Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization

Martin, Gregory J.; Yürükoğlu, Ali

doi:10.3386/w20798

Cited by 51 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We find that language is a striking exception: Democrats and Republicans now speak different languages to a far greater degree than ever before. The fact that partisan language diffuses widely through media and public discourse (Gentzkow and Shapiro (2010), Greenstein and Zhu (2012), Jensen et al (2012), Martin and Yurukoglu (2017)) implies that this could be true not only for congresspeople but for the American electorate more broadly.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This plausibly increased the return to carefully crafted language, both by widening the reach of successful sound bites, and by dialing up the cost of careless mistakes. 25 The subsequent introduction of the Fox News cable network and the increasing partisanship of cable news more generally (Martin and Yurukoglu (2017)) may have further increased this return.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is widely apparent that America's two political parties speak different languages. 1 Partisan differences in language diffuse into media coverage (Gentzkow and Shapiro (2010), Martin and Yurukoglu (2017)) and other domains of public discourse (Greenstein and Zhu (2012), Jensen, Naidu, Kaplan, and Wilse-Samson (2012)), and partisan framing has been shown to have large effects on public opinion (Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley (1997), Graetz and Shapiro (2006), Chong and Druckman (2007)).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech

Gentzkow¹,

Shapiro²,

Taddy

2019

ECTA

306

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the problem of measuring group differences in choices when the dimensionality of the choice set is large. We show that standard approaches suffer from a severe finite‐sample bias, and we propose an estimator that applies recent advances in machine learning to address this bias. We apply this method to measure trends in the partisanship of congressional speech from 1873 to 2016, defining partisanship to be the ease with which an observer could infer a congressperson's party from a single utterance. Our estimates imply that partisanship is far greater in recent years than in the past, and that it increased sharply in the early 1990s after remaining low and relatively constant over the preceding century.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech

Gentzkow¹,

Shapiro²,

Taddy

2019

ECTA

306

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…), and Michelman (2003b). 54 Research on the influence of news media on voters is more familiar, yet equally alarming (for a recent study, see Martin and Yurukoglu (2017). 55 Versions of this article were presented at the University of Arizona Freedom Center, The Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics in Tel Aviv University, The American University of Paris, and the Hebrew University Law and Philosophy Forum.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Populism and democracy: The challenge for deliberative democracy

Sharon

2018

European J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theorists of democracy have long grappled with the question of how to uphold the promise of popular government while restraining populist excesses. The deliberative conception of democracy proposes to do so by subjecting power to collective decision making through procedures of free and equal public deliberation. Critics of this idea often target its realizability. Though valid in theory, they claim, deliberative democracy is hopelessly utopian. The paper argues that, given a proper understanding of the deliberative approach and its underlying ideal of collective self‐government, this line of criticism is not very potent. However, another line of criticism, less pronounced in the contemporary debate, is more effective, questioning the very cogency of public discussion, even by a competent public, as a means of collective self‐government. Open public discussion is prone to various forms of manipulation and deception, which subvert rather than facilitate self‐government. Deliberative democracy's egalitarianism and populism therefore run counter to its deliberative aspiration, which underpins its ideal of democratic legitimacy.

show abstract

“…One risk in public consultation is that the salience of indicators is partly determined by previous narratives from a particular political or ideological perspective. There is some evidence that voting habits are determined by viewing habits (for example, Facchini et al ., ; Martin and Ali Yurukoglu, .) Nevertheless, the principle of involving the public in the selection of indicators is attractive.…”

Section: Taking the Conversation Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of the National Accounts: Statistics and the Democratic Conversation

Coyle

2017

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization

Cited by 51 publications

References 18 publications

Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech

Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech

Populism and democracy: The challenge for deliberative democracy

The Future of the National Accounts: Statistics and the Democratic Conversation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About