This study investigates the potential role both untrustworthy and partisan websites play in misinforming audiences by testing whether actual exposure to these sites is associated with political misperceptions. Using a sample of American adult social media users, we match data from individuals’ Internet browser histories with a survey measuring the accuracy of political beliefs. We find that visits to partisan websites are at times related to misperceptions consistent with the political bias of the site. However, we do not find strong evidence that untrustworthy websites consistently relate to false beliefs. There is also little evidence that visits to less partisan, centrist news sites are associated with more accurate political beliefs about these issues, suggesting that exposure to politically neutral news is not necessarily the antidote to misinformation. Results suggest that focusing on partisan news sites—rather than untrustworthy sites—may be fruitful to understanding how media contribute to political misperceptions.
AllcottHGentzkowMYuC (2019) Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research and Politics6: 1–8.
2.
AllenJHowlandBMobiusM, et al (2020) Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances6: eaay3539.
3.
AltaySHacquinAMercierH (2020) Why do so few people share fake news? It hurts their reputation. new media & society. Epub ahead of print 24 November. DOI: 10.1177/1461444820969893.
4.
ArceneauxKJohnsonM (2013) Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BarberáP (2015) Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis23(1): 76–91.
6.
BaumMAGroelingT (2008) New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication25: 345–365.
7.
BennettWL (2016) News: The politics of illusion. 10th ed.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BennettWLLivingstonS (2018) The disinformation order: disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication33(2): 122–139.
BudakCGoelSRaoJM (2016) Fair and balanced? Quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analyses. Public Opinion Quarterly80: 25–271.
11.
DixonGNClarkeCE (2013) Heightening uncertainty around certain science: media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication35: 358–382.
12.
EadyGNaglerJTuckerJA (2019a) Political information sharing and ideological polarization. In: Presented at the midwest political science association meeting, Chicago, IL, 4–7 April.
13.
EadyGNaglerJGuessA, et al (2019b) How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data. New York: SAGE Open.
14.
FarisRMRobertsHEtlingB, et al (2017) Partisanship, propaganda, and disinformaton: online media and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Available at: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251
15.
FaulFErdfelderEBuchnerA, et al (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavioral Research Methods41: 1149–1160.
16.
FeldmanLMaibachEWRoser-RenoufC, et al (2012) Climate on cable: the nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics17: 3–31.
17.
FeldmanLMyersTAHmielowskiJD, et al (2014) The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming. Journal of Communication64: 590–611.
18.
FlynnDJNyhanBReiflerJ (2017) The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology38: 127–150.
19.
GarrettRK (2019) Social media’s contribution to political misperception in U.S. presidential elections. PLoS ONE14(3): e0213500.
20.
GarrettRKLongJAJeongMS (2019) New evidence on group polarization from partisan media to misperception: affective polarization as mediator. Journal of Communication69: 490–512.
21.
GarrettRKWeeksBENeoRL (2016) Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: how online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21: 331–348.
22.
GrinbergNJosephKFriedlandL, et al (2019) Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science363: 374–378.
23.
GuessAM (2021) (Almost) everything in moderation: new evidence of Americans’ online media diets. American Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print 19February. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12589.
GuessAMNaglerJTuckerJ (2019) Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances5(1): eaau4586.
26.
GuessAMNyhanBReiflerJ (2020b) Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behavior4: 472–480.
27.
HasellA (2020) Shared emotion: the social amplification of partisan news on Twitter. Digital Journalism. Epub ahead of print 2November. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1831937.
28.
HasellAWeeksBE (2016) Partisan provocation: the role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research42: 641–661.
29.
JamiesonKHCappellaJN (2008) Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
KimJWKimE (2019) Identifying the effect of political rumor diffusion using variations in survey timing. Quarterly Journal of Political Science14: 293–311.
MeirickPC (2013) Motivated misperception? Party, education, partisan news, and belief in “Death Panels.”Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly90: 39–57.
36.
Menchen-TrevinoE (2016) Web Historian: Enabling Multi-method and Independent Research with Real-world Web Browsing Data. Philadelphia, PA. Available at: https://doi.org/10.9776/16611
NelsonJLTanejaH (2018) The small, disloyal fake news audience: the role of audience availability in fake news consumption. new media & society20: 3720–3737.
39.
PasquettoISwire-ThompsonBAmazeenMA, et al (2020) Tackling misinformation: what researchers could do with social media data. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review1: 1–14.
PingreeRJBrossardDMcLeodDM (2014) Effects of journalistic adjudication on factual beliefs, news evaluations, information seeking, and epistemic political efficacy. Mass Communication and Society17: 615–638.
44.
PriorM (2013) Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science16: 101–127.
45.
StroudNJ (2011) Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
TappinBMPennycookGRandDG (2020) Bayesian or biased? Analytical thinking and political belief updating. Cognition204: 104375.
47.
VargoCJGuoLAmazeenMA (2018) The agenda-setting power of fake news: a big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. new media & society20: 2028–2049.
48.
VosoughiSRoyDAralS (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science359: 1146–1151.
49.
VragaEKBodeL (2020) Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication37: 136–144.
50.
WeeksBE (2015) Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: how anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication65: 699–719.
51.
YoungDG (2019) Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
