Journalists are supposed to tell stories without taking sides, but the internet makes it tough. Online, there’s a clash between news outlets pushing strong opinions to get clicks and others known for staying neutral, like BBC News and Reuters.
The move towards biased news might be because people are getting more divided in their politics. This brings up a big question: can things like accuracy and staying fair survive in the online world? If not, it could be bad news for democracy.
How online news works
Some researchers at George Mason University used game theory to figure out how online news works. They created a model with three pretend news websites—one neutral and two pushing different opinions. These websites tried to attract readers who leaned more left or right.
In the simulation, they looked at different situations, like a free-for-all market and a market dominated by a powerful state. They also considered scenarios with or without a lot of readers who don’t lean strongly to one side.
Surprisingly, the research showed that neutral websites could outdo the ones pushing a strong opinion. Being in the middle made it easier for neutral sites to adjust their articles to appeal to different sides. On the other hand, sites with a clear bias found it harder to be flexible because their whole brand depends on sticking to one political view.
Contrasting information
The authors argue that forays into more polarized territory can actually help more neutral outlets as humans tend to want contrasting information. If contrasting information is found in an “objective” place, it promotes our confidence in the neutrality of that outlet. It’s a process known as “leveling”.
“The more people start believing that the source is neutral, the more partisan-polarized consumers start engaging with it, which ties in with the insight that neutral websites benefit from polarization,” they explain.
Recent bold moves by traditional news outlets, like CNN’s intense town hall with Donald Trump in May 2023 and the New York Times’ controversial “1619 Project,” may be attempts to adapt to the changing media landscape.
Cognitive dissonance
Yet, there are some limits to this shift. According to cognitive dissonance theory, there’s a kind of polarization that focuses more on disliking others’ beliefs than sticking to one’s own. People with this contrarian outlook might not be open to checking out neutral or opposing views online.
Also, if it’s really hard to find or use an online platform, like if it’s too complicated, people might just look for news somewhere else, no matter their political stance.
The good news for neutral news sources is that the research suggests they have a chance in the future. But it’s still unclear how all this will affect the online echo chamber and, by extension, democratic discussions.
On one side, exposing people who prefer biased news to a more diverse and fact-based environment could lessen polarization. On the flip side, if more engagement (and much-needed ad money) becomes a priority, editors and journalists might be tempted to lower their standards to connect with partisan audiences.
To tackle this issue, the researchers came up with an “elasticity measure” using their model. It checks how much news sources adjust their approach when more people engage with them. It’s somewhat like measures we use to see how sensitive prices are to changes in consumer demand. However, unlike price elasticity, the researchers found that news outlets might not have enough reason to resist increasing polarization in favor of staying bipartisan, making their proposed measure consistently positive.
