CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Media Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Studies and Communication

Incidental Exposure to Non-Like-Minded News through Social Media: Opposing Voices in Echo-Chambers’ News Feeds

Open access
Masip, Pere, Suau, Jaume, Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos·2020·Media and Communication
DOI 10.17645/mac.v8i4.3146
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Debates about post-truth need to take into account how news re-disseminates in a hybrid media system in which social networks and audience participation play a central role. Hence, there is a certain risk of reducing citizens’ exposure to politically adverse news content, creating ‘echo chambers’ of political affinity. This article presents the results of research conducted in agreement with 18 leading Spanish online news media, based on a survey (N = 6625) of their registered users. The results highlight that high levels of selective exposure that are a characteristic of offline media consumption are being moderated in the online realm. Although most of the respondents get news online from like-minded media, the figures related to those who also get news from media with a different media ideology should not be underestimated. As news consumption is becoming more ‘social,’ our research points out that Spanish citizens who are more active on social media sites are more likely to be exposed to news content from different ideological positions than those who are less active users. There is a weak association between the use of a particular social network site and gaining access to like- and non-like-minded news.

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 · 10.17645/mac.v8i4.3146

Cites

7 of 7 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?

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: 42

  1. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
  2. Balmas, M. (2014). When fake news becomes real. Com- munication Research, 41(3), 430-454.
  3. Barbera, P., Jost, J., Nagler, J., Tucker, J., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online politi- cal communication more than an echo chamber? Psy- chological Science, 26(10), 1531-1542.
  4. Baresch, B., Knight, L., Dustin, H., & Yaschur, C. (2011). Friends who choose your news: An analysis of con- tent links on Facebook. ISOJ: The Official Research Journal of International Symposium on Online Jour- nalism, 1(2), 65-85.
  5. Bennett, W., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of min- imal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731.
  6. Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering 'difference' in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political dis- cussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680-700.
  7. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo cham- ber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317-332.
  9. Curran, J., Fenton, N., & Freedman, D. (2012). Misunder- standing the internet. New York, NY: Routledge.
  10. Davenport, T., & Beck, J. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  11. Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is over- stated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Soci- ety, 21(5), 729-745.
  12. Guallar, J., Suau, J., Ruiz-Caballero, C., Sáez, A., & Masip, P. (2016). Re-dissemination of news and public de- bate on social networks. El Profesional de la Informa- ción, 25(3), 358-366.
  13. Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media sys- tems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Hirzalla, F., van Zoonen, L., & de Ridder, J. (2010). In- ternet use and political participation: Reflections on the mobilization/normalization controversy. The In- formation Society, 27(1), 1-15.
  15. Holbert, R., Garrett, R., & Gleason, L. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 15-34.
  16. Humanes, M. (2014). Exposición selectiva y partidismo de las audiencias en España [Selective exposure and partisanship in Spain]. Palabra Clave, 17(3), 773-802.
  17. Humanes, M. (2016). Exposición selectiva, partidismo y polarización de las audiencias de los medios en Es- paña [Selective exposure, partisanship, and media audience polarisation in Spain]. In A. Casero (Ed.), Pe- riodismo y democracia en el entorno digital [Journal- ism and democracy in the digital environment] (pp. 37-52). Madrid: SEP.
  18. Jamieson, K., & Cappella, J. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Khaldarova, I., & Pantti, M. (2016). Fake news. Journalism Practice, 10(7), 891-901.
  20. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241-1257.
  21. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Johnson, B., & Westerwick, A. (2013). To your health: Self-regulation of health behavior through selective exposure to online health messages. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 807-829.
  22. Lanham, R. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. Chicago, IL: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.
  23. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The peo- ple's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York, NY: Columbia Uni- versity Press.
  24. Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimila- tion and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.
  25. Masip, P., Suau, J., & Ruiz, C. (2018). Questioning the selective exposure to news: Understanding the im- pact of social networks on political news consump- tion. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(3), 300-319.
  26. Messing, S., & Westwood, S. (2012). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump par- tisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042-1063.
  27. Mitchelstein, E., & Boczkowski, P. (2010). Online news consumption research: An assessment of past work and an agenda for the future. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1085-1102.
  28. Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimila- tion of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psy- chology, 24(1), 15-26.
  29. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2019) Reuters Institute digital news report 2019. Oxford: Reuters Institute.
  30. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Reuters Institute digital news report 2017. Oxford: Reuters Institute.
  31. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.
  32. Press, A., & Williams, B. (2010). The new media environ- ment: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  33. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-127.
  35. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Mico, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011) Public sphere 2.0? The demo- cratic qualities of citizen debates in online news- papers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463-487.
  36. Schrøder, K. C. (2015). News media old and new. Journal- ism Studies, 16(1), 60-78.
  37. Singer, J. (2013). User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. New media and Society, 16(1), 55-73.
  38. Stroud, N. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. Sunstein, C. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Prince- ton University Press.
  40. Sunstein, C. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  41. Sunstein, C. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press.
  42. Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A frame- work for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309-328.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Masip, P., Suau, J., & Ruiz-Caballero, C.
Affiliations
Universitat Ramon Llull (ES)
ORCID
Venue
Media and Communication
Publisher
Cogitatio
Published
2020-10-08
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
53-62
ISSN
2183-2439 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17645/mac.v8i4.3146
OpenAlex
W3092161616
Cited by
25
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Media and Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Cogitatio (Cogitatio) (publishedVersion)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (RTI2018)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
Keywords
echo chambers, selective exposure, social media, news consumption, political ideology, post-truth, online news, social network sites, Spanish citizens, hybrid media system

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