PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 1

Running Head: Personalized Media and Polarization

Personalized Media’s Effect on Polarization

Yetzali A. Peña

Tallwood Global Studies and World Languages Academy

Instructor: Mr. Gregory Falls

December 2018
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 2

Table of Contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………… 3

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….... 4

Limitations ……………………………………………………………………….... 5

Literature Review …………………………………………………………………. 7

Discussion ………………………………………………………………................ 9

How Personalized Media Functions ………………………………………..... 9

The Filter Bubble Theory ………………………………………....………. 10

Polarization …………………………………………………………………. 11

Analyzing the Arguments …………………………………………………. 11

Combatting Personalized Media …………………………………………. 13

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………….... 14

References ……………………………………………………………………….... 16
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 3

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze how personalized news can affect polarization and to what

extent does the media affect polarization. In 2009 the internet began a shift to personalized news,

which has changed the way people receive information. Each person’s search engines and social

accounts recieve information tailored to what the algorithms believe the specific person would

like. This shift in spreading information can possibly cause changes in the political atmosphere,

specifically through polarization in news media. Personalized media has the ability to increase

polarization by affirming political beliefs and creating environments that encourage extremist

groups. The answer to what the degree polarization affects media varies from the perspective of

data as scholars provide different claims compared to the public’s evaluations. While the public

also provides different opinions when evaluating the news and when evaluating their own media

consumption. The contradictions make a true conclusion difficult to create but can be reasoned

out and allow perspective.

PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 4

The Relationship Between Polarization and Personalized Media

If a person and their friend, who hold similar beliefs, search the same topic at the same

time, how would their results compare? The answer will vary more likely than one would

believe due to a great shift in what factors go into search engines’ algorithms. The internet has

provided the public with a vast wealth of information that people constantly update and discuss.

The massive amount of content on the internet leads to problems on a technical level and with

consumers. The expectancy of distributing all if not majority of the information to every person

at a constant rate overwhelmed data processors. The public also struggled with processing large

amounts of information. On December 4th, 2009, Google announced they would from that point

forward use algorithms specific to creating personalized searches for their users (Pariser, E.

2012). Google, along with other online corporations created personalized media as the solution

to filtering excessive information. Personalized media gained popularity amongst media

companies as the concept offers a better method to increase income due to the search engines use

of calculating factors, that will predict and display what specific advertisement grab the users

attention and keep users on their platform longer. The personalized media’s functions

encouraged many companies, besides Google, to switch algorithms in order to increase their

success and continuously work on improving the personalization of people’s media consumption.

However, personalized media no longer has a guarantee of showing every person the most

reliable and least biased sources at the top of their searches but rather the sources that algorithms

predict the current person would most likely choose. Social media also has a tendency of using

algorithms to choose news and blogs that most likely appeal or reaffirm the political and social

ideals of a person. This shift to personalized news has alarmed some people, who created a
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 5

theory, called the filter bubble, also referred to as an echo chamber, in which the personalized

media reflects a person’s beliefs and deflects opposition to their beliefs. People who support the

idea of filter bubbles, also believe that personalized news has caused an increase of polarization

within politics. An increase of polarization can cause fragmentation of society and increase the

number of people with extremist political views. However, people have countered that

personalized new doesn’t increase the number of people who have polarized views but rather

increase the strength of belief for already polarized groups. Therefore this study analyzes the

effect of personalized media on polarization and what consequences do the effects have. The

public may have access to valid information on topics, such as immigration, but algorithms can

create personalized media and filter bubbles, that enforce people’s ideas and increase the

intensity of polarization of already polarized groups, and cause an illusion of a society, that

seems more polarized than in reality, as well as affect politics.

Limitations of these studies

Like other studies, this paper will have limitations in research that may change the

accuracy of the conclusion. The paper also has limitations in the scope of focus, data collection,

and biases. The author provides further explanation of these limitations below.

Author’s Viewpoints

The author of this study has a political bias and believes that personalized feed has an

impact in political opinions of people. The author has liberal political beliefs and may present

comparisons of polarization focused on more moderate and extremist conservative views in

negative perspectives or neglect to analysis extreme liberal politics. The author may neglect to
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 6

research studies against the idea of personalized news affecting the political views of people.

The author’s viewpoints may, therefore, impact the conclusion of the paper.

Biases in Studies

Though the author attempts to research non-biased viewpoints, some sources provide

strong viewpoints for or against personalized news. The author attempts to balance out the

biased views by providing sources on both sides and analyze them through moderate sources.

Data collected from surveys may also contain biases, as a personal analysis of whether a person

has non-biased media feed, may obtain subjective views. The author recognizes the data may

affect the conclusion but will factor the data into the research as it provides perspective to each

argument. Therefore, biases may sway the paper to reach a conclusion that may not show all

prospects of the situation.

Demographic Limitations

The author has decided to focus the study of personalized news in the United States and

the United Kingdom. Moreover, studies referenced in the paper mostly focus on the polarization

in the United States. Therefore, this study may not apply to all countries, especially ones with

strict media regulations as the regulations also affect what information the public may access.

The study also has limits in representation as Beam, M. A., & Kosicki, G. M. (2014) only focus

on a small percentage of English speaking people in the United States. Other studies do not

state whether the research accounted for language demographics. Therefore, the studies data

may not apply to the entire population of the two countries studied. Studies may also lack the

ability to gauge the effects of languages other than English in personalized media.

Limitation in Accuracy
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 7

Personalized media’s algorithms can create highly tailored information feeds for each

user making each of their experiences with personalized media different. Therefore surveys and

analysists can not fully gauge the exact effect of personalized media has on the public. Thus the

study may lack information or a perspective that may affect the conclusion.

Content Limitations

Though personalized news can influence multiple aspects of news and people, this study

focuses on certain topics. First, the study will focus on the use of personalized news on the

internet and social media. Second, the study will only focus on how personal news affects

polarization, to prevent digression to other ways personalized news can affect the public.

Literature Review

The public has shifted from traditional sources, such as newspapers to television, online

sources, and social media. As technology has advanced, people gained access to a greater

amount of sources and opinions from professional news sources and from people’s blogs. A

study by Beam, M. A., & Kosicki, G. M. (2014) stated that the amount of information available

has increased dramatically over the last few decades, which leads to an information overload, an

individual’s efficacy of using relevant information being hampered by the amount of information

available. The solution to this problem comes through algorithms that create personalized news.

However, the solution also creates theories of another problem.

When people search through the internet and scroll through social media, systems

calculate thousands of factors to display what a person will like and pay attention to, as well as

what people will overlook (Usher-Layser, N., 2016). Each click, like, and retweet alters and

determines what news and opinions a person will see, creating personalized news. Algorithms
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 8

also personalize advertisements, which “add to the shaping of identities… that consumers wish

to take on… as part of their everydayness” (Alber, P., Harste, J. C., Zanden, S. V., & Felderman,

C., 2008). However, people program and influence algorithms, therefore the people behind the

algorithms control the news.

An analysis on Facebook algorithms by Usher-Layser, N. (2016) studied how social

media uses algorithms and how the people behind influence users. Facebook provides a good

example as an estimate of about 50 percent of U.S. Adults, who use Facebook as a news source

and has multiple scandals to observe from (Facebook Has Become a Public Service. It Needs to

Start Acting Like One. 2016). Though Facebook attempts to use algorithms and monitoring to

help citizens, such as preventing the public from viewing pornography, beheadings, and more

(Chen, A., 2018), multiple studies have also revealed manipulation of content by social media

moderators. In 2014 Facebook admitted in a study that the company presented specific news

feed to create specific negative or positive feedback (Usher-Layser, N., 2016). Employees have

also admitted to suppressing certain information, such as job ads and right news media.

Facebook and other media platforms behind the media control and algorithms influence public

opinion.

In 2012 Pariser, E. published a book on the theory that personalized news creates an echo

chamber, the phenomenon in which an individual’s newsfeed only reflects personal beliefs and

filters out opposing views. Many disagree whether or not echo chambers, also known as filter

bubbles, exist. Some researchers argued that if personalized news and selective exposure filter in

what people wish to read, how can people know if they receive truly unbiased and inclusive

news sources (Blaauw, M., Miller, B., & Record, I., 2013). However in Lee, J. K.’s article,
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 9

which Lee published in 2007, they state that news presents a homogenous agenda and majority

of personal opinions and blogs, that link their sources to such articles. Therefore blogs also have

a homogenous agenda. Facebook also claims that filter bubbles do not present as a main issue,

stating that only 4% of users, who show to hold highly partisan views, have one perspective

feeds (Usher-Layser, N., 2016). Research shows that despite people generally engaging in

selective exposure, the public seems to have greater engagement in news than those without

personalized news (Beam, M. A., & Kosicki, G. M. 2014).

Though multiple sources show that media has an influence on political engagement,

overall studies of traditional media and internet news have a different effect in polarization than

what some groups portrayed. Polarized news tends to increase polarization in partisan groups

rather than affect than the whole population. Media that creates polarized news tends to

exaggerate issues and enforce fears and beliefs of their audience, thus the portrayal a society that

seems more polarized than studied.

Discussion

How Personalized Media Functions

To understand how filter bubbles may occur, a person must understand how media

calculates personalized feed. Gatekeepers have influenced what information reaches the public

since news first began. The internet has changed the way people receive news as the job of

gatekeeper has passed from humans to algorithms. Algorithms calculate even the most general

factor to decide what appears in personalized feeds, which allow personalized feed to affect

users, even if the user does not log on to a specific account and often go unnoticed due to the

consistency of the filtration. Google reports that they use 57 signals to calculate a person’s
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 10

search results (Pariser, E., n.d.). Some of the signals rely on location, search history, the

computer used, language, time spent searching, and what media a person uses (Rene, 2018).

These signals help people navigate the internet without causing an information overload.

The Filter Bubble Theory

People, such as Eli Pariser, voice concerns about algorithms’ role as a gatekeeper because

they believe the coding lacks the ability to give an equal distribution of news. If a person even

has interest in the news, they often click on links that confirm their biases, the action often

referred to as confirmation bias. Since media companies work to keep users consistently

engaged, the companies, such as Google and Facebook, focus on what links users click on first to

calculate the users' interests and filter out what topics users show less interest in. Only factoring

on the links which users choose first creates concern of limiting information without the users'

knowledge. Though an occasional link, that differs from a user's usual interests, may appear to

gauge additional interests of a person, most people will infrequently find an opposing view on

their media feed. The theory of the filter bubble occurs from the belief, that the combination of

selective exposure and the use of algorithms isolate a user to viewing information and posts that

echo their interests and beliefs. If people only see the information they desire to see, how does

personalized media affect a person's political beliefs? One of the topics that studies focus on

involves personal media’s effect on polarization.

Polarization

Political scientists define polarization as the division in sets of identity or ideologies.

Political polarization has both positive and negative effects on a country's government.

Polarization can prevent a faction from gaining complete control of government decisions and
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 11

allow better representation of a country’s needs. However, extremely polarized countries lack

the ability to find “common ground” on issues or agree on how the government system should

function (Ugarte, R. 2018). Countries with high polarization also tend to have extremist groups

emerge, which have a history of taking violent courses of action. Political scientists and

politically engaged citizens keep aware of countries’ polarization and the effects it has on the

political atmosphere.

Analyzing the Arguments

Researchers have sure result that media affects the political environment but argue how

much and to what degree the media impacts. Some argue that personalized news should have

their algorithms reformed, due to the belief that filter bubbles, that algorithms created, directly

cause polarization by affecting the networks of relations amongst people, also known as social

capital. Social capital has two defined network perspectives, that can classify how a person gains

social capital (Claridge, T., 2013, February 11). Claridge's articles explain the first network

perspective, bonding capital, occurs when a person connects to a group or community based on

similarities. The other perspective, bonding capital, occurs when a person connects through a

group, community, or organization with others through a cleavage, a social or political division.

Eli Pariser theorizes that personalized media causes a decline in bridging capital and an increase

of bonding capital. The theory applied in a political aspect would imply that people will interact

with more online posts and people affirming their political stance and fewer media opposing

their views.

Should the theory actually apply to the public, personalized media would most likely

increase polarization. An increase of polarization causes division between the public causing
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 12

more members of political groups to engage in politics and for politically engaged people to take

more actions. In some regions, an increase of polarization increases political diversity, but in

regions similar to the United States polarization can cause a rise in extremist groups. Multiple

political factions and groups of identities have had violent incidents of extremist groups. Across

multiple news sources, the public may notice extreme nationalist groups, which usually

associates with conservative ideals, wish to ban immigration and send undocumented migrants

from the country. Though liberal groups often have word association with progressive, extreme

acts of violence also occurs from the side, such as the LA Riots in 1992. After an act of

unpunished police violence against four African Americans occurred, five days of rioting in

which protestors disrupted traffic, raided and looted stores, and burned down buildings (RIOTS

ERUPT IN LOS ANGELES, 2010). Pew Research Center’s 2014 article on American

polarization shows an increase division amongst the American population over the years.

Political scientists and activists fear that the political atmosphere of America has shifted towards

extreme polarization and believe it will worsen should personalized news increase polarization.

While scholarly papers often rely on theorized logic and direct altercation of news to

explain how personalized media affects polarization, surveys of the public’s experience provide

a different perspective. One argument claims that news sources may differ in perspective but

offer the same information regardless of the political ideology of a news organization, therefore

the media can not mislead the public to believe a specific bias. Survey results also point out that

most of the public notice political biases in news articles and social media. When citizens

evaluate their media consumption most declare they consume neutral news or equal amounts of

news from both liberal and conservative perspectives. Social media corporations also declare
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 13

that personalized media has little effect on increasing polarization due to having trending topics

based on collective data of the world. Thus the opposing group concludes that the internet and

social media gives equal representation of political parties based on the surveys. Yet when the

public describes the attitudes towards the media their opinions change.

Though different regions have different news sources, the public has a general pattern in

surveys. Both the American Press Institution’s and the Pew Research Center’s studies show

populations tend to have varying levels of trust in their media sources and disagree what

ideologies the news represents. The data reflects a division of what news a person receives or at

least a different interpretation of the articles that people read since a majority of liberals believe a

news source represents a liberal agenda while a majority of conservatives find the same source

representing conservative ideals.

Combatting Personalized Media

Regardless of what degree personalized media affects polarization, personalized media

can still limit the amount of information received. Researchers believe analyzing the websites

visited and actively looking for opposing, yet reliable, opinions and news sources will increase

variety in searches. Researchers also encourage citizens to use sources on the second Google

web search page and beyond rather than clicking on the first link they see and stop there.

Political activists also encourage that expanding one's social circle offline and engaging in civil

discourse can help diversify the sources on people’s feeds (Blades, J., & Gable, J. 2018).

Following the advice, allows people to prevent limitations of perspective and break out of

possible filter bubbles.

Conclusion
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 14

Though the data has completely contrasting views from analyzation and public word, the

data clearly points toward the idea that personalized media affects polarization to some degree.

Though personalized media lacks the ability to directly affect the political ideals of people it

influences the political atmosphere by placing media bias as the forefront of people’s feeds.

Despite people’s claims of not having biased news surveys mostly reflect on the opinion of what

people believe of which news sources have bias and what bias does the source hold. In addition,

people cannot always detect whether algorithms have filtered their media even if they click on

diverse links because algorithms also factor into the amount of time spent on a page, which

sources receive more attention, and what posts receive reactions and reblogs. However, the

public often has a common news source that they may all rely on that the majority sees as a

medium between liberal and conservative parties. Therefore

personalized media subconsciously affects polarization by increasing levels of polarization in a

country through the affirmation of a person’s political ideology.

PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 15

References

Alber, P., Harste, J. C., Zanden, S. V., & Felderman, C. (2008, January). USING

POPULAR CULTURE TO PROMOTE CRITICAL LITERACY PRACTICES

[Scholarly project]. In ResearchGate. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299359633_Using_popular_culture_to_prom

ote_critical_literacy_practices

American Press Institute. (2014, March 17). SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC

DIFFERENCES IN NEWS HABITS AND ATTITUDES. Retrieved from

https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/social-dem

ographic-differences-news-habits-attitudes/

Beam, M. A., & Kosicki, G. M. (2014). PERSONALIZED NEWS PORTALS: FILTERING

SYSTEMS AND INCREASED NEWS EXPOSURE. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly, 91(1), 59-77. Retrieved from

https://explore.proquest.com/document/1515695385?accountid=3785

Blaauw, M., Miller, B., & Record, I. (2013). JUSTIFIED BELIEF IN A DIGITAL AGE:

ON THE EPISTEMIC IMPLICATIONS OF SECRET INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES.

Episteme, 10(2), 117-134. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/epi.2013.11

Blades, J., & Gable, J. (2018, November). FREE YOURSELF FROM YOUR FILTER

BUBBLES. Speech presented at TED Conference. Retrieved from

https://youtu.be/jtVIDBs60S8
PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 16

Bozdag, E., & van, d. H. (2015). BREAKING THE FILTER BUBBLE: DEMOCRACY

AND DESIGN. ETHICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 17(4), 249-265.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y

Chen, A. (2018). THE LABORERS WHO KEEP DICK PICS AND BEHEADINGS OUT

OF YOUR FACEBOOK FEED. Retrieved from

https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/

Claridge, T. (2018, January 06). WHAT IS BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL? Retrieved

from https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/what-is-bonding-social-capital/

Claridge, T. (2018, January 07). WHAT IS BRIDGING SOCIAL CAPITAL? Retrieved

from https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/what-is-bridging-social-capital/

Claridge, T. (2013). EXPLANATION OF TYPES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL. Retrieved from

https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/explanation-types-social-capital/

FACEBOOK HAS BECOME A PUBLIC SERVICE. IT NEEDS TO START ACTING

LIKE ONE. (2016, Sep 19). OpenDemocracy Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1820666064?accountid=3785

French, D. (2017, May 30). ON EXTREMISM, LEFT AND WHITE. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/political-violence-extremism-portland-musli

m-woman-left-right-alt-right/

RIOTS ERUPT IN LOS ANGELES. (2010). Retrieved from

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/riots-erupt-in-los-angeles

Lee, J. K. (2007). THE EFFECT OF THE INTERNET ON HOMOGENEITY OF THE

MEDIA AGENDA: A TEST OF THE FRAGMENTATION THESIS. Journalism and

PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 17

Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(4), 745-760. Retrieved from

https://explore.proquest.com/document/216932979?accountid=3785

LOS ANGELES RIOTS: 25 YEARS LATER. (2017). Retrieved from

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-riots-25-years/

Mullally, U. (2011, Jun 29). WHY THE WEB IS TELLING US WHAT IT THINKS WE

WANT TO HEAR. Irish Times Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/873985830?accountid=3785

Nagulendra, S., & Vassileva, J. (2016). PROVIDING AWARENESS, EXPLANATION

AND CONTROL OF PERSONALIZED FILTERING IN A SOCIAL NETWORKING

SITE. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(1), 145-158.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9577-y

Pariser, E. (2012). THE FILTER BUBBLE HOW THE NEW PERSONALIZED WEB IS

CHANGING WHAT WE READ AND HOW WE THINK. New York: Penguin Books.

Pariser, E. (n.d.). BEWARE ONLINE "FILTER BUBBLES". Speech presented at TED

Conference. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/B8ofWFx525s

Persily, N. (2017). CAN DEMOCRACY SURVIVE THE INTERNET? Journal of

Democracy, 28(2), 63-76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0025

Pew Research Center. (2014, June 12). POLITICAL POLARIZATION IN THE

AMERICAN PUBLIC. Retrieved from

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Pew Research Center. (2018, May 17). NEWS MEDIA AND POLITICAL ATTITUDES IN

THE UNITED KINGDOM. Retrieved from

PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 18

http://www.pewglobal.org/fact-sheet/news-media-and-political-attitudes-in-the-united-

kingdom/

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT. (2018, July). Lecture presented at Political Engagement

Class in Radford University, Radford, VA.

Rene. (2018, June 24). WHAT ARE THE 57 SIGNALS GOOGLE USES TO FILTER

SEARCH RESULTS? Retrieved from

https://www.rene-pickhardt.de/google-uses-57-signals-to-filter

Rowland, F. (2011). THE FILTER BUBBLE: WHAT THE INTERNET IS HIDING FROM

YOU. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(4), 1009-1011.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2011.0036

Ting, H. (2008). SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF NATION—A THEORETICAL

EXPLORATION. National & Ethnic Politics, 14(3).

doi:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537110802301418

Ugarte, R. (2018, March 13). THE DARK AND BRIGHT SIDES OF PARTY

POLARIZATION. Retrieved from

https://items.ssrc.org/the-dark-and-bright-sides-of-party-polarization/

Usher-Layser, N. (2016). NEWSFEED: FACEBOOK, FILTERING AND NEWS

CONSUMPTION. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 96(3), 18-21. Retrieved from

https://explore.proquest.com/document/1827838628?accountid=3785

Valentine, A., & Wukovitz, L. (2013). USING THE FILTER BUBBLE TO CREATE A

TEACHABLE MOMENT: A CASE STUDY UTILIZING ONLINE

PERSONALIZATION TO ENGAGE STUDENTS IN INFORMATION LITERACY

PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND POLARIZATION 19

INSTRUCTION. Pennsylvania Libraries, 1(1), 24-n/a.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2013.18