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.
AllcottH.GentzkowM.YuC.. 2019. “Trends in the Diffusion of Misinformation on Social Media.” Research & Politics6 (2): 1–8. 10.1177/2053168019848554.
2.
ArendtH.1968. “Truth and Politics.” In Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, ed. ArendtH., 227–64. New York: Viking Press.
3.
BakshyE.MessingS.AdamicL. A.. 2015. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook.” Science348 (6239): 1130–32. 10.1126/science.aaa1160.
4.
BakshyE.RosennI.MarlowC.AdamicL.. 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.
5.
BarberB.1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR.. 2015. “Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than An Echo Chamber?” Psychological Science26 (10): 1531–42. 10.1177/0956797615594620.
7.
BeamM. A.HutchensM. J.HmielowskiJ. D.. 2018. “Facebook News and (de)polarization: Reinforcing Spirals in the 2016 US Election.” Information, Communication & Society21 (7): 940–58. 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783.
8.
Brenes PeraltaC.WojcieszakM.LelkesY.VreeseC. 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 Quarterly94 (3): 833–61. 10.1177/1077699016654681.
9.
CardenalA. S.Aguilar-ParedesC.GalaisC.Pérez-MontoroM.. 2019. “Digital Technologies and Selective Exposure: How Choice and Filter Bubbles Shape News Media Exposure:.” The International Journal of Press/Politics24 (4): 465–86. 10.1177/1940161219862988.
10.
Castro-HerreroL.NirL.SkovsgaardM.. 2018. “Bridging Gaps in Cross-cutting Media Exposure: The Role of Public Service Broadcasting.” Political Communication35 (4): 542–65. 10.1080/10584609.2018.1476424.
11.
ColleoniE.RozzaA.ArvidssonA.. 2014. “Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data.” Journal of Communication64 (2): 317–32. 10.1111/jcom.12084.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS.. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
DuttonW.ReisdorfB.DuboisE.BlankG.. 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.
EadyG.NaglerJ.GuessA.ZilinskyJ.TuckerJ. A.. 2019. “How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data.” SAGE open9 (1): 1–21. 10.1177/2158244019832705.
16.
EvelandW. P.MartonK.SeoM.. 2004. “Moving Beyond “Just the Facts”: The Influence of Online News on the Content and Structure of Public Affairs Knowledge.” Communication Research31 (1): 82–108. 10.1177/0093650203260203.
FeldmanL.StroudN. J.BimberB.WojcieszakM.. 2013. “Assessing Selective Exposure in Experiments: The Implications of Different Methodological Choices.” Communication Methods and Measures7 (3-4): 172–94. 10.1080/19312458.2013.813923.
19.
FlaxmanS.GoelS.RaoJ. M.. 2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (S1): 298–320. 10.1093/poq/nfw006.
20.
FletcherR.NielsenR. K.. 2018. “Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis.” New Media & Society20 (7): 2450–68. 10.1177/1461444817724170.
21.
GarrettR. K.StroudN. J.. 2014. “Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption.” Journal of Communication64 (4): 680–701. 10.1111/jcom.12105.
GuessA.2021. “Almost Everything in Moderation: New Evidence on Americans’ Online Media Diets.” American Journal of Political Science. 10.1111/ajps.12589.
24.
HaimM.GraefeA.BrosiusH.-B.. 2018. “Burst of the Filter Bubble?: Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News.” Digital Journalism6 (3): 330–43. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145.
25.
HelbergerN.KarppinenK.D’AcuntoL.. 2018. “Exposure Diversity As a Design Principle for Recommender Systems.” Information, Communication & Society21 (2): 191–207. 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271900.
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM.. 2013. “Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18 (2): 154–74. 10.1111/jcc4.12001.
28.
JorisG.GroveF. D.DammeK. V.MarezL. D.. 2020. “News Diversity Reconsidered: A Systematic Literature Review Unraveling the Diversity in Conceptualizations.” Journalism Studies21 (13): 1893–1912. 10.1080/1461670X.2020.1797527.
29.
KlingerU.SvenssonJ.. 2015. “The Emergence of Network Media Logic in Political Communication: A Theoretical Approach.” New Media & Society17 (8): 1241–57. 10.1177/1461444814522952.
30.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ.. 2011. “Reinforcement of the Political Self Through Selective Exposure to Political Messages.” Journal of Communication61 (2): 349–68. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01543.x.
31.
LaddJ. M.2012. Why Americans Hate the News Media and How It Matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32.
LoecherbachF.MoellerJ.TrillingD.AtteveldtW. v. 2020. “The Unified Framework of Media Diversity: A Systematic Literature Review.” Digital Journalism8 (5): 605–42. 10.1080/21670811.2020.1764374.
33.
LoggJ. M.MinsonJ. A.MooreD. A.. 2019. “Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes151: 90–103. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
34.
LuY.LeeJ. K.. 2018. “Stumbling Upon the Other Side: Incidental Learning of Counter-attitudinal Political Information on Facebook.” New Media & Society. 10.1177/1461444818793421.
35.
Menchen-TrevinoE.2016. Web historian: Enabling multi-method and independent research with real-world web browsing history data. 10.9776/16611.
36.
MöllerJ.van de VeldeR. N.MertenL.PuschmannC.. 2020. “Explaining Online News Engagement Based on Browsing Behavior: Creatures of Habit?” Social Science Computer Review38 (5): 616–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319828012.10.1177/0894439319828012
37.
NapoliP. M.1999. “The Unique Nature of Communications Regulation: Evidence and Implications for Communications Policy Analysis.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media43 (4): 565–81. 10.1080/08838159909364510.
38.
NechushtaiE.LewisS. 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 Behavior90: 298–307. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.043.
39.
NelsonJ. L.WebsterJ. G.. 2017. “The Myth of Partisan Selective Exposure: A Portrait of the Online Political News Audience.” Social Media + Society3 (3): 2056305117729314. 10.1177/2056305117729314.
PageB. I.1996. Who Deliberates?: Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
PariserE.2011. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web is Changing what We Read and How We Think. London: Penguin.
43.
PriorM.2007. Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PriorM.2009. “The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure.” Public Opinion Quarterly73 (1): 130–43. 10.1093/poq/nfp002.
45.
PuschmannC.2019. “Beyond the Bubble: Assessing the Diversity of Political Search Results.” Digital Journalism7 (6): 824–43. 10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626.
46.
RobertsonR. E.JiangS.JosephK.FriedlandL.LazerD.WilsonC.. 2018. “Auditing Partisan Audience Bias Within Google Search.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2 (CSCW): 148:1–148:22. 10.1145/3274417.
47.
ScharkowM.MangoldF.StierS.BreuerJ.. 2020. “How Social Network Sites and Other Online Intermediaries Increase Exposure to News.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117 (6): 2761–63. 10.1073/pnas.1918279117.
ShehataA.StrömbäckJ.. 2011. “A Matter of Context: A Comparative Study of Media Environments and News Consumption Gaps in Europe.” Political Communication28 (1): 110–34. 10.1080/10584609.2010.543006.
ShinJ.2020. “How Do Partisans Consume News on Social Media? A Comparison of Self-Reports With Digital Trace Measures Among Twitter Users.” Social Media + Society6 (4): 2056305120981039. 10.1177/2056305120981039.
52.
StroudN. J.2010. “Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure.” Journal of Communication60 (3): 556–76. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.
53.
StroudN. J.2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ThorsonK.WellsC.. 2016. “Curated Flows: A Framework for Mapping Media Exposure in the Digital Age.” Communication Theory26 (3): 309–28. 10.1111/comt.12087.
56.
ToffB.NielsenR. K.. 2018. ““I Just Google It”: Folk Theories of Distributed Discovery.” Journal of Communication68 (3): 636–57. 10.1093/joc/jqy009.
57.
TripodiF.2018. Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices. Technical Report, Data & Society Research Institute, New York, NY.
58.
VrijenhoekS.KayaM.MetouiN.MöllerJ.OdijkD.HelbergerN.. 2020. Recommenders with a mission: assessing diversity in news recommendations.http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.10185.
WhippleK. N.ShermakJ. 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 Journalism8 (1): 67–87.
61.
WinterS.MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.. 2016. “Selective Use of News Cues: A Multiple-Motive Perspective on Information Selection in Social Media Environments.” Journal of Communication66 (4): 669–93. 10.1111/jcom.12241.
62.
WojcieszakM. E.2019. “What Predicts Selective Exposure Online: Testing Political Attitudes, Credibility, and Social Identity.” Communication Research, 1-30. 10.1177/0093650219844868.
63.
WojcieszakM. E.MutzD. C.. 2009. “Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?” Journal of Communication59 (1): 40–56. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x
64.
WojcieszakM.PriceV.. 2012a. “Facts Versus Perceptions: Who Reports Disagreement During Deliberation and are the Reports Accurate?” Political Communication29 (3): 299–318. 10.1080/10584609.2012.694984.
65.
WojcieszakM. E.PriceV.. 2012b. “Perceived Versus Actual Disagreement: Which Influences Deliberative Experiences?” Journal of Communication62 (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.
