Choosing the political party nominees, who will appear on
the ballot for the US presidency, is a long process that starts
two years before the general election. The news media plays
a particular role in this process by continuously covering the
state of the race. How can this news coverage be characterized?
Given that there are thousands of news organizations,
but each of us is exposed to only a few of them, we might
be missing most of it. Online news aggregators, which aggregate
news stories from a multitude of news sources and
perspectives, could provide an important lens for the analysis.
One such aggregator is Google’s Top stories, a recent addition
to Google’s search result page. For the duration of 2019, we
have collected the news headlines that Google Top stories has
displayed for 30 candidates of both US political parties. Our
dataset contains 79,903 news story URLs published by 2,168
unique news sources. Our analysis indicates that despite this
large number of news sources, there is a very skewed distribution
of where the Top stories are originating, with a very
small number of sources contributing the majority of stories.
We are sharing our dataset1 so that other researchers can answer
questions related to algorithmic curation of news as well
as media agenda setting in the context of political elections.
more »
« less
The ‘Fairness Doctrine’ lives on? Theorizing about the Algorithmic News Curation of Google’s Top Stories
When one searches for political candidates on Google, a panel composed of recent news stories, known as Top stories, is commonly shown at the top of the search results page. These stories are selected by an algorithm that chooses from hundreds of thousands of articles published by thousands of news publishers. In our previous work, we identified 56 news sources that contributed 2/3 of all Top
stories for 30 political candidates running in the primaries of 2020 US Presidential Election. In this paper, we survey US voters to elicit their familiarity and trust with these 56 news outlets. We find that some of the most frequent outlets are not familiar to all voters (e.g. The Hill or Politico), or particularly trusted by voters of any political stripes (e.g. Washington Examiner or The Daily Beast). Why then, are such sources shown so frequently in Top stories? We theorize that Google is sampling news articles from sources with different political leanings to offer a balanced coverage. This is reminiscent of the so-called “fairness doctrine” (1949-1987) policy in the United States that required broadcasters (radio or TV stations) to air contrasting views about controversial matters. Because there are fewer right-leaning publications than center or left-leaning ones, in order to maintain this “fair” balance, hyper-partisan far-right news sources of low trust receive more visibility than some news sources that are more familiar to and trusted by the public.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1751087
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10177074
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- The 31st ACM Conference on HyperText and Social Media
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 59-68
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Political news is often slanted toward its publisher’s ideology and seeks to influence readers by focusing on selected aspects of contentious social and political issues. We investigate political slants in news and their influence on readers by analyzing election-related news and reader reactions to the news on Twitter. To this end, we collected election-related news from six major US news publishers who covered the 2020 US presidential elections. We computed each publisher’s political slant based on the favorability of its news toward the two major parties’ presidential candidates. We found that the election-related news coverage shows signs of political slant both in news headlines and on Twitter. The difference in news coverage of the two candidates between the left-leaning (LEFT) and right-leaning (RIGHT) news publishers is statistically significant. The effect size is larger for the news on Twitter than for headlines. And, news on Twitter expresses stronger sentiments than the headlines. We identified moral foundations in reader reactions to the news on Twitter based on Moral Foundation Theory. Moral foundations in readers’ reactions to LEFT and RIGHT differ statistically significantly, though the effects are small. Further, these shifts in moral foundations differ across social and political issues. User engagement on Twitter is higher for RIGHT than for LEFT. We posit that an improved understanding of slant and influence can enable better ways to combat online political polarization.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Concerns about the spread of misinformation online via news articles have led to the development of many tools and processes involving human annotation of their credibility. However, much is still unknown about how different people judge news credibility or the quality or reliability of news credibility ratings from populations of varying expertise. In this work, we consider credibility ratings from two “crowd” populations: 1) students within journalism or media programs, and 2) crowd workers on UpWork, and compare them with the ratings of two sets of experts: journalists and climate scientists, on a set of 50 climate-science articles. We find that both groups’ credibility ratings have higher correlation to journalism experts compared to the science experts, with 10-15 raters to achieve convergence. We also find that raters’ gender and political leaning impact their ratings. Among article genre of news/opinion/analysis and article source leaning of left/center/right, crowd ratings were more similar to experts respectively with opinion and strong left sources.more » « less
-
Concerns about the spread of misinformation online via news articles have led to the development of many tools and processes involving human annotation of their credibility. However, much is still unknown about how different people judge news credibility or the quality or reliability of news credibility ratings from populations of varying expertise. In this work, we consider credibility ratings from two “crowd” populations: 1) students within journalism or media programs, and 2) crowd workers on UpWork, and compare them with the ratings of two sets of experts: journalists and climate scientists, on a set of 50 climate-science articles. We find that both groups’ credibility ratings have higher correlation to journalism experts compared to the science experts, with 10-15 raters to achieve convergence. We also find that raters’ gender and political leaning impact their ratings. Among article genre of news/opinion/analysis and article source leaning of left/center/right, crowd ratings were more similar to experts respectively with opinion and strong left sources.more » « less
-
Many news outlets allow users to contribute comments on topics about daily world events. News articles are the seeds that spring users' interest to contribute content, that is, comments. A news outlet may allow users to contribute comments on all their articles or a selected number of them. The topic of an article may lead to an apathetic user commenting activity (several tens of comments) or to a spontaneous fervent one (several thousands of comments). This environment creates a social dynamic that is little studied. The social dynamics around articles have the potential to reveal interesting facets of the user population at a news outlet. In this paper, we report the salient findings about these social media from 15 months worth of data collected from 17 news outlets comprising of over 38,000 news articles and about 21 million user comments. Analysis of the data reveals interesting insights such as there is an uneven relationship between news outlets and their user populations across outlets. Such observations and others have not been revealed, to our knowledge. We believe our analysis in this paper can contribute to news predictive analytics (e.g., user reaction to a news article or predicting the volume of comments posted to an article).more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3372923.3404794
