Avenues to News and Diverse News Exposure Online: Comparing Direct Navigation,Social Media,News Aggregators,Search Queries,and Article Hyperlinks

Abstract

The online environment dramatically expands the number of ways people can encounter news but there remain questions of whether these abundant opportunities facilitate news exposure diversity. This project examines key questions regarding how internet users arrive at news and what kinds of news they encounter. We account for a multiplicity of avenues to news online, some of which have never been analyzed: (1) direct access to news websites, (2) social networks, (3) news aggregators, (4) search engines, (5) webmail, and (6) hyperlinks in news. We examine the extent to which each avenue promotes news exposure and also exposes users to news sources that are left leaning, right leaning, and centrist. When combined with information on individual political leanings, we show the extent of dissimilar, centrist, or congenial exposure resulting from each avenue. We rely on web browsing history records from 636 social media users in the US paired with survey self-reports, a unique data set that allows us to examine both aggregate and individual-level exposure. Visits to news websites account for about 2 percent of the total number of visits to URLs and are unevenly distributed among users. The most widespread ways of accessing news are search engines and social media platforms (and hyperlinks within news sites once people arrive at news). The two former avenues also increase dissimilar news exposure, compared to accessing news directly, yet direct news access drives the highest proportion of centrist exposure.

Keywords

news exposure avenues for news social networks search engines cross-cutting exposure echo chambers

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allcott

Gentzkow

. 2019. “Trends in the Diffusion of Misinformation on Social Media.” Research & Politics 6 (2): 1–8. 10.1177/2053168019848554.

Arendt

1968. “Truth and Politics.” In Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, ed. Arendt

, 227–64. New York: Viking Press.

Bakshy

Messing

Adamic

L. A.

. 2015. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook.” Science 348 (6239): 1130–32. 10.1126/science.aaa1160.

Bakshy

Rosenn

Marlow

Adamic

. 2012. “The role of social networks in information diffusion.” In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, Lyon, France, 519–28. 10.1145/2187836.2187907.

Barber

1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Barberá

Jost

J. T.

Nagler

Tucker

J. A.

Bonneau

. 2015. “Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than An Echo Chamber?” Psychological Science 26 (10): 1531–42. 10.1177/0956797615594620.

Beam

M. A.

Hutchens

M. J.

Hmielowski

J. D.

. 2018. “Facebook News and (de)polarization: Reinforcing Spirals in the 2016 US Election.” Information, Communication & Society 21 (7): 940–58. 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783.

Brenes Peralta

Wojcieszak

Lelkes

Vreese

C. d

. 2016. “Selective Exposure to Balanced Content and Evidence Type: The Case of Issue and Non-Issue Publics About Climate Change and Health Care.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 94 (3): 833–61. 10.1177/1077699016654681.

Cardenal

A. S.

Aguilar-Paredes

Galais

Pérez-Montoro

. 2019. “Digital Technologies and Selective Exposure: How Choice and Filter Bubbles Shape News Media Exposure:.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 24 (4): 465–86. 10.1177/1940161219862988.

10.

Castro-Herrero

Nir

Skovsgaard

. 2018. “Bridging Gaps in Cross-cutting Media Exposure: The Role of Public Service Broadcasting.” Political Communication 35 (4): 542–65. 10.1080/10584609.2018.1476424.

11.

Colleoni

Rozza

Arvidsson

. 2014. “Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data.” Journal of Communication 64 (2): 317–32. 10.1111/jcom.12084.

12.

Collier

Stroud

N. J.

. 2018. Using Links to Keep Readers on News Sites . https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Using-Links-to-Keep-Readers-on-News-Sites.pdf

13.

Delli Carpini

M. X.

Keeter

. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

14.

Dutton

Reisdorf

Dubois

Blank

. 2017. “Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States.” SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.2960697.

15.

Eady

Nagler

Guess

Zilinsky

Tucker

J. A.

. 2019. “How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data.” SAGE open 9 (1): 1–21. 10.1177/2158244019832705.

16.

Eveland

W. P.

Marton

Seo

. 2004. “Moving Beyond “Just the Facts”: The Influence of Online News on the Content and Structure of Public Affairs Knowledge.” Communication Research 31 (1): 82–108. 10.1177/0093650203260203.

17.

Fallows

2005. Search Engine Users. Pew Research Center. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from: https://www.pewinternet.org/2005/01/23/search-engine-users/

18.

Feldman

Stroud

N. J.

Bimber

Wojcieszak

. 2013. “Assessing Selective Exposure in Experiments: The Implications of Different Methodological Choices.” Communication Methods and Measures 7 (3-4): 172–94. 10.1080/19312458.2013.813923.

19.

Flaxman

Goel

Rao

J. M.

. 2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (S1): 298–320. 10.1093/poq/nfw006.

20.

Fletcher

Nielsen

R. K.

. 2018. “Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis.” New Media & Society 20 (7): 2450–68. 10.1177/1461444817724170.

21.

Garrett

R. K.

Stroud

N. J.

. 2014. “Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption.” Journal of Communication 64 (4): 680–701. 10.1111/jcom.12105.

22.

Gramlich

2019. 10 facts about americans and facebook. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/16/facts-about-americans-and-facebook/

23.

Guess

2021. “Almost Everything in Moderation: New Evidence on Americans’ Online Media Diets.” American Journal of Political Science. 10.1111/ajps.12589.

24.

Haim

Graefe

Brosius

H.-B.

. 2018. “Burst of the Filter Bubble?: Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News.” Digital Journalism 6 (3): 330–43. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145.

25.

Helberger

Karppinen

D’Acunto

. 2018. “Exposure Diversity As a Design Principle for Recommender Systems.” Information, Communication & Society 21 (2): 191–207. 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271900.

26.

Hendrickx

Ballon

Ranaivoson

. 2020. “Dissecting News Diversity: An Integrated Conceptual Framework.” Journalism: 1–19. 10.1177/1464884920966881.

27.

Himelboim

McCreery

Smith

. 2013. “Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18 (2): 154–74. 10.1111/jcc4.12001.

28.

Joris

Grove

F. D.

Damme

K. V.

Marez

L. D.

. 2020. “News Diversity Reconsidered: A Systematic Literature Review Unraveling the Diversity in Conceptualizations.” Journalism Studies 21 (13): 1893–1912. 10.1080/1461670X.2020.1797527.

29.

Klinger

Svensson

. 2015. “The Emergence of Network Media Logic in Political Communication: A Theoretical Approach.” New Media & Society 17 (8): 1241–57. 10.1177/1461444814522952.

30.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Meng

. 2011. “Reinforcement of the Political Self Through Selective Exposure to Political Messages.” Journal of Communication 61 (2): 349–68. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01543.x.

31.

Ladd

J. M.

2012. Why Americans Hate the News Media and How It Matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

32.

Loecherbach

Moeller

Trilling

Atteveldt

W. v

. 2020. “The Unified Framework of Media Diversity: A Systematic Literature Review.” Digital Journalism 8 (5): 605–42. 10.1080/21670811.2020.1764374.

33.

Logg

J. M.

Minson

J. A.

Moore

D. A.

. 2019. “Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 151: 90–103. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005

34.

Lee

J. K.

. 2018. “Stumbling Upon the Other Side: Incidental Learning of Counter-attitudinal Political Information on Facebook.” New Media & Society. 10.1177/1461444818793421.

35.

Menchen-Trevino

2016. Web historian: Enabling multi-method and independent research with real-world web browsing history data. 10.9776/16611.

36.

Möller

van de Velde

R. N.

Merten

Puschmann

. 2020. “Explaining Online News Engagement Based on Browsing Behavior: Creatures of Habit?” Social Science Computer Review 38 (5): 616–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319828012.10.1177/0894439319828012

37.

Napoli

P. M.

1999. “The Unique Nature of Communications Regulation: Evidence and Implications for Communications Policy Analysis.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 43 (4): 565–81. 10.1080/08838159909364510.

38.

Nechushtai

Lewis

S. C.

. 2019. “What Kind of News Gatekeepers Do We Want Machines to Be? Filter Bubbles, Fragmentation, and the Normative Dimensions of Algorithmic Recommendations.” Computers in Human Behavior 90: 298–307. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.043.

39.

Nelson

J. L.

Webster

J. G.

. 2017. “The Myth of Partisan Selective Exposure: A Portrait of the Online Political News Audience.” Social Media + Society 3 (3): 2056305117729314. 10.1177/2056305117729314.

40.

Newman

Fletcher

Kalogeropoulos

Levy

D. A. L.

Nielsen

R. K.

. 2018. Digital News Report 2018 . http://media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/digital-news-report-2018.pdf

41.

Page

B. I.

1996. Who Deliberates?: Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

42.

Pariser

2011. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web is Changing what We Read and How We Think. London: Penguin.

43.

Prior

2007. Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Prior

2009. “The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (1): 130–43. 10.1093/poq/nfp002.

45.

Puschmann

2019. “Beyond the Bubble: Assessing the Diversity of Political Search Results.” Digital Journalism 7 (6): 824–43. 10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626.

46.

Robertson

R. E.

Jiang

Joseph

Friedland

Lazer

Wilson

. 2018. “Auditing Partisan Audience Bias Within Google Search.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2 (CSCW): 148:1–148:22. 10.1145/3274417.

47.

Scharkow

Mangold

Stier

Breuer

. 2020. “How Social Network Sites and Other Online Intermediaries Increase Exposure to News.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (6): 2761–63. 10.1073/pnas.1918279117.

48.

Shearer

2018. Social media outpaces print newspapers in the U.S. as a news source. Technical report, Pew Research Center. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-printnewspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/

49.

Shehata

Strömbäck

. 2011. “A Matter of Context: A Comparative Study of Media Environments and News Consumption Gaps in Europe.” Political Communication 28 (1): 110–34. 10.1080/10584609.2010.543006.

50.

Sherk

2014. How Much Search and Social Media Traffic Do Publishers Get?—Adam Sherk. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.adamsherk.com/publishing/average-search-and-social-media-referral-traffic-for-publishers/

51.

Shin

2020. “How Do Partisans Consume News on Social Media? A Comparison of Self-Reports With Digital Trace Measures Among Twitter Users.” Social Media + Society 6 (4): 2056305120981039. 10.1177/2056305120981039.

52.

Stroud

N. J.

2010. “Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure.” Journal of Communication 60 (3): 556–76. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.

53.

Stroud

N. J.

2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

54.

Stroud

N. J.

Kim

Collier

. 2018. Subscription Messages. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://mediaengagement.org/research/subscription-messages/

55.

Thorson

Wells

. 2016. “Curated Flows: A Framework for Mapping Media Exposure in the Digital Age.” Communication Theory 26 (3): 309–28. 10.1111/comt.12087.

56.

Toff

Nielsen

R. K.

. 2018. ““I Just Google It”: Folk Theories of Distributed Discovery.” Journal of Communication 68 (3): 636–57. 10.1093/joc/jqy009.

57.

Tripodi

2018. Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices. Technical Report, Data & Society Research Institute, New York, NY.

58.

Vrijenhoek

Kaya

Metoui

Möller

Odijk

Helberger

. 2020. Recommenders with a mission: assessing diversity in news recommendations. http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.10185.

59.

Waterson

2018. Whatsapp increasingly popular for sharing news. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2018/jun/14/whatsapp-popular-for-sharing-news-minus-the-toxic-debates

60.

Whipple

K. N.

Shermak

J. L.

. 2018. “Quality, Quantity and Policy Quality, Quantity and Policy: How Newspaper Journalists Use Digital Metrics to Evaluate Their Performance and Their Papers’ Strategies.” International Symposium on Online Journalism 8 (1): 67–87.

61.

Winter

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

. 2016. “Selective Use of News Cues: A Multiple-Motive Perspective on Information Selection in Social Media Environments.” Journal of Communication 66 (4): 669–93. 10.1111/jcom.12241.

62.

Wojcieszak

M. E.

2019. “What Predicts Selective Exposure Online: Testing Political Attitudes, Credibility, and Social Identity.” Communication Research, 1-30. 10.1177/0093650219844868.

63.

Wojcieszak

M. E.

Mutz

D. C.

. 2009. “Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?” Journal of Communication 59 (1): 40–56. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x

64.

Wojcieszak

Price

. 2012a. “Facts Versus Perceptions: Who Reports Disagreement During Deliberation and are the Reports Accurate?” Political Communication 29 (3): 299–318. 10.1080/10584609.2012.694984.

65.

Wojcieszak

M. E.

Price

. 2012b. “Perceived Versus Actual Disagreement: Which Influences Deliberative Experiences?” Journal of Communication 62 (3): 418–36. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01645.x.

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.

0.00 MB

2.20 MB