The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News
Abstract
Most research on incivility in American politics focuses on its effects on citizens' political attitudes and behaviors, in spite of remarkably little data on the extent to which political discourse is actually uncivil. Those studies that do examine content focus on negative campaign advertisements, overlooking more egregious forms of political incivility that penetrate the broader media landscape. In this study, we attempt to conceptualize and measure more dramatic types of political incivility, which we term “outrage.” Outrage discourse involves efforts to provoke a visceral response from the audience, usually in the form of anger, fear, or moral righteousness through the use of overgeneralizations, sensationalism, misleading or patently inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks, and partial truths about opponents. Scrutinizing 10 weeks of data from political blogs, talk radio, and cable news analysis programs, we demonstrate that outrage discourse is extensive, takes many different forms (we examine 13 different types), and spans media formats. We also show that while outrage tactics are largely the same for liberal and conservative media, conservative media use significantly more outrage speech than liberal media. It is our hope that introducing more concrete information about the actual content of political media will render existing research on potential effects more meaningful.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-0104 · Cited by 1,256
Cited by
Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · Cited by 1,985
Media and Political Polarization
Prior, M. (2013) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242 · Cited by 1,125
Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12104 · Cited by 964
Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650212466406 · Cited by 902
Political Trust in a Cynical Age
Citrin, J., & Stoker, L. (2018) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050316-092550 · Cited by 722
Metadata
- Authors
- Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M.
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-02-09
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-41
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W1996468215
- Cited by
- 590
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 60.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
- The paper
- Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M. (2011). From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News. Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.