CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Media Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Studies and Communication

News Consumption of Russian Vkontakte Users: Polarization and News Avoidance

Open access
Urman, Aleksandra·2019·University of Bern
DOI 10.7892/boris.142408
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study explores the patterns of news consumption of Russian users of Vkontakte, the most popular social media platform in Russia, based on a sample of 55,344 users. The analysis is conducted via a combination of network analysis techniques. It demonstrates that the majority of Vkontakte users do not subscribe to news sources, demonstrating that there is a politically apathetic majority and news-interested minority. And news subscribers are polarized along political lines. There is a distinct group of users who subscribe to pro-opposition-leaning politicized sources more than other users do. This study builds on research on polarization, selective exposure, and the role of social media in authoritarian regimes. It provides new empirical evidence on the way that selective exposure and polarization manifest themselves on a non-Western platform in an authoritarian state.

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 · 10.7892/boris.142408

Cites

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?

  • Users can be connected in a graph through edges if they are friends or have shared content.

    “Thus, users can be connected in a graph through edges if they are friends (e.g., [136]) or have shared content.”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [136]

    The citation is attached to the claim about connecting users who are friends, not the separate claim about shared content. In “Polarization Is Real” (page unavailable), the paper says it examines subscription patterns, not friendship ties; its network description under Figure 1 (page unavailable) defines edges between users and pages they follow. Neither passage addresses edges between users who are friends. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. An, J., Quercia, D., Cha, M., Gummadi, K., & Crowcroft, J. (2014). Sharing political news: The balancing act of intimacy and socialization in selective exposure. EPJ Data Science, 3(1), 1-21. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-014-0012-2 · DOI
  2. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., . . . Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15(37), 9216-9221. doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509-512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Behrouzian, G., Nisbet, E. C., Dal, A., & Çarkoğlu, A. (2016). Resisting censorship: How citizens navigate closed media environments. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4345-4367.
  6. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731. doi:10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2008.00410.x · DOI
  7. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Breuer, A., Landman, T., & Farquhar, D. (2015). Social media and protest mobilization: Evidence from the Tunisian revolution. Democratization, 22(4), 764-792. doi:10.1080/13510347.2014.885505 International Journal of Communication 13(2019) · DOI
  9. Bright, J. (2018). Explaining the Emergence of political fragmentation on social media: The role of ideology and extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(1), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmx002 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Conover, M. D., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2012). Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science, 1(1), 1-19. doi:10.1140/epjds6 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dollbaum, J. M., Semenov, A., & Sirotkina, E. (2018). A top-down movement with grass-roots effects? Alexei Navalny's electoral campaign. Social Movement Studies, 17(5), 618-625. doi:10.1080/14742837.2018.1483228 · DOI
  12. Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729-745. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5-24. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5 · DOI
  14. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  15. Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450-2468. doi:10.1177/1461444817724170 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Gainous, J., Wagner, K. M., & Ziegler, C. E. (2018). Digital media and political opposition in authoritarian systems: Russia's 2011 and 2016 Duma elections. Democratization, 25(2), 209-226. doi:10.1080/13510347.2017.1315566 · DOI
  18. Garimella, K., Morales, G. D. F., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018). Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. ArXiv:1801.01665 [Cs]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01665 · arXiv
  19. Goel, S., Mason, W., & Watts, D. J. (2010). Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 611-621. doi:10.1037/a0020697 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Grömping, M. (2014). "Echo chambers": Partisan Facebook groups during the 2014 Thai election. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 24(1), 39-59. doi:10.1177/1326365X14539185 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Gruzd, A., & Roy, J. (2014). Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 28-45. doi:10.1002/1944-2866. · DOI
  22. Gunitsky, S. (2015). Corrupting the cyber-commons: Social media as a tool of autocratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 42-54. doi:10.1017/S1537592714003120 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Guriev, S., & Treisman, D. (2015). How modern dictators survive: An informational theory of the new authoritarianism (Working Paper No. 21136). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series. doi:10.3386/w21136 · DOI
  24. Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M. M., Mari, W., & Maziad, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes: What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2595096). SSRN Research Paper Series. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2595096
  25. Huang, H. (2015). Propaganda as signaling. Comparative Politics, 47(4), 419-437. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43664158 Istochniki informatsii [Information sources]. (2017, May 12). Retrieved from http://fom.ru/SMI-i- internet/13323
  26. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York, NY: Free Press.
  27. Klyueva, A. (2016). Taming online political engagement in Russia: Disempowered publics, empowered state and challenges of the fully functioning society. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4661-4680.
  28. Ksiazek, T. B. (2011). A network analytic approach to understanding cross-platform audience behavior. Journal of Media Economics, 24(4), 237-251. doi:10.1080/08997764.2011.626985 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x · DOI · Paper page
  30. Levada Center. (2018, August 5). Social media (Press release). Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2018/05/08/social-media/
  31. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · DOI · Paper page
  32. MacKinnon, R. (2011). China's "networked authoritarianism." Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 32-46. doi:10.1353/jod.2011.0033 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Maréchal, N. (2017). Networked authoritarianism and the geopolitics of information: Understanding Russian Internet policy. Media and Communication, 5(1), 29-41. doi:10.17645/mac.v5i1.808 · DOI
  34. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Muchnik, L., Pei, S., Parra, L. C., Reis, S. D. S., Andrade, J. S., Jr., Havlin, S., & Makse, H. A. (2013). Origins of power-law degree distribution in the heterogeneity of human activity in social networks. Scientific Reports, 3(1783), 1-7. doi:10.1038/srep01783 · DOI
  36. Mukerjee, S., Majó-Vázquez, S., & González-Bailón, S. (2018). Networks of audience overlap in the consumption of digital news. Journal of Communication, 68(1), 26-50. doi:10.1093/joc/jqx007 · DOI
  37. Nelson, J. L., & Webster, J. G. (2017). The myth of partisan selective exposure: A portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media + Society, 3(3), 1-13. doi:10.1177/2056305117729314 · DOI
  38. Pearce, K. E., & Kendzior, S. (2012). Networked authoritarianism and social media in Azerbaijan. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 283-298. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01633.x · DOI
  39. Rastogi, T. (2016). A power law approach to estimating fake social network accounts. ArXiv:1605.07984 [Physics]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07984 · arXiv
  40. Reporters Without Borders. (2018). World Press Freedom Index. Retrieved from https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2018
  41. Reuter, O. J., & Szakonyi, D. (2015). Online social media and political awareness in authoritarian regimes. British Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 29-51. doi:10.1017/S0007123413000203 · DOI
  42. Ruijgrok, K. (2017). From the Web to the streets: Internet and protests under authoritarian regimes. Democratization, 24(3), 498-520. doi:10.1080/13510347.2016.1223630 · DOI
  43. Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Tucker, J. A. (2018). Turning the virtual tables: Government strategies for addressing online opposition with an application to Russia. Comparative Politics, 50(3), 435-482. doi:10.5129/001041518822704890 · DOI
  44. Schmidt, A. L., Zollo, F., Vicario, M. D., Bessi, A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., . . . Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Anatomy of news consumption on Facebook. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(12), 3035-3039. doi:10.1073/pnas.1617052114 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Smith, S. M., Fabrigar, L. R., & Norris, M. E. (2008). Reflecting on six decades of selective exposure research: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 464-493. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00060.x · DOI
  46. Spaiser, V., Chadefaux, T., Donnay, K., Russmann, F., & Helbing, D. (2017). Communication power struggles on social media: A case study of the 2011-12 Russian protests. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(2), 132-153. doi:10.1080/19331681.2017.1308288 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341-366. doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment, and beyond. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  49. Taneja, H., & Webster, J. G. (2016). How do global audiences take shape? The role of institutions and culture in patterns of web use. Journal of Communication, 66(1), 161-182. doi:10.1111/jcom.12200 · DOI
  50. Tselikov, A. (2014). The tightening web of Russian internet regulation (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2527603). SSRN Research Paper Series. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2527603 International Journal of Communication 13(2019)
  51. Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  52. Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 39-56. doi:10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2011.01616.x · DOI
  53. White, S., & McAllister, I. (2014). Did Russia (nearly) have a Facebook revolution in 2011? Social media's challenge to authoritarianism. Politics, 34(1), 72-84. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12037 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Urman, A.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Urman, Aleksandra
ORCID
Urman, Aleksandra
Venue
University of Bern
Publisher
University of Bern
Published
2019-10
Volume
13
Pages
25
ISSN
1932-8036 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7892/boris.142408
OpenAlex
W2980197204
Cited by
15
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International journal of communication (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
  • International journal of communication (cc-by-nc-nd)
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
news consumption, VKontakte, social media, political polarization, news avoidance, selective exposure, political apathy, authoritarian regimes

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