CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 352Social Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics

Open access
Lawrence, Eric, Sides, John, Farrell, Henry·2010·Perspectives on Politics
DOI 10.1017/s1537592709992714
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Political scientists and political theorists debate the relationship between participation and deliberation among citizens with different political viewpoints. Blogs provide an important testing ground for their claims. We examine deliberation, polarization, and political participation among blog readers. We find that blog readers gravitate toward blogs that accord with their political beliefs. Few read blogs on both the left and right of the ideological spectrum. Furthermore, those who read left-wing blogs and those who read right-wing blogs are ideologically far apart. Blog readers are more polarized than either non-blog-readers or consumers of various television news programs, and roughly as polarized as US senators. Blog readers also participate more in politics than non-blog readers. Readers of blogs of different ideological dispositions do not participate less than those who read only blogs of one ideological disposition. Instead, readers of both left- and right-wing blogs and readers of exclusively leftwing blogs participate at similar levels, and both participate more than readers of exclusively right-wing blogs. This may reflect social movement-building efforts by left-wing bloggers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1537592709992714

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies on social media have found limited evidence for homogeneous clusters on most social media platforms; users may be unlikely to rebroadcast opposing content but are often exposed to it and may respond.

    “Studies on social media have found limited evidence for the described homogeneous clusters on most social media platforms: while users may be unlikely to rebroadcast content from the opposing side, they are often exposed to it and may even respond (11, 62–69).”

    From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Blog Authors section says cross-ideological links are infrequent, but some involve substantive argument and conversation, supporting the possibility of responses to opposing views. The Homophily and Polarization in the Blogosphere section instead finds that 94% of political blog readers read only blogs from one ideological side. The paper studies political blogs, not most social media platforms, and does not establish that users are often exposed to opposing content. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Ackerman, Bruce A. and James A. Fishkin. 2004. Delib- eration Day. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  2. Benkler, Yochai, Aaron Shaw and Victoria Stodden. Unpublished. A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right. Cambridge MA: Berk- man Center, Harvard.
  3. Bimber, Bruce. 2000. The Study of Information Tech- nology and Civic Engagement. Political Communica- tion 17 (4): 329-333.
  4. Cohen, Josh. 1989. Deliberative Democracy and Demo- cratic Legitimacy. In The Good Polity, eds. Alan Ham- lin and Philip Pettit. Oxford: Blackwell, 17-34.
  5. Dahlgren, Peter. 2005. The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Delib- eration. Political Communication 22 (2): 147-62.
  6. Delli Carpini, Michael X. and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  7. Drezner, Daniel and Henry Farrell. 2008. Introduction: Blogs, Politics and Power: A Special Issue of Public Choice. Public Choice 134(1): 1-13.
  8. Farrell, Henry and Daniel Drezner. 2008. The Power and Politics of Blogs. Public Choice 134(1): 15-30.
  9. Fishkin, James. 1995. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  10. Gelman, Andrew, Christian Pasarica, and Rahul Dodhia. 2002. Let's Practice What We Preach:TurningTables into Graphs. The American Statistician 56(2): 121-30.
  11. Habermas, Jurgen. 2006b. Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epi- stemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory 16(4): 411-26.
  12. Hargittai, Eszter, Jason Gallo and Matthew Kane. 2008. Cross-Ideological Discussion among Conservative and Liberal Bloggers. Public Choice 134(1): 67-86.
  13. Herring, S.C., I. Kouper, J.C. Paolillo, L.A. Scheidt, M. Tyworth, P. Welsch, E. Wright, and Ning Yu. 2005. "Conversations in the Blogosphere: An Analysis "From the Bottom Up"." System Sciences, 2005. HICSS '05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference.
  14. Hetherington, Marc. 2001. Resurgent Mass Partisan- ship: The Role of Elite Polarization. American Political Science Review 95(3): 619-31.
  15. Hindman, Matthew. 2008. The Myth of Digital Democ- racy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  16. Johnson, Thomas J. and Barbara K. Kaye. 2004. Wag the Blog: How Reliance on Traditional Media and the Internet Influence Credibility Perceptions of Weblogs among Blog Users. Journalism and Mass Communica- tion Quarterly 81(3): 622-42.
  17. Kastellec, Jonathan and Eduardo Leoni. 2007. Using Graphs Instead of Tables in Political Science. Perspec- tives on Politics 5(4): 755-71.
  18. Macedo et al. 2005. Democracy at Risk. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
  19. Malhotra, Neil and Jon A. Krosnick. 2007. The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences about Politi- cal Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys with Nonprobabil- ity Samples. Political Analysis 15(3): 286-323.
  20. McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  21. McCarty, Nolan, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  22. McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415-44.
  23. Meraz, Sharon. 2007. The Networked Political Blogsphere and Mass Media: Understanding How Agendas are Formed, Framed, and Transferred in the Emerging New Media Environment. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Univer- sity of Texas at Austin.
  24. Mutz, Diana. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Papachrissi, Zizi. 2002. The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere. New Media and Society 4(1): 9-27.
  26. Perlmutter, David D. 2008. Blogwars. New York: Ox- ford University Press.
  27. Poole, Keith, and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involve- ment and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2008. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
  30. Ruffini, Patrick. 2008. "Roots of Defeat." National Review Online, December 1. http://nrd.nationalreview. com/article/?qϭMzY4ZDZkNzlhNGE2Y2EzOGQz ZTg3NTk3ODljYWVlZjAϭ.
  31. Sanders, David, Harold D. Clarke, Marianne C. Stewart, and Paul Whiteley. 2007. Does Mode Matter for Mod- eling Political Choice? Evidence from the 2005 Brit- ish Election Study. Political Analysis 15(3): 257-85.
  32. Sinclair, Barbara. 2006. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
  33. Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  34. Sunstein, Cass. 2008. Neither Hayek nor Habermas, Public Choice 134(1): 87-95.
  35. Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in Political Information Processing. Ameri- can Journal of Political Science 50(3): 755-69.
  36. Theriault, Sean. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Vavreck, Lynn. 2007. The Exaggerated Effects of Advertising on Turnout: The Dangers of Self- Reports. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2(4): 297-305.
  38. Wallsten, Kevin. 2007. Political Blogs: Transmission Belts, Soapboxes, Mobilizers, or Conversation Start- ers. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 4(3): 19-40.
  39. Wojcieszak, Magdalena, and Diana Mutz. 2009. Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement? Journal of Communication 59(1): 40-56.
  40. Woodly, Deva. 2008. New Competencies in Democratic Communication? Blogs, Agenda-Setting, and Political Participation. Public Choice 134(1): 109-123.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lawrence, E., Sides, J., & Farrell, H.
Affiliations
George Washington University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Perspectives on Politics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2010-03
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
141-157
ISSN
  • 1537-5927 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0986
DOI
10.1017/s1537592709992714
OpenAlex
W2121993559
Cited by
352
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 25
FWCI
103.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 8 d)
Locations
Perspectives on Politics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
blog readership, political participation, political polarization, deliberation, ideological distance, online political communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review