The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog
Abstract
In this paper, we study the linking patterns and discussion topics of political bloggers. Our aim is to measure the degree of interaction between liberal and conservative blogs, and to uncover any differences in the structure of the two communities. Specifically, we analyze the posts of 40 "A-list" blogs over the period of two months preceding the U.S. Presidential Election of 2004, to study how often they referred to one another and to quantify the overlap in the topics they discussed, both within the liberal and conservative communities, and also across communities. We also study a single day snapshot of over 1,000 political blogs. This snapshot captures blogrolls (the list of links to other blogs frequently found in sidebars), and presents a more static picture of a broader blogosphere. Most significantly, we find differences in the behavior of liberal and conservative blogs, with conservative blogs linking to each other more frequently and in a denser pattern.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Political blogs preferentially link to other blogs of the same political ideology.
“Adamic and Glance (2005) famously demonstrated that political blogs preferentially link to other blogs of the same political ideology, a finding supported by the work of Hargittai, Gallo, and Kane (2007).”
From Political Polarization on Twitter (2021) · cites this paper as Adamic and Glance (2005)
Politically active web users tend to organize into insular, homogenous communities segregated along partisan lines.
“Despite this, some empirical evidence suggests that politically active web users tend to organize into insular, homogenous communities segregated along partisan lines.”
From Political Polarization on Twitter (2021) · cites this paper as Adamic and Glance (2005)
Homophily among liberals and conservatives in political blogs links leads to echo chambers.
“For example, homophily among liberals and conservatives in political blogs links (Adamic and Glance, 2005), i.e., the tendency of liberal and conservative blogs to link primarily within their separate communities, leads to echo chambers (Jasny et al., 2015;Garrett, 2009;Flaxman et al., 2016), and hence beliefs can be polarized due to such exposure to selective information (Bakshy et al., 2015).”
From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Adamic and Glance, 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Modularity and community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0601602103 · Cited by 12,256 · see citing works
Resolution limit in community detection
Fortunato, S., & Barthélemy, M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0605965104 · Cited by 3,024 · see citing works
Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · Cited by 1,472 · see citing works
Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks
Aral, S., Muchnik, L., & Sundararajan, A. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0908800106 · Cited by 1,207 · see citing works
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982 · see citing works
Ideological Segregation Online and Offline *
Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjr044 · Cited by 980 · see citing works
Evidence for hubs in human functional brain networks
Power, J. D., Schlaggar, B. L., Lessov-Schlaggar, C. N., & Petersen, S. E. (2013) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.035 · Cited by 716 · see citing works
Network Representation Learning: A Survey
Zhang, D., Yin, J., Zhu, X., & Zhang, C. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Big Data · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2018.2850013 · Cited by 714 · see citing works
The “majority illusion” in social networks
Lerman, K., Yan, X., & Wu, X.-Z. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147617 · Cited by 669 · see citing works
Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation
Bessi, A., Coletto, M., Davidescu, G. A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118093 · Cited by 645 · see citing works
Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter
Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010) · Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society · doi:10.1177/0270467610380011 · Cited by 625 · see citing works
Political Polarization on Twitter
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126 · Cited by 626 · see citing works
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12337 · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Internet Research in Psychology
Gosling, S. D., & Mason, W. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015321 · Cited by 458 · see citing works
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Quantifying controversy on social media
Garimella, K., Morales, G. D. F., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Social Computing · doi:10.1145/3140565 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Political Discourse on Social Media: Echo Chambers, Gatekeepers, and the Price of Bipartisanship
Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18 · doi:10.1145/3178876.3186139 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Polarization and Fake News: Early Warning of Potential Misinformation Targets
Vicario, M. D., Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Zollo, F. (2019) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/3316809 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Emotional Dynamics in the Age of Misinformation
Zollo, F., Novak, P. K., Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Mozetič, I., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138740 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Partisan asymmetries in online political activity
Conover, M. D., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2012) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds6 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Information gerrymandering and undemocratic decisions
Stewart, A. J., Mosleh, M., Diakonova, M., Arechar, A. A., Rand, D. G., & Plotkin, J. B. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1507-6 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Measuring and moderating opinion polarization in social networks
Matakos, A., Terzi, E., & Tsaparas, P. (2017) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-017-0527-9 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Reducing Controversy by Connecting Opposing Views
Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3018661.3018703 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Quantifying Controversy in Social Media
Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2016) · Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2835776.2835792 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Quantifying Search Bias: Investigating Sources of Bias for Political Searches in Social Media
Kulshrestha, J., Eslami, M., Messias, J., Zafar, M. B., Ghosh, S., Gummadi, K. P., & Karahalios, K. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998321 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Resilience to Online Censorship
Roberts, M. E. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032837 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Generative Echo Chamber? Effect of LLM-Powered Search Systems on Diverse Information Seeking
Sharma, N., Liao, Q. V., & Xiao, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642459 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Me, My Echo Chamber, and I: Introspection on Social Media Polarization
Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18 · doi:10.1145/3178876.3186130 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Influencing Myself: Self-Reinforcement Through Online Political Expression
Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Keum, H., Choi, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2018) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650216644020 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
‘The pussy ain’t worth it, bro’: assessing the discourse and structure of MGTOW
Wright, S., Trott, V., & Jones, C. (2020) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1751867 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Working Together Apart: Collaboration over the Internet
Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2014) · Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics · doi:10.2200/s00542ed1v01y201310hci020 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Semi-Supervised Classification of Network Data Using Very Few Labels
Lin, F., & Cohen, W. W. (2010) · 2010 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1109/asonam.2010.19 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Wojcieszak, M., Casas, A., Yu, X., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn9418 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Hannak, A., Margolin, D., Keegan, B., & Weber, I. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14555 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Quantifying ideological polarization on a network using generalized Euclidean distance
Hohmann, M., Devriendt, K., & Coscia, M. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abq2044 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“51. K. Garimella, G. De Francisci Morales, A. Gionis, M. Mathioudakis, Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship, in Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (2018), Lyon, France, 23 to 27 April 2018, pp.”
Resisting Political Fragmentation on the Internet
Garrett, R. K., & Resnick, P. (2011) · Daedalus · doi:10.1162/daed_a_00118 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Adversarial Label-Flipping Attack and Defense for Graph Neural Networks
Zhang, M., Hu, L., Shi, C., & Wang, X. (2020) · 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) · doi:10.1109/icdm50108.2020.00088 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Song, Y., Dai, X.-Y., & Wang, J. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.086 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
‘Echo Chambers’: Partisan Facebook Groups during the 2014 Thai Election
Grömping, M. (2014) · Asia Pacific Media Educator · doi:10.1177/1326365x14539185 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Credibility of climate change denial in social media
Samantray, A., & Pin, P. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0344-4 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
The Effect of Collective Attention on Controversial Debates on Social Media
Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference · doi:10.1145/3091478.3091486 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Bruno, M., Lambiotte, R., & Saracco, F. (2022) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00330-0 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Preaching to the choir: ideology and following behaviour in social media
Rivero, G. (2019) · Contemporary Social Science · doi:10.1080/21582041.2017.1325924 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Homophily and polarization on political twitter during the 2017 Norwegian election
Enjolras, B., & Salway, A. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-022-01018-z · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Adam, S., Häussler, T., Schmid-Petri, H., & Reber, U. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444819855966 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“Vital testimonio confirm󔦔: Polarización de fuentes y redes en el Caso Catrillanca en Twitter
Santos, M. L. B., Jaramillo Castro, O., & Aguirre, D. (2021) · Cuadernos.info · doi:10.7764/cdi.49.27509 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Me, My Echo Chamber, and I: Introspection on Social Media Polarization
Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.01731 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
- Authors
- Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N.
- Affiliations
- Hewlett-Packard (United States) (US)
- Intel (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Glance, Natalie
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2005-08-21
- Pages
- 36-43
- OpenAlex
- W2152284345
- Cited by
- 2,619
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 105 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 120 · 2022: 150 · 2021: 186 · 2020: 202 · 2019: 164 · 2018: 200 · 2017: 186 · 2016: 180 · 2015: 139 · 2014: 188 · 2013: 139 · 2012: 113
- FWCI
- 84.60
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- political blogs, blogosphere, 2004 presidential election, online political communities, network density, online political discourse
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