Drawing on theories of identity politics and partisan polarization, we explored the politicization of Google Play’s news app reviews—an explicitly non-political domain. Using a mixed-methods approach, Analysis of Topic Model Networks (ANTMNs), combining topic modeling, network analysis, community detection, and theory-driven qualitative reading, we analyzed 759,143 reviews from 2009 to 2022 across 46 news apps. Three themes emerged: Technical, Content Quality, and Political. The political discourse in reviews has intensified over the years, with notable spikes around election periods. Accusations of bias were found to correlate most strongly with lower app ratings. The findings provide alarming empirical evidence for the politicization of non-political spaces, such as the app reviews section on app stores. With identity politics on the rise, this study sheds light on the importance of considering non-political online spaces for the study of political discourse.
BailC (2022) Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
BakardjievaM (2015) Do clouds have politics? Collective actors in social media land. Information, Communication & Society18(8): 983–990.
3.
BedingfieldS (2018) “Who is Nicholas Stanford”: the New York Times music critic and his secret role in the rise of the “liberal media” claim. American Journalism35(4): 398–419.
4.
BenklerYFarisRRobertsH (2018) Networked Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BroersmaM (2019) Audience engagement. In: VosTPHanuschFDimitrakopoulouD, et al. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 1–6.
7.
CarlsonMRobinsonSLewisSC (2021) News After Trump: Journalism’s Crisis of Relevance in a Changed Media Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
ChenAMcCabeKT (2022) Roses and thorns: political talk in reality TV subreddits. New Media & Society.
9.
ChenC-W (2017) Five-star or thumbs-up? The influence of rating system types on users’ perceptions of information quality, cognitive effort, enjoyment and continuance intention. Internet Research27(3): 478–494.
10.
EggersACGarroHGrimmerJ (2021) No evidence for systematic voter fraud: a guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(45): e2103619118.
11.
FinkelEJBailCACikaraM, et al. (2020) Political sectarianism in America. Science370(6516): 533–536.
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.
17.
HassellHJGHolbeinJBMilesMR (2020) There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover. Science Advances6(14): eaay9344.
18.
HuberGAMalhotraN (2017) Political homophily in social relationships: evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics79(1): 269–283.
19.
IyengarSWestwoodSJ (2015) Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 690–707.
20.
IyengarSLelkesYLevenduskyM, et al. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22(1): 129–146.
21.
JamiesonKHCappellaJN (2008) Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KimJMJunMKimCK (2018) The effects of culture on consumers’ consumption and generation of online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing43: 134–150.
24.
KlarSKrupnikovY (2016) Independent Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Kor-SinsR (2023) The alt-right digital migration: a heterogeneous engineering approach to social media platform branding. New Media & Society25: 2321–2338.
26.
KrupnikovYRyanJB (2022) The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
LaddJM (2011) Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
LeeE-JTandocEC (2017) When news meets the audience: how audience feedback online affects news production and consumption: when news meets the audience. Human Communication Research43(4): 436–449.
LevenduskyMMalhotraN (2016) Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?Political Communication33(2): 283–301.
32.
LevenduskyMPasekJHolbertRL, et al. (2023) Democracy Amid Crises: Polarization, Pandemic, Protests, and Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
MargolinDMarkowitzDM (2018) A multitheoretical approach to big text data: comparing expressive and rhetorical logics in yelp reviews. Communication Research45(5): 688–718.
34.
MasonL (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
MatsumuraAGargRHussainM, et al. (2024) Political orientation of online media sources and reporting of Covid-19 vaccine myocarditis. PLoS ONE19(1): e0296295.
37.
McCombsMEShawDL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36(2): 176–187.
38.
McIlroySAliNHassanAE (2016) Fresh apps: an empirical study of frequently-updated mobile apps in the Google play store. Empirical Software Engineering21(3): 1346–1370.
39.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements Trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
40.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics59: 210–220.
MouffeC (2005) On the Political. London: Psychology Press.
43.
MunsonSResnickP (2011) The prevalence of political discourse in non-political blogs. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media5(1): 1.
44.
MutzDC (2001) The future of political communication research: reflections on the occasion of Steve Chaffee’s retirement from Stanford University. Political Communication18(2): 231–236.
45.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
NapoliL (2020) Up All Night: Ted Turner, CNN, and the Birth of 24-Hour News. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
47.
NeubaumGKrämerNC (2017) Opinion climates in social media: blending mass and interpersonal communication: opinion climates in social media. Human Communication Research43(4): 464–476.
48.
OphirYPrudenMLWalterD, et al. (2023) Weaponizing reproductive rights: a mixed-method analysis of white nationalists’ discussion of abortions online. Information, Communication & Society26(11): 2186–2211.
49.
PeckR (2019) Fox Populism: Branding Conservatism as Working Class. Cambridge University Press.
50.
PetersonEGoelSIyengarS (2021) Partisan selective exposure in online news consumption: evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign. Political Science Research and Methods9(2): 242–258.
51.
RadwellSIsraelJ (2021) American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation. Austin, TX: Greenleaf Book Group.
52.
RajadesinganABudakCResnickP (2021) Political discussion is abundant in non-political subreddits (and less toxic). Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media15: 525–536.
53.
ReidSA (2012) A self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication62(3): 381–399.
54.
RhodesSC (2022) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news: how social media conditions individuals to be less critical of political misinformation. Political Communication39(1): 1–22.
55.
RiedlMJLukitoJWoolleySC (2023) Political influencers on social media: an introduction. Social Media + Society9(2): 20563051231177938.
56.
RojasH (2010) “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: how perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research22(3): 343–363.
57.
RozadoDHughesRHalberstadtJ (2022) Longitudinal analysis of sentiment and emotion in news media headlines using automated labelling with transformer language models. PLoS ONE17(10): e0276367.
58.
SadiqSUmerMUllahS, et al. (2021) Discrepancy detection between actual user reviews and numeric ratings of Google App store using deep learning. Expert Systems with Applications181: 115111.
SerranoMÁBoguñáMVespignaniA (2009) Extracting the multiscale backbone of complex weighted networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106(16): 6483–6488.
61.
ShinJYangALiuW, et al. (2022) Mask-wearing as a partisan issue: social identity and communication of party norms on social media among political elites. Social Media + Society8(1): 20563051221086233.
62.
SpindeTRudnitckaiaLMitrovićJ, et al. (2021) Automated identification of bias inducing words in news articles using linguistic and context-oriented features. Information Processing & Management58(3): 102505.
63.
StroudNJ (2008) Media use and political predispositions: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior30(3): 341–366.
64.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576.
65.
SukJZhangYYueZ, et al. (2023) When the personal becomes political: unpacking the dynamics of sexual violence and gender justice discourses across four social media platforms. Communication Research50(5): 610–632.
66.
SunsteinCR (2018) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
TsfatiYCappellaJN (2003) Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research30(5): 504–529.
68.
TurnerJC (2010) Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group behavior. In: PostmesTBranscombeNR (eds) Rediscovering social identity. London: Psychology Press, pp. 243–272.
69.
ValloneRPRossLLepperMR (1985) The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology49(3): 577.
70.
Van BovenLEhretPJShermanDK (2018) Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science13(4): 492–507.
71.
Van DuynECollierJ (2019) Priming and fake news: the effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Communication and Society22(1): 29–48.
72.
WalterDOphirY (2019) News frame analysis: an inductive mixed-method computational approach. Communication Methods and Measures13(4): 248–266.
73.
WalterDOphirYJamiesonKH (2020) Russian Twitter accounts and the partisan polarization of vaccine discourse, 2015–2017. American Journal of Public Health110(5): 718–724.
74.
WalterDOphirYLokmanogluAD, et al. (2022) Vaccine discourse in white nationalist online communication: a mixed-methods computational approach. Social Science & Medicine298: 114859.
75.
WattsMDDomkeDShahDV, et al. (1999) Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research26(2): 144–175.
76.
WellsCShahDLukitoJ, et al. (2020) Trump, Twitter, and news media responsiveness: a media systems approach. New Media & Society22(4): 659–682.
77.
WinterSBrücknerCKrämerNC (2015) They came, they liked, they commented: social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18(8): 431–436.
78.
WojcieszakMEMutzDC (2009) Online groups and political discourse: do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication59(1): 40–56.
79.
YanWSivakumarGXenosMA (2018) It’s not cricket: examining political discussion in nonpolitical online space. Information, Communication & Society21(11): 1571–1587.
80.
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.
