People Choose News That Fits Their Views

Yes. To have all my beliefs challenged by every piece of news I read would be exhausting. Most of the time I want to read news written by someone who shares my basic worldview.

In fact, the perfect news item is one that is indistinguishable from the one that would have been written by me, had I been there. That's the perspective I want.

That's not to say I don't welcome learning about opposing viewpoints, but for something that challenges me deep, I'd prefer to read a book, than a bunch of news items.

And with the advent of the internet, that has become so much easier. We can find whatever niche we want and create our own echo chamber.

Before the internet, newspapers had to operate somewhat similarly to how our political parties operated. You had to offer enough to all people in your area that you'd be financially sustainable. Jonathan Sarna (a professor at Brandeis) has talked about this as to why US politics doesn't have the fringes that Europe does. Because American politicians are elected locally (for the most part), it becomes suicidal to be fringe. Sure, maybe 10% of the country agrees with you, but never 50% in any given area - no matter how liberal or conservative. By contrast European countries generally give a party representation in proportion to their take at the polls - even if they don't win a single district.

The internet is like that European system. There might not be enough in one area to support niches, but there are across a larger population.

And, to be honest, I find this a little troubling. On the positive side, there are more beliefs able to be published and heard. But really, what seems to happen is that the beliefs aren't heard wider - just more often by a sub group. And there are such things as wrong beliefs. Things that are scientifically inaccurate or something we might deem terrible for society (for example, I fell very comfortable saying that Nazism is a wrong belief). Before such echo chambers, there were at least buffers where one would have to hear wider (one could criticize, mainstream) views and wouldn't have people backing up their view constantly (or at least not exclusively).

It's quite the double-edged sword. I can understand why people like reading HuffPo or Fox News, but it can be somewhat dangerous. There's a great sorting trend happening in America where we surround ourselves with those who think only like us. Lack of contact with people who think differently both makes us demonize them (even if it's only to the "how could they think that" extent) and makes us very vulnerable. The second part needs some explanation. This makes us vulnerable in the same way that genetic engineering (or lack of bio diversity) would. Are we so arrogant (on all sides) to think that we have the answer (to life, the universe, and everything) that it wouldn't be good to hedge our bets?

I'm not saying that it's terrible or anything, just that one has to be careful about only thinking one way. If we aren't careful, we'll become people analogous to hammers and miss the solutions that aren't nails.

I wonder if there's a potential web app here. Something like Crossfire was for TV, just less "fueling the argument" and more "getting both sides of the story."

I can't say I'm surprised really, surely it's just another example of confirmation bias?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I think this study is flawed based on their sample which was college students. Anyone who has read something they don't agree with realizes it creates an emotional response. At the same time people tend to be more emotional when they are younger. Paticularly in College where most people see politics as a way to "change the world"

So a conclusion based on college students doesn't really impress me. Of course very emotional people are going to avoid things that cause a negative emotional response

I guess it does tell us that the emotional side of us seeks out like minded people but that seems like common sense to me. Part of being an adult is realizing your emotions shouldn't dictate what you do and seeking out thoughts you might not agree with. Not every adult does it but every adult should.

I’ve just read “The People’s Choice” by Lazarsfeld et al. which was published in 1948. It’s about the US presidential election of 1944 – really old and a social science classic.

By repeatedly interviewing 600 people in Erie County, Ohio, they wanted to find out how and why opinions change (and don’t) during a presidential campaign. What they found out was surprising: mass media had very little influence and generally didn’t change opinions. It activated voters (with predispositions). It reinforced them (after they made up their mind). If anything changed votes then it was interpersonal communication.

If such a old study already looked at whether people pick media according to their views I find it very hard to imagine that this is really news.

A more quantitative look at this same thing. Basically saying that people pick what interests them. This is pretty technical, but by some pretty smart people:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~jmshapir/bias.pdf

And, my own experiment with media influence. This counteracts both the master link and the link above. My short experiment has correlation to show that the media has more influence on public perception. Though, this was just a proof-of-concept and not a vetted research project:

http://publicthoughts.com/media-affects-opinion/

The Economist had a feature article a while back, which cheekily said IIRC

"[The British] like newspapers, especially those they agree with"

If this article is true, than what kind of people would choose to read this article?

This just in, the sky is blue!