, name and address.
2. Intensive moderation. Any comment not supported by data and logic, any comment that is mostly invective, gets deleted.
3. Disable comments. 99% of them are worthless. If you want to post your own views, get your own site. (I realize the self-referential logic is strong, here).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Calculator
Found guilty of Witchcraft, through Witch-hunt
03:48 PM on 04/03/2011
These are great ideas.
photo
chaya
Another proud veteran
01:39 PM on 03/30/2011
Okay, I get most of my news right here. Does that mean I only get to hear my side? I doubt it. Because:

1) Half of the articles are about right-wingers and what they're saying, and
2) There is a high percentage here of right-wingers (from mild conservatives with brains all the way to people wearing aluminum foil hats) commenting on the forums.

How does that compare to television--let's say, oh, watching Fox News, for example? Pretty favorably, I'd say.
01:52 PM on 03/30/2011
I'm not sure the aluminum foil deflector beanie is working for them.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
01:31 PM on 03/30/2011
I sometimes wonder if the problem is not polarisation among the electorate but the lack of it among political parties. Far too many candidates have far too much in common for a real choice at the polls. There should be clear blue water between candidates IMO.
The last 30 years of more or less monetarist (supply side, trickle down, voodoo economics) philosophy dominated politics has lead us here. And nobody seems to like here.
photo
justalurker
edited my micro-bio
01:21 PM on 03/30/2011
Nope. Fox News, with half the cable news viewing audience, has been the biggest agent for making extreme views (birthers, death panelists, people who say marxist at the drop of a hat) commonplace and available to the regular public.I can't think of any other media source that is this polarizing 24/7.
MrStat1
I believe in the rule of law
01:30 PM on 03/30/2011
Oh, and MSNBC hasn't done the same thing for Leftists!
01:33 PM on 03/30/2011
Actually, speaking as a leftist, no it doesn't.
04:47 PM on 03/30/2011
The issue with Fox is not necessarily its right-wing biased and heavily opinion-based programs. The real issue is with the fallacy of the actual news they provide.

The internet is filled with examples of FoxNews blatantly lying. There was even a court case where a Fox News reporter sued Fox for forcing her to report what she know was false.
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
01:00 PM on 03/30/2011
When the Internet first became public in the early 1990s, there was a widespread belief that it would make the world more democratic and wipe out ignorance. This of course did not happen due to polarization, along with Internet censorship in countries like China.

In my opinion, polarization was always there, but just became more apparent with the rise of the Internet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greeneyes51654m
Retired, finally...
03:19 PM on 03/30/2011
Absolutely true.
04:41 PM on 03/30/2011
I agree as well.

I'm hoping that social media will be able to fulfill the expectations that were once placed on the internet. There's reason to believe that it has been effective in the Middle East and Northern Africa.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doodlebug2
Moe. Larry the cheese
11:59 AM on 03/30/2011
this country is so polaqrized, we would not agree that ice is cold and rain falls down and gets you wet.
It is exactly like pre WW2 France, read Shirer's "The Collapse of the Third Republic"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
G E H
11:56 AM on 03/30/2011
The biggest problem isn't the Internet, or cable news, or even Huffington Post. The biggest problem is that we as a people do not engage in "critical thinking." Some of us do, but not enough of us. Most people, as the article points out, like to have their preconceived notions validated, and seek out those media outlets, whether Internet-based or TV-based, that support and cement those notions.

That is the REAL problem.
12:06 PM on 03/30/2011
Well said. I think the problem is that critical thinking is often -and rightfully- perceived as a threat to tradition and faith. How could we possibly educate people to exercise free inquiry when the majority of the population is so attached to those two notions?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brandon Baier
Independent and stuck in the middle.
01:14 PM on 03/30/2011
indeed empyrical logic seems to have escaped this great nation. At the same time look at the public schools and the half truths about history and science that are taught. That the Native Americans, 500+ Nations surviving here, in some cases for a millenium. yet they are perpetuated as under developed savages in most history texts. Creation Theory, even if you subscribe to the idea of the big bang, its is possible that the intelligence of a microbe may contribute to the idea of intelligent design. However low that intellegence is, it could be the basic intelligence of survival, but that is still intelligence.
I offer this as food for thought, and in the interest of the Rosicrucian mandate to seek to know all, while knowing I never will. And also as an oppossing veiw, hopefully to every side of the coin, not just the two sides we take a look at to make sure it is currency.

Forgive my poetic/philosophical rambling.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Imago
I thought so.
08:02 AM on 04/01/2011
Fanned and faved, GEH. Dead on.
11:52 AM on 03/30/2011
Riiiight, because the general public opinion of the USSR 50 years ago had nothing to do with the demonization of the USSR on public television and radio 50 years ago...

And while Americans were nodding there heads to the increased nuclear arsenal, the USSR was spreading propaganda among it's citizens about the type of people that would build such an arsenal - http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2006/09/20/soviet-propaganda-against-usa-posters

At least today, thanks to the internet and services such as Google Translate, citizens of countries in conflict (either hot or cold war) can increasingly talk directly to each other. Go ahead, try it. You can chat with some people in Afghanistan right now. And that ability will just improve as access to electricity and technology improves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brandon Baier
Independent and stuck in the middle.
01:17 PM on 03/30/2011
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemoller, holocuast survivor.

Just to raise a point about the propagana you are referencing, FnF.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IndyFem
11:49 AM on 03/30/2011
I arrived at HP about 8 months ago....As an Independent, I truley wanted to see both sides because I was not SOLD completely on either one of them. After posting with others...I have changed many of my pre-conceived ideas and have held on to others that I continue to feel strongly about. I have learned a lot from others and have shared my specific reasoning despite the fact that it is not always "popular." I find it annoying when I am called names or ridiculed for what I say from my heart and my own perspective. Sometimes it seems as though many people do not even want to consider a point of view that differs from their own.
handypom
yes, i know my micro is empty.
01:33 PM on 03/30/2011
IndyFem, if you changed the time you arrived at HP, your comment could have been mine. I've been here approximately 18 months and as a moderate\independent, my views are to the right of the vast majority of posters on this site.. But I too came here to see the liberal side of issues and compare them to mine. I enjoy the friendly back and forth with those that disagree with me but its not personal. We may disagree on issues but that doesn't mean we can't have a meaningful (and maybe enjoyable) discussion. It seems that some people here only tolerate the views that they disagree with.
handypom
yes, i know my micro is empty.
01:34 PM on 03/30/2011
oops, meant to say tolerate only the views they "agree" with. sorry.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
G E H
11:48 AM on 03/30/2011
"...more than half of U.S. Internet users are wary of the web’s influence and view the Internet as a catalyst for political extremism."

Unlike cable news, eh?
REDSTATEREFUGEE
Texan by birth ; Californian by choice
11:43 AM on 03/30/2011
I am afraid that the lead article is an example of "blaming the messenger." There are at least three identifiable political persuasions in the U.S. today.

===the right ( GOP, Tea Partiers, assorted right wing fanatics )
===the left ( Democrats, liberals, progressives, and a few true radicals )
===the middle ( uncommitted centrists who carefully weigh arguments based upon perceived merit ) and ( those who simply do not understand the dynamics of our current political environment and whose choices vacillate like the views of an ancient Greek chorus, based upon popular media influences )

All the various media have done is expose the views of these three groups, members of which gravitate to whichever site comforts their perspectives. So long as a web site does not censor based upon political point of view, let the games continue. Progressives, like myself, will never buy the neo-conservative line and vice versa. The real battleground, IMHO, involves capturing the temporary loyalty and vote of centrists. This is what Obama recognizes and why he is positioned almost dead center....
01:20 PM on 03/30/2011
The problem with this is that you get a raft of policies (or election promises) that are targeted on a narrow margin of voters or radical (and radical is not always bad btw) on one side or the other to turn out jaded base apathetic abstainers.
It also produces far too many emotive voting social issues that sway single issue voters who will turn out in numbers to (say) oppose gay marriage and never mind the body of policy that is carried along in the wake.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Timma
...paulatim crescam...
11:41 AM on 03/30/2011
One of the greatest aspects of the internet is also one of its worst - you can't hide very easily. All the internet does is to make it more possible to express what you already believe or want to believe. Just because it influences people's opinions isn't reason to fault it. The politicians who succeed with social media will be those who are forthright honest and open about what they believe.