How Polarized Are Online and Offline News Audiences? A Comparative Analysis of Twelve Countries
Abstract
Polarization is a key area of interest for media and communication scholars. We develop a way of measuring how polarized news audience behaviour is at the national level. Then, we analyze survey data from twelve countries and find (1) that cross-platform (online and offline) news audience polarization is highest in the United States, and within Europe, higher in polarized pluralist/southern countries than in democratic corporatist countries. Furthermore, (2) in most countries, online news audience polarization is higher than offline, but in a small number it’s lower. Taken together, our findings highlight that, despite the well-documented fears associated with algorithmic selection, news audience polarization is not inevitable in environments that are increasingly characterized by digital news consumption, and that the historical, economic, and political factors emphasized by the comparative tradition remain critically important for our understanding of global trends.
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?
Articles comparing several political systems found associations that were country-dependent.
“Articles comparing several political systems found associations that were country-dependent124, again highlighting the importance of political context125.”
From A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy (2022) · cites this paper as [124]
Other countries feature more forum media than the US: outlets consumed by audiences from diverse political backgrounds, preserving relatively neutral arenas of exchange in the public sphere.
“As Fletcher et al. (2020) show, other countries feature more forum media than the US: outlets that are consumed by audiences from diverse political backgrounds, thus preserving relatively neutral arenas of exchange in the public sphere.”
From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Fletcher et al. (2020)
La polarización no es una tendencia idéntica ni tiene la misma intensidad en diferentes países, periodos y regiones.
“Que la polarización no sea una tendencia idéntica o con la misma intensidad en diferentes países y diferentes periodos nos hace preguntar sobre los factores que explican la diferencia.”
From ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher et al,2020
Los niveles de polarización varían en países democráticos.
“los niveles de polarización varían en países democráticos”
From ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher et al,2020
Los niveles de polarización son más altos en sistemas presidenciales y procesos electorales que tienden al bipartidismo.
“son más altos en sistemas presidenciales y procesos electorales que tienden al bipartidismo”
From ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher et al,2020
Las poblaciones jóvenes están menos interesadas en política y son menos proclives a tener identidades partidarias o ideológicas fuertes y activas.
“Otro punto importante es que las poblaciones jóvenes están menos interesadas en política y son menos proclives a tener identidades partidarias o ideológicas fuer-tes y activas (Fletcher et al, 2020).”
From ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher et al, 2020
La polarización es intensificada tanto por medios tradicionales (prensa y radiodifusión) como digitales, especialmente en países con una fuerte tradición de medios 'partidarios' cercanos a fuerzas políticas e ideológicas, y de medios públicos débiles o sujetos estrechamente al poder político.
“son intensificados tanto por medios tradicionales (prensa y radiodifusión) y digitales, especialmente en países con una fuerte tradición de medios”
From ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva (2020) · cites this paper as Fletcher et al,2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 43 · Cited by 208
- Authors
- Fletcher, R., Cornia, A., & Nielsen, R. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Fletcher, Richard
- Venue
- The International Journal of Press/Politics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-12-15
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 169-195
- ISSN
- 1040-1620 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1612
- 1940-1620
- OpenAlex
- W2995569032
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 50.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The International Journal of Press/Politics (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- online news consumption, media systems, algorithmic selection, digital news consumption, comparative media systems
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
