CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 62Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US

Open access
Narayanan, Vidya, Barash, Vlad, Kelly, John, Kollanyi, Bence, Neudert, Lisa-Maria, Howard, Philip N.·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1803.01845arXiv 1803.01845
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What kinds of social media users read junk news? We examine the distribution of the most significant sources of junk news in the three months before President Donald Trump first State of the Union Address. Drawing on a list of sources that consistently publish political news and information that is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news, we find that the distribution of such content is unevenly spread across the ideological spectrum. We demonstrate that (1) on Twitter, a network of Trump supporters shares the widest range of known junk news sources and circulates more junk news than all the other groups put together; (2) on Facebook, extreme hard right pages, distinct from Republican pages, share the widest range of known junk news sources and circulate more junk news than all the other audiences put together; (3) on average, the audiences for junk news on Twitter share a wider range of known junk news sources than audiences on Facebook public pages.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1803.01845

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The effect of journalists selecting to quote more extreme voices is further amplified by partisan social media users re-distributing extreme voices from the press on social media networks.

    “The effect of journalists selecting to quote more extreme voices is then further amplified by partisan social media users re-distributing extreme voices from the press on social media networks (Narayanan et al., 2018).”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Narayanan et al., 2018

    The Abstract (p. 1) reports that Trump-supporter networks and extreme hard-right Facebook pages circulated junk news from sources publishing extremist content. But the paper does not establish that journalists selected extreme voices to quote, that users redistributed those quoted voices from the press, or that this amplified a journalist-selection effect. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [3]3. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. & Kleis Nielsen, R. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017 . (Reuters Institute, Oxford University, 2017).
  2. [11]11. Kelly, J. and Barash, V. and Alexanyan, K. and Etling, B. and Faris, R. and Gasser, U. and Palfrey, J., Mapping Russian Twitter . (Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 2012) SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2028158
  3. [12]12. Alvarez-Hamelin, J. I., Dall'Asta, L., Barrat, A. & Vespignani, A. k-core decomposition: A tool for the visualization of large scale networks. arXiv preprint cs/0504107 (2005). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Narayanan, V., Barash, V., Kelly, J., Kollanyi, B., Neudert, L.-M., & Howard, P. N.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1803.01845
arXiv
1803.01845
OpenAlex
W2792690953
Cited by
62
References
3
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
fake news, social media, political polarization, partisanship, Donald Trump, Twitter, Facebook, extremist content

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