skip to main content
10.1145/3184558.3188725acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Illuminating an Ecosystem of Partisan Websites

Published:23 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to shed light on alternative news media ecosystems that are believed to have influenced opinions and beliefs by false and/or biased news reporting during the 2016 US Presidential Elections. We examine a large, professionally curated list of 668 hyper-partisan websites and their corresponding Facebook pages, and identify key characteristics that mediate the traffic flow within this ecosystem. We uncover a pattern of new websites being established in the run up to the elections, and abandoned after. Such websites form an ecosystem, creating links from one website to another, and by 'liking' each others' Facebook pages. These practices are highly effective in directing user traffic internally within the ecosystem in a highly partisan manner, with right-leaning sites linking to and liking other right-leaning sites and similarly left-leaning sites linking to other sites on the left, thus forming a filter bubble amongst news producers similar to the filter bubble which has been widely observed among consumers of partisan news. Whereas there is activity along both left- and right-leaning sites, right-leaning sites are more evolved, accounting for a disproportionate number of abandoned websites and partisan internal links. We also examine demographic characteristics of consumers of hyper partisan news and find that some of the more populous demographic groups in the US tend to be consumers of more right-leaning sites.

References

  1. Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. National Bureau of Economic Research No. w23089 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Mona Chalabi. 2016. Trump's angry white men and why there are more of them than you think. (2016). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/08/ angry-white-men-love-donald-trumpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Richa Chaturvedi. 2016. A closer look at the gender gap in presidential voting. (2016). http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/28/ a-closer-look-at-the-gender-gap-in-presidential-voting/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. James A. Davis. 2004. Did Growing up in the 1960s Leave a Permanent Mark on Attitudes and Values Evidence from the General Social Survey. The Public Opinion Quarterly 68, 2 (2004), 161--183. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3521588Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Samantha Finn, Panagiotis Takis Metaxas, and Eni Mustafaraj. 2014. Investigating rumor propagation with twittertrails. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.3550 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin M Rao. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80, S1 (2016), 298--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2017. Reducing controversy by connecting opposing views. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 81--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Steven M. Gillon. 2017. Why are so many white men so angry (2017). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/ 29/why-are-so-many-white-men-so-angry/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jeffery Gottfried and Elisa Shearer. 2016. News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016. (2016). http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/ news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jeffery Gottfried and Elisa Shearer. 2017. Americans' Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines. (2017). http://www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/ americans-attitudes-about-the-news-media-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. David Gourley and Brian Totty. 2002. HTTP: the definitive guide. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.". Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Herrman. 2016. Inside Facebook's (Totally Insane, Unintentionally Gigantic, Hyperpartisan) Political-Media Machine. (24 Aug. 2016). https://nyti.ms/2k82R8IGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenny Holland. 2011. Generation Gap Young versus Old Voters and Presidential Candidate Preference. Western Political Science Association 2011 Annual Meeting Paper (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Benjamin D. Horne and Sibel Adali. 2017. This Just In: Fake News Packs a Lot in Title, Uses Simpler, Repetitive Content in Text Body, More Similar to Satire than Real News. CoRR abs/1703.09398 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dmytro Karamshuk, Tetyana Lokot, Oleksandr Pryymak, and Nishanth Sastry. 2016. Identifying Partisan Slant in News Articles and Twitter During Political Crises. In Social Informatics, Emma Spiro and Yong-Yeol Ahn (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 257--272.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sejeong Kwon, Meeyoung Cha, Kyomin Jung, Wei Chen, and Yajun Wang. 2013. Prominent features of rumor propagation in online social media. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on. IEEE, 1103--1108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Eric Lawrence, John Sides, and Henry Farrell. 2010. Self-segregation or deliberation Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics 8, 1 (2010), 141--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Jan E Leighley and Arnold Vedlitz. 1999. Race, ethnicity, and political participation: Competing models and contrasting explanations. The Journal of Politics 61, 4 (1999), 1092--1114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Elisa Maniam and Samantha Smith. 2017. Americans' Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines. (2017). http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/ a-wider-partisan-and-ideological-gap-between-younger-older-generations/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Dung T Nguyen, Nam P Nguyen, and My T Thai. 2012. Sources of misinformation in online social networks: Who to suspect. In Military Communications Conference, 2012-MILCOM 2012. IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Greg Orelind. 2017. Top 6 Myths About The Alexa Traffic Rank. (2017). https: //blog.alexa.com/top-6-myths-about-the-alexa-traffic-rank/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical Report. Stanford InfoLab.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Eli Pariser. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Emilee Rader and Rebecca Gray. 2015. Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the Facebook news feed. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 173--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Criag Silverman, Jane Lytvynenko, Lam Thuy Vo, and Jeremy Singer-Vine. 2017. Inside The Partisan Fight For Your News Feed. (2017). https://www.buzzfeed. com/craigsilverman/inside-the-partisan-fight-for-your-news-feedGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kate Starbird. 2017. Examining the Alternative Media Ecosystem Through the Production of Alternative Narratives of Mass Shooting Events on Twitter. In ICWSM. 230--239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Samanth Subrahmanian. 2017. Inside the Macedonian Fake-News complex. (2017). https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Liwen Vaughan and Rongbin Yang. 2013. Web traffic and organization performance measures: Relationships and data sources examined. Journal of informetrics 7, 3 (2013), 699--711.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Sidney Verba and Norman H Nie. 1987. Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Savvas Zannettou, Tristan Caulfield, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Nicolas Kourtelris, Ilias Leontiadis, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Jeremy Blackburn. 2017. The web centipede: understanding how web communities influence each other through the lens of mainstream and alternative news sources. In Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, 405--417. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Illuminating an Ecosystem of Partisan Websites

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Other conferences
                WWW '18: Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018
                April 2018
                2023 pages
                ISBN:9781450356404

                Copyright © 2018 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

                Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

                Publication History

                • Published: 23 April 2018

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader

              HTML Format

              View this article in HTML Format .

              View HTML Format