Renee Noby & Rebecca Reule
Graduate Candidates
The Evergreen State College
RESEARCH FINDINGS
QUANTITATIVE
QUALITATIVE
The survey data points towards a rejection of the three hypotheses. High levels of knowledge, as indicated by reading multiple articles on one topic, were significant in the following ways: High levels of knowledge are correlated with visiting online news sources both agreed with and disagreed with (r = 0.65, p = 0.0003). High levels of knowledge is also correlated with visiting online news sources, both agreed with and disagreed with, in order to argue (r = 0.24, p = 0.03). Likewise, a high confidence level in one’s opinion is correlated with seeking out online news sources, both agreed with and disagreed with, in order to argue (r = 0.33, p = 0.001). The high confidence level and high level of knowledge for this sub-group suggests commenters who seek out opposing viewpoints with the intention to argue on news websites do not do so to hurt democratic discourse. The third hypothesis is rejected.
The credibility of various news sources is negligibly correlated with ideology (r = 1.9.) and was not significant. Credibility is not related to how highly a news website is perceived by an individual to share his or her point of view. The first hypothesis is rejected. The high number of survey respondents who do read opposing viewpoints (40%) suggests individuals do not purposefully avoid opinions they disagree with. The second hypothesis is weakened, but further research is needed to determine if it may be rejected.
Of those interviewed, 2 admitted to visiting online news sites with opposing viewpoints strictly to mock the persons and viewpoints; however, not necessarily by engaging in the comments sections. Only 1 interviewee admitted to seeking out opposing or disagreeing views explicitly to argue within the comment sections of online news sites. The final interviewee stated a desire to gain insight into opposing ideas. This suggests a lack of evidence for the third hypothesis.
Regarding the first two hypotheses, no respondent stated a lack of credibility as a primary reason for targeting opposing news sites to engage in. Rather 1 interviewee found news sites with opposing views to be credible. The other 3 had no opinion. Even among this sub-group of persons who enjoy arguing and who intentionally seek out opposing viewpoints online, the qualitative data, also, points towards a rejection of all three hypotheses.
The most interesting responses regarded journalistic credibility, in general. One respondent, D.M., stated: “While many news sites will skew a story for their own bias, it is impossible to skew the history and facts of a particular story. If you read through enough stories on the topic, you can find the facts within the skewed data.” One interviewee claimed to disagree with both conservative and liberal news sites due to their inherent biases. When asked to elaborate, on respondent, M.R., stated: “They’re [mainstream news] so sponsored that I have difficulty with the concept that their news is honest and complete. Most news sources are that way, which is why I go to a couple of different sources, and then draw my own conclusions.” 3 interviewees believe all news sources would be more credible if the news were to primarily present fact-based stories and were to drop all biases. It is unclear how bias is defined here or how news would differ if it were “fact-based.”