Putnam warned over a decade ago that the urge to associate with similar others online may lead to “cyberbalkanization,” fostering bonding capital at the expense of bridging capital. This study examines balkanization with respect to political blogs, investigating to what extent opinions in posts and comment sections on blogs associated with the left and right are ideologically polarized. We also investigate whether extreme opinions tend to co-occur with uncivil discourse aimed at political opponents. Finally, this study compares political blogs with a newer information source that bridges the gap between old and new media—newspaper blogs—asking whether polarization and incivility are reduced on that platform. A content analysis was conducted of blog discussions about a salient political event—Occupy Wall Street. In both posts and comments, political blogs were highly polarized and opinion extremity and incivility were correlated. However, content on newspaper blogs was largely unpolarized and civil.
AdamicL.GlanceN. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery, 36-43.
2.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.LadwigP. (2013). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373-387.
3.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
BanerjeeM.CapozzoliM.McSweeneyL.SinhaD. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27, 3-23.
6.
BaumM. A.GroelingT. (2008). New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25, 345-365.
7.
BoykoffJ.LascheverE. (2011). The tea party movement, framing, and the US media. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 10, 341-366.
8.
DavisR. (2009). Typing politics: The role of blogs in American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57-79.
10.
FiorinaM.AbramsS. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563-588.
11.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676-699.
12.
GaskinsB.JeritJ. (2012). Internet news: Is it a replacement for traditional media outlets?The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17, 190-213.
13.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
GervaisB. T. (2013, August29-September 1). Incivility in online political discourse and anti-deliberative attitudes: An experimental analysis. Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
15.
GilbertE.BergstromT.KarahaliosK. (2009, January5-8). Blogs are echo chambers: Blogs are echo chambers. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, Big Island, HI.
16.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (2012). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
HargittaiE.GalloJ.KaneM. (2008). Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice, 134, 67-86.
18.
HaslamS. A.EllemersN.ReichersS. D.ReynoldsK. J.SchmittM. T. (2010). The social identity perspective today: An overview of its defining ideas. In PostmesT.BranscombeN. R. (Eds.), Rediscovering social identity: Key readings in social identity (pp. 341-356). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
19.
HerbstS. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
20.
HindmanM. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
IyengarS. (2011). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York, NY: Norton.
22.
IyengarS.HahnK.S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39.
23.
JamiesonK.H.CappellaJ.N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
KellyJ.FisherD.SmithM. (2005, May24). Debate, division, and diversity: Political discourse networks in USENET newsgroups. Paper prepared for the Stanford University Online Deliberation Conference, Palo Alto, CA.
25.
LaddJ. (2012). Why Americans hate the media and how it matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
LawrenceE.SidesJ.FarrellH. (2010). Self-segregation or deliberation: Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 8, 141-157.
27.
LevenduskyM. S. (2013). How partisan media polarizes America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
MaiselL. S. (2012). The negative consequences of uncivil political discourse. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45, 405-411.
30.
MansbridgeJ. (1980). Beyond adversary democracy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
31.
MutzD. C. (2007). “In-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101, 621-635.
32.
MutzD. C.MartinP. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 97-114.
33.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15.
34.
NeuendorfK.A.2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
NorrisP. (2002). The bridging and bonding roles of online communities. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 3-13.
36.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283.
37.
PerlmutterD. D. (2008). Blog wars. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
PutnamR. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28, 664-683.
40.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
41.
ReichZ. (2011). User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In SingerJ. B.HermidaA.DomingoD.HeinonenA.PaulussenS.QuandtT.. . . VujnovicM. (Eds.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 96-117). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
42.
RobinsonS. (2006). The mission of the J-blog: Recapturing journalistic authority online. Journalism, 7, 65-83.
43.
SingerJ. B. (2005). The political J-blogger: “Normalizing” a new media form to fit old norms and practices. Journalism, 6, 173-198.
44.
SingerJ. B.HermidaA.DomingoD.HeinonenA.PaulussenS.QuandtT.. . . VujnovicM. (Eds.). (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
45.
SmithA.SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS.BradyH. (2009). The Internet and civic engagement. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
46.
SobierajS.BerryJ. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28, 19-41.
47.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48.
SunsteinC. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
51.
WeaverD. A.ScaccoJ. M. (2013). Revisiting the protest paradigm: The tea party as filtered through prime-time cable news. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18, 61-84.
