Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?!

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
People Choose News That Fits Their Views
by Jeremy Hsu

News readers gorge on media messages that fit their pre-existing views, rather than graze on a wider range of perspectives. In other words, they consume what they agree with, researchers say.

The finding comes out of a recent study which tracked how college students spent their time reading media articles on hot-button issues such as abortion or gun ownership.

Unsurprisingly, students gravitated toward articles that supported their views.

"The idea has been around for a very long time, but it has just never been proven," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a communications researcher at Ohio State University. "It's just considered textbook knowledge or lay common sense."

That preference for similar views may also influence hardcore political junkies who prefer to read blogs with strong political views, according to separate research.

However, researchers still don't know how individual uncertainty about political views affects time spent reading one side or the other. And on the flipside, individuals most confident in their political stance may actually seek out opposing views to read.

News that fits your views

Previous studies have asked people about their news reading habits and broad political beliefs, such as liberal or conservative.

But the new Ohio State study took that a step further by observing how 156 college students spent five minutes reading online magazine articles on a computer. The computer recorded the time each student spent looking at pro and con articles about four issues that included abortion, gun ownership, health care and minimum wage.

"A survey isn't the greatest way to get hold of issues," Knobloch-Westerwick told LiveScience. "In my study, we just had people click on things so that we could watch unobtrusively."

As a result, she found that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that agreed with their point of view. They had a 58 percent chance of choosing articles that supported their views, as opposed to a 43 percent chance of choosing an article that challenged their view.

Students also commonly spent time reading both sides on any given issue, according to the study, which is detailed in the June issue of the journal Communication Research. However, very few clicked just on articles that opposed their views.

How political junkies read

Only 5 percent of online news readers go to political blogs on a daily basis, according to a new book by a different researcher, yet many represent the most politically active consumers of the news.

Such readers may prefer blogs over mainstream media sources because they suspect bias in the latter, said Richard Davis, a political scientist at Brigham Young University in Utah.

"They're clearly disenchanted with traditional media," Davis said. "That's why they read blogs in the first place - in their view, they see blogs as more accurate."

Davis worked with several independent firms to conduct nationally representative public opinion surveys of both political blog readers and journalists for his book, "Typing Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2009). He also focused on seven of the top political blogs, which at the time included Daily Kos on the left and Michelle Malkin on the right.

Such political blogs are up front with their political views, and typically "echo" the news reported by traditional journalists while adding their own spin or analysis.

But among the hardcore political junkies, 30 percent told the survey that blogs are more accurate, whereas only 8 percent said traditional media was more accurate. About 40 percent gave equal marks to both.

This trust in blogs over traditional media does not carry over to general readers, Davis cautioned. Less frequent blog readers usually give equal weight to blogs and traditional media. And overall, general readers still put more faith in traditional media.

Conservatives buck the trend

Some findings from both researchers suggest that individual confidence and certainty play a role in what people choose to read.

People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.

"It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.

However, Knobloch-Westerwick added that her latest study was not designed to assess reader motives, and that she hopes to more carefully study the issue in the future.

The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs - perhaps a reflection of journalists' political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said.

Davis offered another possible explanation for this trend among blog readers. Conservative views dominate talk radio, and so conservatives may feel more satisfied by that outlet and are willing to check out opposing views on blogs.

By contrast, liberal views dominate the blogosphere, but are scant on talk radio.

Winning hearts and minds ... or not

The big question that remains is whether consuming all this news affects or changes people's views, or simply hardens original beliefs.

Experts have fretted for a while about how people tend to read only what agrees with them. But current research suggests that it's amazing that people ever change their views, Knobloch-Westerwick said.

Some researchers have even begun examining how political leanings are rooted in biology, and the combined influences of genetics or life experiences. A separate recent study suggests that men with more daughters are more likely to take a liberal point of view, while women who have more sons may lean more conservative.

Still, having hardened political views bolstered by media messages might not represent all bad news for a democratic society.

"People who spend more time with messages that bolster their views are more likely to engage in political action, something that's very desirable from a democratic point of view," Knobloch-Westerwick said.
 
Odd - here is the opposite viewpoint... research from George Washington University involving 5,000 participants, which was last updated in March of this year, as compared to the 156 from the article above. It also found that people gravitated to sites that marched with their political viewpoints for the most part, but they found that

"Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like."

From a synopsis...

We were interested in two questions, both of which stem from normative debates in political science and political theory. One was whether blogs make it more likely that people will get access to points of view other than their own. Many deliberation theorists argue that this is a good thing. The other is whether blogs affect people’s likelihood of participating in politics – again regarded by many theorists as a good thing, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, our data doesn’t allow us to make causal assertions – but it does point to some very striking patterns of correlation.

First – blog readers seem to exhibit strong homophily. That is to say, they overwhelmingly choose blogs that are written by people who are roughly in accordance with their political views. Left wingers read left wing blogs, right wingers read right wing blogs, and very few people read both left wing and right wing blogs. Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like. Furthermore, blog readers are politically very polarized. They tend to clump around either the ‘strong liberal’ or the ‘strong conservative’ pole; there aren’t many blog readers in the center. This contrasts with consumers of various TV news channels, as the figure below illustrates. All of this suggests that blog readership is unlikely to be associated with the kinds of deliberative exchange between different points of view that some political theorists would like to see.

Second – blog readers are much more likely than non blog readers to engage in politics (through voting, giving money to candidates etc). Not only that, but left wing blog readers are significantly more likely than right wing blog readers to participate in politics. You could interpret this as evidence of more general depression among conservatives etc, but our best guess is that this is in large part the result of the netroots effect. Having a strong political movement which is pushing readers to make donations etc is likely to have real consequences. Obviously, we would like to have more data before we could make a really good case that our guess is correct.
You can read the research results here...

Well, the premise is definitely demonstrated in this forum.

Foss - actually the premise you talked about is not demonstrated on this forum. A rather large majority of posts present right leaning material. This might indicate that the conservatives on this site are reading a large amount of material on conservative sites. I rarely see a post from a conservative member of this site that sites a left leaning source, perhaps it is because the 'right' here rarely reads left leaning blogs (this is I admit, speculation drawn from circumstantial evidence). But, noting that 'some' of the right wing posts on this forum are responded to by liberals, we are at least reading 'some' material from conservative sites.
 
Foss - actually the premise you talked about is not demonstrated on this forum. A rather large majority of posts present right leaning material. This might indicate that the conservatives on this site are reading a large amount of material on conservative sites. I rarely see a post from a conservative member of this site that sites a left leaning source, perhaps it is because the 'right' here rarely reads left leaning blogs (this is I admit, speculation drawn from circumstantial evidence). But, noting that 'some' of the right wing posts on this forum are responded to by liberals, we are at least reading 'some' material from conservative sites.
Most of you don't read what we post. :rolleyes: I stand by my statement.
 
I rarely see a post from a conservative member of this site that sites a left leaning source, perhaps it is because the 'right' here rarely reads left leaning blogs (this is I admit, speculation drawn from circumstantial evidence). But, noting that 'some' of the right wing posts on this forum are responded to by liberals, we are at least reading 'some' material from conservative sites.

Why would a conservative post anything supporting a liberal view? I haven't seen you post anything that sites a "right-leaning" source, but I may have missed that thread...
 
Most of you don't read what we post. :rolleyes: I stand by my statement.

But, we do read some - obviously I read this post, even accurately citing the number of students who participated in the Ohio State study - recalled the previous study I had seen, was able to find the info on it and post it...

Should the left start posting from Think Progress or Crooks and Liars, so you have easier access to some better liberal blogs? World Net Daily and Hot Air get to be a bit old after a while... ;)
 
I know I read most of the left wing posts just to get a laugh, but it usually just makes me mad because of how self-righteously ignorant they are of the facts ;)
 
Why would a conservative post anything supporting a liberal view? I haven't seen you post anything that sites a "right-leaning" source, but I may have missed that thread...

I would have thought they would have posted drivel from Kos, just to tear it apart... If they were reading it...
 
Odd - here is the opposite viewpoint... research from George Washington University involving 5,000 participants, which was last updated in March of this year, as compared to the 156 from the article above. It also found that people gravitated to sites that marched with their political viewpoints for the most part, but they found that

"Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like."

From a synopsis...

We were interested in two questions, both of which stem from normative debates in political science and political theory. One was whether blogs make it more likely that people will get access to points of view other than their own. Many deliberation theorists argue that this is a good thing. The other is whether blogs affect people’s likelihood of participating in politics – again regarded by many theorists as a good thing, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, our data doesn’t allow us to make causal assertions – but it does point to some very striking patterns of correlation.

First – blog readers seem to exhibit strong homophily. That is to say, they overwhelmingly choose blogs that are written by people who are roughly in accordance with their political views. Left wingers read left wing blogs, right wingers read right wing blogs, and very few people read both left wing and right wing blogs. Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like. Furthermore, blog readers are politically very polarized. They tend to clump around either the ‘strong liberal’ or the ‘strong conservative’ pole; there aren’t many blog readers in the center. This contrasts with consumers of various TV news channels, as the figure below illustrates. All of this suggests that blog readership is unlikely to be associated with the kinds of deliberative exchange between different points of view that some political theorists would like to see.

Second – blog readers are much more likely than non blog readers to engage in politics (through voting, giving money to candidates etc). Not only that, but left wing blog readers are significantly more likely than right wing blog readers to participate in politics. You could interpret this as evidence of more general depression among conservatives etc, but our best guess is that this is in large part the result of the netroots effect. Having a strong political movement which is pushing readers to make donations etc is likely to have real consequences. Obviously, we would like to have more data before we could make a really good case that our guess is correct.
You can read the research results here...

Ahh....the link you gave doesn't say any of that. It is simply the abstract of the study and here is what it says:
There is active debate among political scientists and political theorists over the relationship between participation and deliberation among citizens with different political viewpoints. Internet based blogs provide an important testing ground for these scholars' theories, especially as political activity on the Internet becomes increasingly important. In this article, we use the first major dataset describing blog readership to examine the relationship between deliberation, polarization and political participation among blog readers. We find that, as existing theories might predict, blog readers tend to read blogs that accord with their political beliefs. Cross-cutting readership of blogs on both the left and right of the spectrum is relatively rare. Furthermore, we find strong evidence of polarization among blogreaders, who tend to be more polarized than both non-blog-readers and consumers of various television news, and roughly as polarized as US Senators. Blog readers are also substantially more likely to participate in politics than non-blog readers. However, in contrast to previous research on offline social networks, we do not find that cross-cutting exposure to blogs of different ideological dispositions lowers participations. Instead, we find that cross-cutting blog readers are about as likely as left wing blog readers to participate in politics, and that both are significantly more likely than right wing blog readers to participate. We suggest that this may reflect social movement building efforts by left wing bloggers.

The fact that they are talking about "deliberalization" suggests that they assume the most people start out as liberal, which, depending on how the study is set up, would inject a large amount of systemic error into the study that might make it worthless. Can you link to the actual research results on this?
 
I would have thought they would have posted drivel from Kos, just to tear it apart... If they were reading it...

Why? That takes a lot of unnecessary time and effort, especially when you can simply link to a blog that already does that for you.
 
I rarely see a post from a conservative member of this site that sites a left leaning source, perhaps it is because the 'right' here rarely reads left leaning blogs (this is I admit, speculation drawn from circumstantial evidence).

Just a reminder the vast majority of the media as well as academia, pop culture, hollywood, etc. is extremely liberal. It is next to impossible for a conservative to not be exposed to the liberal points of view. However, the same cannot be said for liberals.

What fossten is reacting to is the fact that, more often then not, people come in here with a misunderstanding of the conservative POV on a given issue. This is usually due to the strawman mischaracterizations given of conservative positions in the liberal dominated aspects of our culture. However, most conservatives can articulate the liberal position as well as most liberals, and still have reason to reject it.
 
Ahh....the link you gave doesn't say any of that. It is simply the abstract of the study and here is what it says:


The fact that they are talking about "deliberalization" suggests that they assume the most people start out as liberal, which, depending on how the study is set up, would inject a large amount of systemic error into the study that might make it worthless. Can you link to the actual research results on this?​


Ah, Shag - I am sorry, I figured you must use SSRN somewhat for your research at school, or at least know how research networks operate...

When you get to the page I linked there is a download link at the top of the page that allows you to download the entire paper - it then goes to a 'source' page - where you can chose where you want the download to originate from. I used SSRN so the authors of the research get 'credit' for it, there is this hierarchy thing that happens with how many times it is downloaded, etc. But, you might like Stanford Law or one of the other sites that the paper is available at.

This sort of goes back to the whole copyright thing - I would rather not post a 37 page paper here, or even a direct link - but use the research site so the copyrights are protected.

There you will find all the information you need regarding their research, and their finding that if one group was going to wander to the 'other side's' blogs it would be liberals and not conservatives.

However, I would like to see the 'paper' that your article is referencing - Ms. Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick' research - I am especially interested in why they used only college students - that seems to be a rather limited study regarding this subject. I would have thought that a larger age mix would have been more accurate if you are going to make such broad statement as 'Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?!' Perhaps it should be tempered with "Conservative College Students are more likely to read opposing viewpoint than Liberal College Students." I suppose if I want Davis' info, I will need to refer to his book - that I probably won't be doing - however, usually there is a place where at least the raw data is available - have you found that Shag?​
 
Why? That takes a lot of unnecessary time and effort, especially when you can simply link to a blog that already does that for you.

So, I am allowed to just link to American Progress and other liberal sites to refute articles you post... so we just have a list of angry links? ;)
 
Just a reminder the vast majority of the media as well as academia, pop culture, hollywood, etc. is extremely liberal. It is next to impossible for a conservative to not be exposed to the liberal points of view. However, the same cannot be said for liberals.

What fossten is reacting to is the fact that, more often then not, people come in here with a misunderstanding of the conservative POV on a given issue. This is usually due to the strawman mischaracterizations given of conservative positions in the liberal dominated aspects of our culture. However, most conservatives can articulate the liberal position as well as most liberals, and still have reason to reject it.

I can take from this that you do read a lot of liberal POV? Well, wait, you don't because you get your liberal viewpoints as they are 'articulated' on conservative sites... hmmmmm.... No need to go to the original source, when it can be so nicely be summarized for you.... ;)
 
That is known as a straw man argument. Why does it have to be from Kos?

It can be from any liberal site - I was using an 'example' Foss that perhaps most people would know...
 
I can take from this that you do read a lot of liberal POV? Well, wait, you don't because you get your liberal viewpoints as they are 'articulated' on conservative sites... hmmmmm.... No need to go to the original source, when it can be so nicely be summarized for you.... ;)

You cannot be a college student (especially a political science major) and not read, watch, hear, etc. very well articulated liberal POV. In the case of being a poli sci major, you are required to regurgitate that stuff on a test, so you have to understand it. There is no room for error there. You have to be able to understand the liberal point of view as well as any other student and still be able to refute it, if you are a conservative political science major.

In fact, when it comes to the philosophical basis of liberalism (from which all liberal policy emanates), if I may be so bold, I have run circles around you; an avowed leftist.

Most conservatives used to be liberals, so they are going to have a better understanding of of liberalism then liberals have of conservatism.
 
In fact, when it comes to the philosophical basis of liberalism (from which all liberal policy emanates), if I may be so bold, I have run circles around you; an avowed leftist.

Most conservatives used to be liberals, so they are going to have a better understanding of of liberalism then liberals have of conservatism.

:) :) :)

So, got a link or links to that place where all liberal policy emanates.... since, I need some help with my philosophical basis regarding my ties to the left.

Are you one of those conservatives that used to be 'liberal' shag....
 
:) :) :)

So, got a link or links to that place where all liberal policy emanates.... since, I need some help with my philosophical basis regarding my ties to the left.

Did I ever say it was a "place"?

I can give you the names of thinkers/philosophers, but the best place to start for modern liberalism is Karl Marx, as most of the core principles stem from there (though, on it's own, Marx is a hard read and often mischaracterized, even by his supporters).

Are you one of those conservatives that used to be 'liberal' shag....

Relevance?

Another great example of bias in academia; the "biology" course I am taking this summer titled "Human Impact on Environment". The "textbook" for the course is this: Lester R. Brown's Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization The book cites President Clinton's praise of the the author on the front cover, and I can tell you after reading it the book is full of one sided enviromentalist propaganda. The author, Lester Brown, has been called "the guru of the environmental movement" and the founder of the Earth Policy Institute. The class is nothing more then liberal/environmental propaganda (it is an online course, so no lectures).

I have also had econ courses taught by socialists, and textbooks in econ classes written by Paul Krugman.

And that doesn't even touch my experiences in my political science classes.

Are you actually going to try and argue that I am not exposed to the liberal POV? :rolleyes:
 
Are you actually going to try and argue that I am not exposed to the liberal POV? :rolleyes:
Yep Shag, it looks like your liberal reading is pretty up to date – school does that… Most schools are pretty liberal, along with most professors.

Heck, I haven’t read Plan B 3.0…. I have read Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth by Brown. I thought it had some good points… I have never seen if Obama has read the book – but certainly some of his eco economy campaign promises followed along the same lines as Brown outlined… the tax basis stuff was really weak though…

Just think… when you finally graduate you can go back to reading what ever you want.

Relevance – were you ever a liberal? You stated that since many conservatives were at one time liberal, and that it gave them special insight to the workings of the liberal mind, I was just wondering if you also have that special ability as well…

I can give you the names of thinkers/philosophers, but the best place to start for modern liberalism is Karl Marx, as most of the core principles stem from there (though, on it's own, Marx is a hard read and often mischaracterized, even by his supporters).
Shag, well, maybe you should state Marx/Engel – since you are recommending…

I have read Communist Manifesto more than once… Capital – is a better book…. Grundrisse is excellent…

How about The State and Revolution (Lenin)? Why leave out Guerrilla Warfare (Che Guevara) or Accumulation of Capital (Luxemburg) or Woman’s Evolution (Reed)? Heck, since we are paining liberals with the communist brush there certainly has to be others… ;)
 
Just think… when you finally graduate you can go back to reading what ever you want.

Lose the cattiness.

How about The State and Revolution (Lenin)? Why leave out Guerrilla Warfare (Che Guevara) or Accumulation of Capital (Luxemburg) or Woman’s Evolution (Reed)? Heck, since we are paining liberals with the communist brush there certainly has to be others… ;)

Those are not as relevant to understanding modern liberalism. Those are variations of Marxism, but go in a completely different direction then modern liberalism. If you want modern liberalism, go read Rawls, Dworkin, Nussbaum and many others (though Rawls and Dworkin are the big ones).

Modern liberalism is not Marxism. It is a philosophy that is considered "post-Marxist" because it builds on Marxist theories/principles and goes beyond Marxism.
 
Shag – since you were just going with Marx as the place to ‘start’, I thought I should leave it at the Marxist level…

Plus, Guerrilla Warfare is a must!!!!

Ah, but since we need to move beyond Marx - How could you miss Goran Gherborn – From Marxism to Post-Marxism, if you really want a good book that compares the differences…

Or, here is one that people can download…
Reading Capital by Althusser/Balibar

or for a really current view on post-Marxism… Rethinking Marx

Nussbaum – Martha? You have read her? Women and Human Development? I think of her more as an Aristotelian, rather than post Marxist…

Andrea Dworkin? Did you take some sort of post marxism feminism in the later half of the 20th century class Shag?

Finally – John Rawls – excellent choice…

Let's go to ‘NationStates”- create your own utopia!!!

The Republic of Marx-Rawls is a massive, environmentally stunning nation, notable for its restrictive gun laws. Its compassionate population of 2.935 billion enjoy extensive civil freedoms, particularly in social issues, while business tends to be more regulated.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Social Welfare, the Environment, and Education. The average income tax rate is 100%. The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.

The government is slowly introducing social welfare programs, the government is pouring funds into the nation's welfare system, leather-clad individuals can be seen walking their slaves in public parks, and welfare funding has recently gone through the roof. Crime is totally unknown. Marx-Rawls's national animal is the chimpanzee, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the russell.

Note – it is important that your country achieve some level of liberal attitude towards public nudity.;)
 
It can be from any liberal site - I was using an 'example' Foss that perhaps most people would know...
So when I post from NBC, AP, NYT, MSNBC, CBS, et al, that counts? Ok, then your premise is proven false.
 
Shag – since you were just going with Marx as the place to ‘start’, I thought I should leave it at the Marxist level…

Plus, Guerrilla Warfare is a must!!!!

Ah, but since we need to move beyond Marx - How could you miss Goran Gherborn – From Marxism to Post-Marxism, if you really want a good book that compares the differences…

Or, here is one that people can download…
Reading Capital by Althusser/Balibar

or for a really current view on post-Marxism… Rethinking Marx

Nussbaum – Martha? You have read her? Women and Human Development? I think of her more as an Aristotelian, rather than post Marxist…

Andrea Dworkin? Did you take some sort of post marxism feminism in the later half of the 20th century class Shag?

Finally – John Rawls – excellent choice…

Let's go to ‘NationStates”- create your own utopia!!!

The Republic of Marx-Rawls is a massive, environmentally stunning nation, notable for its restrictive gun laws. Its compassionate population of 2.935 billion enjoy extensive civil freedoms, particularly in social issues, while business tends to be more regulated.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Social Welfare, the Environment, and Education. The average income tax rate is 100%. The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.

The government is slowly introducing social welfare programs, the government is pouring funds into the nation's welfare system, leather-clad individuals can be seen walking their slaves in public parks, and welfare funding has recently gone through the roof. Crime is totally unknown. Marx-Rawls's national animal is the chimpanzee, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the russell.

Note – it is important that your country achieve some level of liberal attitude towards public nudity.;)

Gherborn isn't paving any new ground philosophically. Nussbaum is an egalitarian (which is basically another word for post-marxism) and no I wasn't talking about Andrea Dworkin. :rolleyes:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top