Public Choice

, Volume 134, Issue 1–2, pp 67–86 | Cite as

Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers

Article

Abstract

With the increasing spread of information technologies and their potential to filter content, some have argued that people will abandon the reading of dissenting political opinions in favor of material that is closely aligned with their own ideological position. We test this theory empirically by analyzing—both quantitatively and qualitatively—Web links among the writings of top conservative and liberal bloggers. Given our use of novel methods, we discuss in detail our sampling and data collection methodologies. We find that widely read political bloggers are much more likely to link to others who share their political views. However, we find no increase in this pattern over time. We also analyze the content of the links and find that while many of the links are based on straw-man arguments, bloggers across the political spectrum also address each others’ writing substantively, both in agreement and disagreement.

Keywords

Blogs Bloggers Communication Fragmentation Ideology Internet Polarization Political communication Web 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackland, R. (2005). Mapping the U.S. political blogosphere: Are conservative bloggers more prominent? Australian National University. Google Scholar
  2. Adamic, L., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. elections: Divided they blog. Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso. Google Scholar
  4. Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning online: The Internet in U.S. elections. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, J. D. (2003). The blogosphere: How a once-humble medium came to drive elite media discourse and influence public policy and elections. In 2nd annual Pre-APSA conference on political communication: Mass communication and civic engagement. Philadelphia, PA. Google Scholar
  7. Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. In Seventh international World Wide Web conference. Brisbane, Australia. Google Scholar
  8. Browning, G. (1996). Electronic democracy: Using the Internet to influence American politics. Wilton: Pemberton Press. Google Scholar
  9. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, R., & Robinson, J. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Google Scholar
  12. Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. (1965). Selective exposure. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 58–98. Google Scholar
  13. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 41–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar
  15. Horrigan, J. B., Garrettt, K., & Resnick, P. (2004). The Internet and democratic debate. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Google Scholar
  16. Howard, P. E. N. (2003). Digitizing the social contract: Producing American political culture in the age of new media. Communication Review, 6, 213–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement and interaction. Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  19. Klam, M. (2004). Fear and laptops on the campaign trail. The New York Times Magazine. Google Scholar
  20. Lazarsfeld, P., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship and a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger (Ed.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 8–66). New York: Van Nostrand. Google Scholar
  21. Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J.B., & Fallows, D. (2004). Content creation online. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet and Americal Life Project. Google Scholar
  22. Lev-on, A., & Manin, B. (2005). Deliberation and online exposure to opposing views. In Second Conference on Online Deliberation. Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
  23. Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52, 122–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf. Google Scholar
  26. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty and the Internet in democratic societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Olasky, P. (2004). Blogs: Media watchdogs or pundits in pajamas? In MTV.com Headlines. Google Scholar
  28. Rainie, L. (2005). The state of blogging (pp. 1–4). Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Google Scholar
  29. Rainie, L., Cornfield, M., & Horrigan, J. B. (2005). The Internet and campaign 2004. Google Scholar
  30. Rainie, L., Fox, S., & Fallows, D. (2003). The Internet and the Iraq War. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Google Scholar
  31. Stromer-Galley, J., Foot, K. A., Schneider, S. M., & Larsen, E. (2000). How citizens used the Internet in election 2000. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Elections in the Age of the Internet: Lessons from the United States (pp. 21–26). London: Hansard Society. Google Scholar
  32. Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  33. Xenos, M., & Foot, K. A. (2005). Politics as usual, or politics unusual: Position-taking and dialogue on campaign web sites in the 2002 U.S. elections. Journal of Communication, 55, 169–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations