+
cnn, fox news, echo chambers

CNN host Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson of Fox News.

The prevailing logic in today’s political world is that polarization is worsening because people live in media echo chambers where they are only exposed to outlets that mirror their views.

People who live in echo chambers come to distrust any opinions that exist outside of their bubbles and when they're not exposed to any conflicting information. This creates a scenario where the person becomes increasingly entrenched in their worldview.

One would assume that after a person becomes fully entrenched in an echo chamber they have little chance of changing their views. However, a new working paper by researchers at Stanford and Yale universities has found that when people are removed from their bubbles there’s a chance they’ll change their minds.

David Broockman of Stanford and Joshua Kalla of Yale conducted a study where they paid regular Fox News viewers $15 an hour to watch CNN for around seven hours a week for a month. The researchers then surveyed them about their political beliefs and knowledge of current events.


The study is titled “The manifold effects of partisan media on viewers’ beliefs and attitudes: A field experiment with Fox News viewers.” The research was done in fall 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and lead-up to the presidential election.

When the participants were polled, researchers found that they were 5 percentage points more likely to believe that people suffer from long COVID, 6 points more likely to believe that other countries did a better job of controlling the virus and 7 points more likely to support voting by mail.

“CNN provided extensive coverage of COVID-19, which included information about the severity of the COVID-19 crisis and poor aspects of Trump’s performance handling COVID-19. Fox News covered COVID-19 much less,” said the study.

After the Fox viewers switched to CNN, it changed their opinions on the social justice protests happening at the time as well. The switchers were 10 points less likely to think that Biden supporters were happy when police got shot and 13 points less likely to believe that if Biden gets elected “we’ll see many more police get shot by Black Lives Matter activists.”

Many of the participants also realized that when it came to Trump, they weren’t getting the whole story. After switching to a steady diet of CNN they were less likely to agree that “if Donald Trump did something bad, Fox News would discuss it.”

“Despite regular Fox viewers being largely strong partisans, we found manifold effects of changing the slant of their media diets on their factual beliefs, attitudes, perceptions of issues’ importance, and overall political views,” the authors of the study said.

The study shows that Fox News isn’t just a media outlet that affirms its viewers' worldviews, it also feeds them a distorted version of reality that pushes them toward more extreme opinions. The good news is that some of these people can be changed when exposed to better information.

It should also be noted that Fox News viewers aren’t the only ones living in information bubbles and that there are plenty of ideological traps that ensnare people on the left as well.

The study should give everyone hope that all is not lost and that America’s political divide may not be impossible to bridge.

Pop Culture

Moms rally around Chrissy Teigen after she cautiously announces pregnancy two years after a loss

"I don’t think I’ll ever walk out of an appointment with more excitement than nerves but so far, everything is perfect and beautiful and I’m feeling hopeful and amazing."

Chrissy Teigen announces pregnancy.

Losing a baby is a tragedy at any stage of pregnancy, but losing a baby later in pregnancy can feel that much more devastating. Getting pregnant after loss is extremely anxiety-inducing, so when Chrissy Teigan cautiously announced she was pregnant with her fourth child, mothers who have experienced pregnancy loss collectively shared her apprehension.

Keep ReadingShow less

The way makers use time makes meetings far more disruptive than they are for managers.

Most people don't look at their work calendar on any given day and say, "Yay! I have a meeting!" Most of us just understand and accept that meetings are a part of work life in most industries.

Some people, however, are far more negatively impacted by scheduled meetings than others. For people involved in creating or producing, meetings are actively disruptive to work in a way that isn't often the case for managers.

A viral post with an explanation from Paul Graham breaks down why.

Keep ReadingShow less

Albert Einstein

One of the strangest things about being human is that people of lesser intelligence tend to overestimate how smart they are and people who are highly intelligent tend to underestimate how smart they are.

This is called the Dunning-Kruger effect and it’s proven every time you log onto Facebook and see someone from high school who thinks they know more about vaccines than a doctor.

The interesting thing is that even though people are poor judges of their own smarts, we’ve evolved to be pretty good at judging the intelligence of others.

“Such findings imply that, in order to be adaptive, first impressions of personality or social characteristics should be accurate,” a study published in the journal Intelligence says. “There is accumulating evidence that this is indeed the case—at least to some extent—for traits such as intelligence extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and narcissism, and even for characteristics such as sexual orientation, political ideology, or antigay prejudice.”

Keep ReadingShow less