Digital news outlets rely on a variety of outside contributors, from freelance journalists, to political commentators, to executives and politicians. These external dependencies create a network among news outlets, traced along the contributors they share. Using connections between outlets, we demonstrate how contributors’ publishing trajectories tend to align with outlet political leanings. We also show how polarized clustering of outlets translates to differences in the topics of news covered and the style and tone of articles published. In addition, we demonstrate how contributors who cross partisan divides tend to focus on less explicitly political topics. This work addresses an important gap in the media polarization literature, by highlighting how structural factors on the production side of news media create an ecosystem shaped by political leanings, independent of the priorities of any one person or organization.
AdamicLGlanceN (2005) The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog. LinkKDD ’05, pp. 36–43.
2.
AndersonSPMcLarenJ (2012) Media mergers and media bias with rational consumers. Journal of the European Economic Association10(4): 831–859.
3.
BailCAArgyleLPBrownTW, et al. (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(37): 9216–9221.
4.
BailCABrownTWMannM (2017) Channeling hearts and minds: advocacy organizations, cognitive-emotional currents, and public conversation. American Sociological Review82(6): 1188–1213.
5.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
6.
BarnhurstKGMutzD (1997) American journalism and the decline in event-centered reporting. Journal of Communication47(4): 27–53.
7.
BeckerLBVladT (2009) News organizations and routines. In: Wahl-JorgensenKHanitzschT (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 59–72.
8.
BenklerYFarisRRobertsH (2018) Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
BergerJMilkmanKL (2012) What makes online content viral?Journal of Marketing Research49(2): 192–205.
10.
BernhardtDKrasaSPolbornM (2008) Political polarization and the electoral effects of media bias. Journal of Public Economics92(5–6): 1092–1104.
11.
BertonFDevicientiFPacelliL (2011) Are temporary jobs a port of entry into permanent employment? Evidence from matched employer-employee. International Journal of Manpower32(8): 879–899.
BlexCYasseriT (2020) Positive algorithmic bias cannot stop fragmentation in homophilic networks. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology. Epub ahead of print 28 June. DOI: 10.1080/0022250X.2020.1818078.
14.
BoczkowskiPJde SantosM (2007) When more media equals less news: patterns of content homogenization in Argentina’s leading print and online newspapers. Political Communication24(2): 167–180.
15.
BolsenTShapiroMA (2018) The US news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication. Environmental Communication12(2): 149–163.
16.
BrunsA (2019) Are Filter Bubbles Real?Cambridge; Medford, MA: Polity Press.
17.
BurtR (1992) Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
ChiricosTEschholzSGertzM (1997) Crime, news and fear of crime: toward an identification of audience effects. Social Problems44(3): 342–357.
19.
ChristinAPetreC (2020) Making peace with metrics: relational work in online news production. Sociologica14: 133–156.
20.
CobbGWChenY-P (2003) An application of Markov Chain Monte Carlo to community ecology. The American Mathematical Monthly110(4): 265–288.
21.
CohenNSHunterAO’DonnellP (2019) Bearing the burden of corporate restructuring: job loss and precarious employment in Canadian journalism. Journalism Practice13(7): 817–833.
22.
ColemanJ (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology94: S95–S120.
23.
CouldryNCurranJ (eds) (2003) Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World (Critical Media Studies). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
24.
Dvir-GvirsmanS (2017) Media audience homophily: partisan websites, audience identity and polarization processes. New Media & Society19(7): 1072–1091.
25.
FlaxmanSGoelSRaoJM (2016) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly80(S1): 298–320.
26.
GionisAMannilaHMielikäinenT, et al. (2007) Assessing data mining results via swap randomization. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data1(3): 14.
27.
GollmitzerM (2014) Precariously employed watchdogs? Perceptions of working conditions among freelancers and interns. Journalism Practice8(6): 826–841.
28.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
29.
GuessACoppockA (2020) Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science50(4): 1497–1515.
30.
HarderRASevenansJVan AelstP (2017) Intermedia agenda setting in the social media age: how traditional players dominate the news agenda in election times. The International Journal of Press/Politics22(3): 275–293.
31.
HayesKSilkeH (2018) The networked freelancer? Digital labour and freelance journalism in the age of social media. Digital Journalism6(8): 1018–1028.
32.
HeatherlyKALuYLeeJK (2017) Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. New Media & Society19(8): 1271–1289.
33.
HelbergerN (2019) On the democratic role of news recommenders. Digital Journalism7(8): 993–1012.
34.
HindmanM (2018) The Internet Trap: How the Digital Economy Builds Monopolies and Undermines Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
HopkinsDJKingG (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 229–247.
HuttoCJGilbertE (2014) Vader: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In: Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Available at: http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/icwsm14.vader.hutto.pdf
38.
KaiserJRauchfleischABourassaN (2019) Connecting the (far-)right dots: a topic modeling and hyperlink analysis of (far-)right media coverage during the US elections 2016. Digital Journalism8(3): 422–441.
39.
Knobloch-WesterwickSMengJ (2009) Looking the other way: selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research36(3): 426–448.
40.
LeungMD (2014) Dilettante or renaissance person? How the order of job experiences affects hiring in an external labor market. American Sociological Review79(1): 136–158.
41.
LowreyW (2006) Mapping the journalism–blogging relationship. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism7(4): 477–500.
42.
McCallumAK (2002) Mallet: a machine learning for language toolkit. Technical report, UMass. Available at: http://mallet.cs.umass.edu
43.
McChesneyRW (2003) The Problem of Journalism: a political economic contribution to an explanation of the crisis in contemporary US journalism. Journalism Studies4(3): 299–329.
44.
McChesneyRW (2012) FAREWELL TO JOURNALISM? Time for a rethinking. Journalism Studies13(5–6): 682–694.
45.
McCombsMEWinterJP (1981) Defining local news. Newspaper Research Journal3(1): 16–21.
46.
MacyMDeriSRuchA, et al. (2019) Opinion cascades and the unpredictability of partisan polarization. Science Advances5(8): eaax0754.
47.
MaierDWaldherrAMiltnerP, et al. (2018) Applying lda topic modeling in communication research: toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures12(2–3): 93–118.
48.
MaierS (2010) All the news fit to post? Comparing news content on the web to newspapers, television, and radio. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly87(3–4): 548–562.
49.
MitchelsteinEBoczkowskiPJ (2009) Between tradition and change: a review of recent research on online news production. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism10(5): 562–586.
50.
MohrJWBogdanovP (2013) Introduction—topic models: what they are and why they matter. Poetics41(6): 545–569.
51.
MontgomeryJMNyhanB (2017) The effects of congressional staff networks in the US house of representatives. The Journal of Politics79(3): 745–761.
52.
MullainathanSShleiferA (2005) The market for news. American Economic Review95(4): 1031–1053.
53.
MungerK (2020) All the news that’s fit to click: the economics of clickbait media. Political Communication37(3): 376–397.
54.
NewmanMEJ (2001) Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E64(1): 016131.
55.
NewmanMEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103(23): 8577–8582.
56.
NewmanMEJ (2010) Networks: an Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
RaoARJanaRBandyopadhyayS (1996) A Markov Chain Monte Carlo method for generating random (0, 1)-matrices with given marginals. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A58(2): 225–242.
58.
ŘehůřekRSojkaP (2010) Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. In: Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks. Valletta: ELRA, pp. 45–50. Available at: http://is.muni.cz/publication/884893/en
59.
ResnickPGarrettRKKripleanT, et al. (2013) Bursting your (filter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion—CSCW ’13. ACM Press, p. 95. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2441955.2441981
60.
RibeiroMHOttoniRWestR, et al. (2020) Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Barcelona: ACM Press, pp. 131–141. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.08313
61.
RosenkranzT (2018) From contract to speculation: new relations of work and production in freelance travel journalism. Work, Employment and Society33(4): 613–630.
62.
RyanM (2001) Journalistic ethics, objectivity, existential journalism, standpoint epistemology, and public journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics16(1): 3–22.
63.
SalamonE (2020) Digitizing freelance media labor: a class of workers negotiates entrepreneurialism and activism. New Media & Society22(1): 105–122.
64.
SchifferAJ (2006) Assessing Partisan bias in political news: the case(s) of local senate election coverage. Political Communication23(1): 23–39.
65.
SchlauchWEHorvátEAZweigKA (2015) Different flavors of randomness: comparing random graph models with fixed degree sequences. Social Network Analysis and Mining5: 36.
66.
SchudsonM (2001) The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism2(2): 149–170.
67.
SchudsonMAndersonC (2009) Objectivity, professionalism, and truth seeking in journalism. In: Wahl-JorgensenKHanzitschT (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 88–101.
68.
ShiFShiYDokshinFA, et al. (2017) Millions of online book co-purchases reveal partisan differences in the consumption of science. Nature Human Behaviour1(4): 0079.
69.
SingerJB (1997) Still guarding the gate? The newspaper journalist’s role in an online world. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies3(1): 72–89.
70.
SingerJB (2005) The political j-blogger: “Normalizing” a new media form to fit old norms and practices. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism6(2): 173–198.
71.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576.
72.
SylwesterKPurverM (2015) Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans. PLoS ONE10(9): e0137422.
73.
TanejaHWuAX (2018) Pathways to fragmentation: user flows and web distribution infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science (WebSci’18). Amsterdam: ACM Press, pp. 255–259. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.02331
74.
TausczikYRPennebakerJW (2010) The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology29(1): 24–54.
75.
TewksburyDRilesJM (2015) Polarization as a function of citizen predispositions and exposure to news on the Internet. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media59(3): 381–398.
TsfatiYStroudNJChotinerA (2014) Exposure to ideological news and perceived opinion climate: testing the media effects component of spiral-of-silence in a fragmented media landscape. The International Journal of Press/politics19(1): 3–23.
78.
TumminelloMMiccichèSLilloF, et al. (2011) Statistically validated networks in bipartite complex systems. PLoS ONE6(3): e17994.
79.
VedresBStarkD (2010) Structural folds: generative disruption in overlapping groups. American Journal of Sociology115(4): 1150–1190.
80.
WebsterJG (2016) The marketplace of attention. In: WebsterJG (ed.) The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press, pp. 1–22.
81.
WihbeyJJosephKLazerD (2019) The social silos of journalism? Twitter, news media and partisan segregation. New Media & Society21(4): 815–835.
82.
XuWWSangYKimC (2020) What drives hyper-partisan news sharing: exploring the role of source, style, and content. Digital Journalism8(4): 486–505.
83.
ZweigKAKaufmannM (2011) A systematic approach to the one-mode projection of bipartite graphs. Social Network Analysis and Mining1(3): 187–218.
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.
