The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Stealth Media? Groups and Targets behind Divisive Issue Campaigns on Facebook
Abstract
In light of the foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, the present research asks the question of whether the digital media has become the stealth media for anonymous political campaigns. By utilizing a user-based, real-time, digital ad tracking tool, the present research reverse engineers and tracks the groups (Study 1) and the targets (Study 2) of divisive issue campaigns based on 5 million paid ads on Facebook exposed to 9,519 individuals between September 28, 2016, and November 8, 2016. The findings reveal groups that did not file reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC)—nonprofits, astroturf/movement groups, and unidentifiable “suspicious” groups, including foreign entities—ran most of the divisive issue campaigns. One out of six suspicious groups later turned out to be Russian groups. The volume of ads sponsored by non-FEC groups was 4 times larger than that of FEC groups. Divisive issue campaigns clearly targeted battleground states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where traditional Democratic strongholds supported Donald Trump by a razor-thin margin. The present research asserts that media ecology, the technological features and capacity of digital media, as well as regulatory loopholes created by Citizens United v. FEC and the FEC’s disclaimer exemption for digital platforms contribute to the prevalence of anonymous groups’ divisive issue campaigns on digital media. The present research offers insight relevant for regulatory policy discussion and discusses the normative implications of the findings for the functioning of democracy.
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
Elder, J. W., Geertz, C., & Rosenhack, K. P. S. (1964) · Cited by 3,878
THE NATURE OF BELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS
Converse, P. E. (2004) · Aarhus University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/jj.35529187.18 · Cited by 2,499
Parties without partisans: political change in advanced industrial democracies
(2001) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-1833 · Cited by 1,908
The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139198752 · Cited by 1,862
The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2016) · Civic Media · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9970.003.0006 · Cited by 1,217
Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements
Walker, J. (1991) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.12845 · Cited by 837
Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America
Krosnick, J. A. (1990) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/bf00992332 · Cited by 568
Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. (2008) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400831593 · Cited by 425
Valparaiso University Law Review
Wright, R. G. (2011) · Cited by 422
The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism
Skocpol, T., & Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2016) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592716001122 · Cited by 421
Cited by
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373
Algorithmic inference, political interest, and exposure to news and politics on Facebook
Thorson, K., Cotter, K., Medeiros, M., & Pak, C. (2021) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1642934 · Cited by 361
The ai-based cyber threat landscape: A survey
Kaloudi, N., & Li, J. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3372823 · Cited by 310
Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda
Guess, A. M., & Lyons, B. A. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.003 · Cited by 284
Earl, J. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl8198 · Cited by 250
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, Y. M., Hsu, J., Neiman, D., Kou, C., Bankston, L., Kim, S. Y., Heinrich, R., Baragwanath, R., & Raskutti, G.
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-07-12
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 515-541
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W2883729868
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 82.71
- 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: The Stealth Media? Groups and Targets behind Divisive Issue Campaigns on Facebook. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10584609.2018.1476425
- The paper
- Kim, Y. M., Hsu, J., Neiman, D., Kou, C., Bankston, L., Kim, S. Y., Heinrich, R., Baragwanath, R., & Raskutti, G. (2018). The Stealth Media? Groups and Targets behind Divisive Issue Campaigns on Facebook. Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1476425
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.