Polarization is a key area of interest for media and communication scholars. We develop a way of measuring how polarized news audience behaviour is at the national level. Then, we analyze survey data from twelve countries and find (1) that cross-platform (online and offline) news audience polarization is highest in the United States, and within Europe, higher in polarized pluralist/southern countries than in democratic corporatist countries. Furthermore, (2) in most countries, online news audience polarization is higher than offline, but in a small number it’s lower. Taken together, our findings highlight that, despite the well-documented fears associated with algorithmic selection, news audience polarization is not inevitable in environments that are increasingly characterized by digital news consumption, and that the historical, economic, and political factors emphasized by the comparative tradition remain critically important for our understanding of global trends.
AndersenKimde VreeseClaes H.AlbækErik. 2016. “Measuring Media Diet in a High-Choice Environment—Testing the List-Frequency Technique.” Communication Methods and Measures10 (2–3): 81–98.
2.
ArceneauxKevinJohnsonMartinCrydermanJohn. 2013. “Communication, Persuasion, and the Conditioning Value of Selective Exposure: Like Minds May Unite and Divide but They Mostly Tune Out.” Political Communication30 (2): 213–31.
3.
BakshyEytanMessingSolomonAdamicLada A. 2015. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook.” Science348:1130–32.
4.
BlumlerJay G.GurevitchMichael. 1995. The Crisis of Public Communication. London: Routledge.
5.
BorgesiusZuiderveenFrederick JTrillingDamianMöllerJudithBodóBalázsde VreeseClaes H.HelbergerNatali. 2016. “Should We Worry about Filter Bubbles?” Internet Policy Review5 (1): 1–16.
6.
BrüggemannMichaelEngesserSvenBüchelFlorinHumprechtEdda. 2014. “Hallin and Mancini Revisited: Four Empirical Types of Western Media Systems.” Journal of Communication64 (6): 1037–65.
7.
Castro-HerreroLaiaNirLilachSkovsgaardMorten. 2018. “Bridging Gaps in Cross-Cutting Media Exposure: The Role of Public Service Broadcasting.” Political Communication35 (4): 542–65.
8.
CaugheyDevinO’GradyTomWarshawChristopher. 2019. “Political Ideology in European Mass Publics, 1981-2016.” American Political Science Review113:674–93.
9.
DuboisElizabethBlankGrant. 2018. “The Echo Chamber Is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media.” Information, Communication & Society21 (5): 729–45.
10.
EsserFrankUmbrichtAndrea. 2013. “Competing Models of Journalism? Political Affairs Coverage in US, British, German, Swiss, French and Italian Newspapers.” Journalism14 (8): 989–1007.
11.
FlaxmanSethGoelSharadRaoJustin M. 2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly80:298–320.
12.
FletcherRichardNielsenRasmus Kleis. 2017. “Are News Audiences Increasingly Fragmented? A Cross-National Comparative Analysis of Cross-Platform News Audience Fragmentation and Duplication.” Journal of Communication67 (4): 476–98.
13.
FletcherRichardNielsenRasmus Kleis. 2018. “Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis.” New Media & Society20 (7): 2450–68.
14.
GarrettR. KellyGvirsmanShira DvirJohnsonBenjamin K.TsfatiYarivNeoRachelDalAysenur. 2014. “Implications of Pro- and Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization.” Human Communication Research40 (3): 309–32.
15.
GuessAndrew M.2015. “Measure for Measure: An Experimental Test of Online Political Media Exposure.” Political Analysis23 (1): 59–75.
16.
HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo. 2013. “‘Comparing Media Systems’ between Eastern and Western Europe.” In Media Transformations in the Post-Communist World: Eastern Europe’s Tortured Path to Change, ed GrossPeterJakubowiczKarol, 15–32. Lanham: Lexington Books.
18.
HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo. 2016. “Ten Years After Comparing Media Systems: What Have We Learned?” Political Communication34 (2): 155–71.
19.
HanitzschThomasvan DalenArjenSteindlNina. 2017. “Caught in the Nexus: A Comparative and Longitudinal Analysis of Public Trust in the Press.” International Journal of Press/Politics23 (1): 3–23.
20.
HetheringtonMarc J.2009. “Review Article: Putting Polarization in Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science39:413–48.
21.
IyengarShantoHahnKyu S. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication59 (1): 19–39.
22.
JohnsonTimothyKulesaPatrickChoYoung IkShavittSharon. 2005. “The Relation between Culture and Response Styles: Evidence from 19 Countries.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology36 (2): 264–77.
23.
KalogeropoulosAntonisFletcherRichardNielsenRasmus Kleis. 2019. “News Brand Attribution in Distributed Environments: Do People Know Where They Get Their News?” New Media & Society21 (3): 583–601.
24.
KobayashiTetsuroInamasuKazunori. 2015. “The Knowledge Leveling Effect of Portal Sites.” Communication Research42:482–502.
25.
LelkesYphtach. 2016. “Mass Polarization: Manifestations and Measurements.” Public Opinion Quarterly80:392–410.
26.
LevenduskyMatthew. 2013. How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
NechushtaiEfrat. 2018. “From Liberal to Polarized Liberal? Contemporary U.S. News in Hallin and Mancini’s Typology of News Systems.” International Journal of Press/Politics23 (2): 183–201.
28.
NelsonJacob L.WebsterJames G. 2017. “The Myth of Partisan Selective Exposure: A Portrait of the Online Political News Audience.” Social Media & Society3 (3): 1–13.
29.
NewmanNicFletcherRichardKalogeropoulosAntonisLevyDavid A. LNielsenRasmus Kleis. 2017. “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017.” Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
30.
NewmanNicFletcherRichardKalogeropoulosAntonisLevyDavid A. LNielsenRasmus Kleis. 2018. “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018.” Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
31.
PariserEli. 2011. Filter Bubbles: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. London: Penguin.
32.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2014. “Political Polarization in the American Public: How Increasing Ideological Uniformity and Partisan Antipathy Affect Politics, Compromise and Everyday Life.” Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
33.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2018. “In Western Europe, Public Attitudes toward News Media More Divided by Populist Views Than Left-Right Ideology.” Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
34.
PriorMarkus. 2005. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science49:577–92.
35.
PriorMarkus. 2009. “The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure.” Public Opinion Quarterly73:130–43.
36.
PriorMarkus. 2013. “Media and Political Polarization.” Annual Review of Political Science16:101–27.
37.
SkovsgaardMortenShehataAdamStrömbäckJesper. 2016. “Opportunity Structures for Selective Exposure: Investigating Selective Exposure and Learning in Swedish Election Campaigns Using Panel Survey Data.” International Journal of Press/Politics21 (4): 527–46.
38.
StroudNatalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
SunsteinCass R.2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
40.
TrillingDamianvan KlingerenMarijnTsfatiYariv. 2017. “Selective Exposure, Political Polarization, and Possible Mediators: Evidence from the Netherlands.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research29 (2): 189–213.
41.
van KempenHetty. 2007. “Media-Party Parallelism and Its Effects: A Cross-National Comparative Study.” Political Communication24 (3): 303–20.
42.
WebsterJames G.KsiazekThomas B. 2012. “The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Attention in an Age of Digital Media.” Journal of Communication62 (1): 39–56.
43.
WeeksBrian E.LaneDaniel S.KimDam HeeLeeSlgi S.KwakNojin. 2017. “Incidental Exposure, Selective Exposure, and Political Information Sharing: Integrating Online Exposure Patterns and Expression on Social Media.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22 (6): 363–79.
44.
YangJungHwanRojasHernandoWojcieszakMagdalenaAalbergTorilCoenSharonCurranJamesHayashiKaoriIyengarShantoJonesPaul K.MazzoleniGianpietroPapathanassopoulosStylianosRheeJune WoongRoweDavidSorokaStuartTiffenRodney. 2016. “Why Are ‘Others’ So Polarized? Perceived Political Polarization and Media Use in 10 Countries.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21 (5): 349–67.
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.
