With the introduction of the Internet and social media in particular, the way we receive news has changed. Traditional news providers such as the New York Times or the NOS have moved online and new competition like the Huffington Post and NU.nl are already online only new providers. However, simultaneously with the mainstream media, new niche media networks are being founded. Not bound to just textual stories, these young upstarts use platforms like YouTube and Snapchat to deliver the news in new formats.
These niche networks, like for example The Young Turks and LouderWithCrowder deliver news from a certain ideological standpoint. This means that news is usually more “coloured” and “biased” towards making a story fit a certain narrative. In the case of The Young Turks and LowderWithCrowder this is a liberal versus a more conservative narrative. This is especially clear when it comes to the American election, when the same debate/event can get two completely different explanations.
For example on the recently held presidential debate:
Or on the issues on gun-control:
Now this in itself is not necessarily a bad situation. Everybody is allowed their own opinion and these niche news organizations do promote standpoints that might not get the same attention in the mainstream media. However, when this gets combined with the recommendation algorithms of social media platforms, these “coloured” news reports become ever more prominent.
Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter use algorithms to determine what kind of things you get to see on their platforms. Two determinants of these algorithms are the person who posted something and the content of the post. If you then interact with the post, the site remembers that interaction and uses it to recommend similar content. The poster also gets a higher importance rank, meaning he/she is more likely to show up in your newsfeed compared to people with a low importance rank.
If you are a liberally oriented person and frequently watch and interact with liberally oriented news, those social platforms are going to remember that. In turn, they will suggest content with the same narrative because they know you find this important. This process will eventually lead to a timeline with suggestions and posts that all have the same narrative. If everything a person sees on social media concurs with what he/she already believes, it will only reinforce the feeling that ones stances on those issues are correct. With society an already hardening society, not being exposed to counterarguments could create an even bigger divide.
Is this a problem for society and should social platforms combat this by balancing out their news offerings?
Further reading:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/06/ultimate-guide-to-the-news-feed/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/24/how-social-media-is-reshaping-news/
I think that especially with regard to politics this is a serious issue. Of course, different kinds of news sources have always had their own views on particular topics. Some newspapers are more left or right winged than others, for example. For the consumer, it is a free choice to buy either the left or the right winged newspaper. And he or she will probably go for the same option most of the times. In this sense, people are already in some way choosing their own content and the different perspectives on politics. However, with this new trend going on people are not even left a choice anymore, since the social media platform has already taken the decision for them. I think in this case regulatory steps have to be undertaken, since these issues break into the consumer’s free choice of information gathering and are biasing people in a serious manner.