Intra-party factionalism and media fragmentation have emerged as two major trends in U.S. politics, especially on the right. We explore potential connections between these developments by analyzing the engagement of Republican members of the US House of Representatives with far-right alternative news media during the 116th Congress. We develop three discrete measures to scale representatives’ engagement using hyperlinks to news media on Twitter, demonstrating their validity against existing positional data: roll-call voting, ideological caucus membership, and political rhetoric. We then apply our scales empirically, showing that representatives with further-right media engagement became increasingly radical in their online communication during the Trump presidency. Representatives with more moderate media engagement did not radicalize in this way. These results suggest a dynamic relationship that reflects the ‘dual function’ of elite-media relations, where partisan elites serve as receivers of information and transmitters of intra-party signals in a fragmented media environment.
AgarwalSDBarthelMLRostC, et al. (2014) Grassroots organizing in the digital age: considering values and technology in tea party and occupy wall street. Information, Communication & Society17(3): 326–341.
AutorDDornDHansonG, et al. (2020) Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure. American Economic Review110(10): 3139–3183.
4.
BarberáP (2015) Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis23(1): 76–91.
5.
BaumM.PotterPBK (2019) Media, public opinion, and foreign policy in the age of social media. The Journal of Politics81(2): 747–756.
6.
BawnKCohenMKarolD, et al. (2012) A theory of political parties: groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics10(3): 571–597.
7.
BendixWMackayJ (2017) Partisan infighting among house republicans: leaders, factions, and networks of interests. Legislative Studies Quarterly42(4): 549–577.
BenklerY (2020) A political economy of the origins of asymmetric propaganda in American media. In: BennettW.L.LivingstonS. (eds), The Disinformation Age. Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–66.
10.
BenklerYFarisRRobertsH (2018) Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press.
11.
Bloch RubinR (2017) Building the Bloc: Intraparty Organization in the U.S. Congress. Cambridge; NY; Port Melbourne; Delhi; Singapore: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BlumRM (2020) How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
BlumlerJG (2016) The fourth age of political communication. Politiques de communicationN° 6(1): 19–30.
14.
BoireauM (2014) Determining political stances from Twitter timelines: the Belgian parliament case. In: Challenges in Eurasia. 2014 Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society. New York: Association for Computing Machinery (EGOSE ’14), pp. 145–151.
15.
BondRMessingS (2015) Quantifying social media's political space: estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on Facebook. American Political Science Review109(1): 62–78.
16.
BonicaA (2014) Mapping the ideological marketplace. African Journal of Paediatric Surgery: AJPS58(2): 367–386.
17.
BoutetAKimHYonekiE (2013) What's in Twitter, I know what parties are popular and who you are supporting now!Social Network Analysis and Mining3(4): 1379–1391.
18.
CerroneJ (2021) Discursive dominance by tweet: how the GOP became the party of Trump. In: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Seattle, WA: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
19.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford University Press. (Oxford Studies in Digital Politics).
20.
ClarkeAJ (2020) Party sub‐brands and American party factions. African Journal of Paediatric Surgery: AJPS64(3): 452–470.
21.
Cook Political Report (2017) Cook PVI, the cook political report. Available at: https://www.cookpolitical.com/pvi-0 (Accessed 1 January 2019).
22.
CowburnMOswaldMT (2021) Legislator adoption of the fake news label: ideological differences in Republican representative use on Twitter. The Forum18(3): 389–413.
23.
DiSalvoD (2012) Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868 - 2010. New York: Oxford University Press.
FarisRM, et al. (2017) Partisanship, Propaganda, & Disinformation: Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.
28.
FennoRF (1978) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Longman.
29.
GelmanA (2007) Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: what's the matter with Connecticut?Quarterly Journal of Political Science2: 345–367.
30.
GervaisBTMorrisIL (2018) Reactionary Republicanism: How the Tea Party in the House Paved the Way for Trump’s Victory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
GrossmannMHopkinsDA (2016) Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford University Press.
32.
HeftA.MayerhöfferEReinhardtS, et al. (2020) Beyond Breitbart: comparing right‐wing digital news infrastructures in six western democracies. Policy & Internet12(1): 20–45.
33.
HeftA.KnüpferCReinhardtS, et al (2021) Toward a transnational information ecology on the right? Hyperlink networking among right-wing digital news sites in Europe and the United States. The International Journal of Press/Politics26(2): 484–504.
34.
HeumanANGonzálezA (2018) Trump’s essentialist border rhetoric: racial identities and dangerous liminalities. Journal of Interferon & Cytokine Research: the Official Journal of the International Society for Interferon and Cytokine Research47(4): 326–342.
35.
HopkinsDJ (2018) The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
36.
HopkinsDJNoelH (2021) ‘Trump and the Shifting Meaning of “Conservative”: Using Activists’ Pairwise Comparisons to Measure Politicians’ Perceived Ideologies’. American Political Science Review, pp. 1–8.
JungherrA (2016) Analyzing Political Communication With Digital Trace Data: The Role of Twitter Messages in Social Science Research. Softcover Reprint of the Original. 1st ed. 2015 edition. Springer.
KellyCR (2020) Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment. Quarterly Journal of Speech106(1): 2–24.
44.
KnüpferCB (2018) Diverging projections of reality. Journalism Studies19(4): 594–611.
45.
KogerGMasketSNoelH (2009) Partisan webs: information exchange and party networks. The British Journal of Psychiatry. Supplement39(3): 633–653.
46.
KolodnyRDwyreD (2018) Convergence or divergence? Do parties and outside groups spend on the same candidates, and does it matter?American Politics Research46(3): 375–401.
47.
KrämerB (2017) Populist online practices: the function of the internet in right-wing populism. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1293–1309.
48.
LeeFE (2018) The 115th congress and questions of party unity in a Polarized Era. The Journal of Politics80(4): 1464–1473.
49.
MasonL (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
50.
MayerhöfferEHeftA (2021) Between journalistic and movement logic: disentangling referencing practices of right-wing alternative media. Digital Journalism: 23.
51.
MayhewDR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. London: Yale University Press.
52.
McIntoshJMendoza-DentonN (eds), (2020) Language in the Trump Era: Scandals and Emergencies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
MorrisDSMorrisJSFranciaPL (2020) A fake news inoculation? Fact checkers, partisan identification, and the power of misinformation. Politics, Groups, and Identities8(5): 986–1005.
54.
NoelH (2013) Political Ideologies and Political Parties. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55.
NoelH (2016) Ideological factions in the republican and democratic parties. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science667(1): 166–188.
56.
NokkenTPPooleKT (2004) Congressional party defection in American history. Legislative Studies Quarterly29(4): 545–568.
57.
OsmundsenM, et al. (2021) Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter. American Political Science Review, pp. 1–17.
58.
PriorM (2007) Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press.
59.
RathjeSVan BavelJJvan der LindenS (2021) Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(26). Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024292118 (Accessed 25 March 2022).
RussellA (2018) U.S. senators on Twitter: asymmetric party rhetoric in 140 characters. Archives of Pharmacal Research46(4): 695–723.
62.
RussellAWenJ (2021) From rhetoric to record: linking tweets to legislative agendas in congress. Journal of Lesbian Studies27(4): 608–620.
63.
SältzerM (2020) Finding the Bird’s Wings: Dimensions of Factional Conflict on Twitter. Party Politics.
64.
SchneiderUEitelmannM (2020) Linguistic Inquiries into Donald Trump’s Language: From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Tremendous Success’. Bloomsbury Academic.
65.
SkocpolT (2020) The elite and popular roots of contemporary republican extremism. In: SkocpolT.TervoC. (eds), Upending American Politics: Polarizing Parties, Ideological Elites, and Citizen Activists from the Tea Party to the Anti-Trump Resistance. Oxford University Press, pp. 3–28.
66.
StarbirdKArifAWilsonT, et al. (2018) Ecosystem or echo-system? Exploring content sharing across alternative media domains. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media12(1): 10.
67.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576.
68.
StuckeyME (2021) The rhetoric of the Trump administration. Presidential Studies Quarterly51(1): 125–150.
69.
SylwesterKPurverM (2015) Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans. Plos One10(9): e0137422.
70.
TollefsonJ (2021) Tracking QAnon: How Trump Turned Conspiracy-Theory Research Upside Down. Nature [Preprint].
71.
U.S. Census Bureau (2021) American Community Survey (ACS), the United States Census Bureau. Available at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs (Accessed 21 June 2021).
72.
Van AelstPStrömbäckJAalbergT, et al. (2017) Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association41(1): 3–27.
73.
Van AelstPWalgraveS (2016) Information and Arena: the dual function of the news media for political elites. Journal of Communication66(3): 496–518.
74.
van der LindenSPanagopoulosCRoozenbeekJ (2020) You are fake news: political bias in perceptions of fake news. Media, Culture & Society42: 460–470.Medicine, Conflict, and Survival3.
YangYBennettL (2021) Interactive propaganda: how fox news and Donald Trump co-produced false narratives about the COVID-19 crisis. In: Political Communication in the Time of Coronavirus. Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
