research-article

Search Media and Elections: A Longitudinal Investigation of Political Search Results

Authors:

Joon Sung Park,

James A. Landay,

Jeff HancockAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 3, Issue CSCW

Article No.: 129, Pages 1 - 17

https://doi.org/10.1145/3359231

Published: 07 November 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Concern about algorithmically-curated content and its impact on democracy is reaching a fever pitch worldwide. But relative to the role of social media in electoral processes, the role of search results has received less public attention. We develop a theoretical conceptualization of search results as a form of media-search media-and analyze search media in the context of political partisanship in the six months leading up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Our empirical analyses use a total of over 4 million URLs, scraped daily from Google search queries for all candidates running for federal office in the United States in 2018. In our first set of analyses we characterize the nature of search media from the data collected in terms of the types of URLs present and the stability of search results over time. In our second, we annotate URLs' top-level domains with existing measures of political partisanship, examining trends by incumbency, election outcome, and other election characteristics. Among other findings, we note that partisanship trends in search media are largely similar for content about candidates from the two major political parties, whereas there are substantial differences in search media for incumbent versus challenger candidates. This work suggests that longitudinal, systematic audits of search media can reflect real-world political trends. We conclude with implications for web search designers and consumers of political content online.

References

[1]

Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar. 1997. Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. The Free Press.

[2]

Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada A. Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, Vol. 348, 6239 (2015), 1130--1132.

[3]

Judit Bar-Ilan, Mazlita Mat-Hassan, and Mark Levene. 2006. Methods for comparing rankings of search engine results. Computer networks, Vol. 50, 10 (2006), 1448--1463.

[4]

Matthew A. Baum and Tim Groeling. 2008. New Media and the Polarization of American Political Discourse. Political Communication, Vol. 25, 4 (Nov. 2008), 345--365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802426965

[5]

Frank Bentley, Katie Quehl, Jordan Wirfs-Brock, and Melissa Bica. 2019. Understanding Online News Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 590, bibinfonumpages11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300820

Digital Library

[6]

Dan Bernhardt, Stefan Krasa, and Mattias Polborn. 2008. Political polarization and the electoral effects of media bias. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 92, 5--6 (June 2008), 1092--1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.006

[7]

Vannevar Bush. 1945. As We May Think. The Atlantic, Vol. 176, 1 (1945).

[8]

Gregory A. Caldeira, Aage R. Clausen, and Samuel C. Patterson. 1990. Partisan mobilization and electoral participation. Electoral studies, Vol. 9, 3 (1990), 191--204.

[9]

Dave D'Alessio and Mike Allen. 2000. Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of communication, Vol. 50, 4 (2000), 133--156.

[10]

Jeff Desjardins. 2018. How Google retains more than 90% of market share. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-retains-more-than-90-of-market-share-2018--4?r=UK&IR=T

[11]

Nicholas Diakopoulos, Daniel Trielli, Jennifer Stark, and Sean Mussenden. 2018. I Vote For--How Search Informs Our Choice of Candidate. Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, M. Moore and D. Tambini (Eds.), Vol. 22 (2018).

[12]

William H. Dutton, Bianca Reisdorf, Elizabeth Dubois, and Grant Blank. 2017. Social Shaping of the Politics of Internet Search and Networking: Moving Beyond Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Fake News. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2944191

[13]

Robert Epstein and Ronald Robertson. 2015. The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. PNAS, Vol. 112, 33 (Aug. 2015), E4512--E4521. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112

[14]

Robert Epstein, Ronald Robertson, David Lazer, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Suppressing the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). Proc. SIGCHI, Vol. 1, CSCW (Dec. 2017), 1--22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134677

Digital Library

[15]

Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U. S. Presidential Election. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3019414

[16]

Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin M Rao. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly, Vol. 80, S1 (2016), 298--320.

[17]

Herbert J. Gans. 1985. Are US journalists dangerously liberal? Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 24, 4 (1985), 29.

[18]

Tim Groseclose. 2001. A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, 4 (2001), 862--886. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669329

[19]

Don Hazen. 2017. Google, Facebook, Amazon undermine democracy: They play a role in destroying privacy, producing inequality. https://www.salon.com/2017/04/23/google-facebook-amazon-undermine-democracy-they-play-a-role-in-destroying-privacy-producing-inequality_partner/

[20]

C. Richard Hofstetter. 1976. Bias in the news: Network television coverage of the 1972 election campaign .Ohio State University Press.

[21]

Shanto Iyengar and Richard Reeves. 1997. Do the media govern? Politicians, voters and reporters in America. Electoral Studies, Vol. 3, 16 (1997), 429.

[22]

Juhi Kulshrestha, Motahhare Eslami, Johnnatan Messias, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Saptarshi Ghosh, Krishna P Gummadi, and Karrie Karahalios. 2019. Search bias quantification: investigating political bias in social media and web search. Information Retrieval Journal, Vol. 22, 1--2 (2019), 188--227.

Digital Library

[23]

Eric Lawrence, John Sides, and Henry Farrell. 2010. Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 8, 1 (2010), 141--157.

[24]

Lev Manovich. 2003. New media from Borges to HTML. The new media reader, Vol. 1 (2003), 13--25.

[25]

Lev Manovich, Roger F Malina, and Sean Cubitt. 2001. The Language of New Media .MIT press.

[26]

Panagiotis Metaxas and Eni Mustafaraj. 2009. The battle for the 2008 US Congressional Elections on the Web. Proceedings of the Conference on Web Science (2009).

[27]

P Takis Metaxas and Yada Pruksachatkun. 2017. Manipulation of search engine results during the 2016 U.S. congressional elections.

[28]

Amy Mitchell and Mark Jurkowitz. 2014. Search, Social and Direct. http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/13/social-search-direct/

[29]

Sean A Munson, Stephanie Y Lee, and Paul Resnick. 2013. Encouraging reading of diverse political viewpoints with a browser widget. In Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media .

[30]

Nic Newman. 2016. Journalism, media and technology predictions 2016. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/journalism-media-and-technology-predictions-2016

[31]

Nic Newman. 2018. Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions 2018. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2018

[32]

Facebook Newsroom. 03--31--2019. Why Am I Seeing This? We Have An Answer For You. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/why-am-i-seeing-this/.

[33]

David Niven. 2003. Objective evidence on media bias: Newspaper coverage of congressional party switchers. Journalism & Mass Communication, Vol. 80, 2 (2003), 311--326.

[34]

Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, Thorsten Joachims, Lori Lorigo, Geri Gay, and Laura Granka. 2007. In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. JCMC, Vol. 12, 3 (April 2007), 801--823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083--6101.2007.00351.x

[35]

Souneil Park, Seungwoo Kang, Sangyoung Chung, and Junehwa Song. 2009. NewsCube: delivering multiple aspects of news to mitigate media bias. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 443--452.

Digital Library

[36]

Markus Prior. 2013. Media and Political Polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 16, 1 (May 2013), 101--127. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711--135242

[37]

Ronald Robertson, David Lazer, and Christo Wilson. 2018b. Auditing the Personalization and Composition of Politically-Related Search Engine Results Pages. In Proc. WWW 2018 (WWW '18). Switzerland, 955--965. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186143

Digital Library

[38]

Ronald E Robertson, Shan Jiang, Kenneth Joseph, Lisa Friedland, David Lazer, and Christo Wilson. 2018a. Auditing Partisan Audience Bias within Google Search. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 2, CSCW (2018), 148.

Digital Library

[39]

Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014. An algorithm audit., bibinfonumpages6--10 pages.

[40]

Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science, Vol. 359, 6380 (2018), 1146--1151.

[41]

Ryen White. 2013. Beliefs and Biases in Web Search. In Proc. SIGIR (SIGIR '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484053

Digital Library

Cited By

Ulloa RMakhortykh MUrman AKulshrestha J(2024)Novelty in News SearchSocial Science Computer Review10.1177/0894439323119547142:3(700-718)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1177/08944393231195471
Cen SAlur R(2024)From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI AuditingProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization10.1145/3689904.3694711(1-14)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689904.3694711
Armstrong LLiu AMacNeil SMetaxa D(2024)The Silicon Ceiling: Auditing GPT’s Race and Gender Biases in HiringProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization10.1145/3689904.3694699(1-18)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689904.3694699
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Search Media and Elections: A Longitudinal Investigation of Political Search Results
1. Information systems
  1. Information retrieval
    1. Specialized information retrieval
      1. Environment-specific retrieval
        Web and social media search
  2. World Wide Web
    1. Web searching and information discovery
      1. Content ranking
      2. Web search engines
        Page and site ranking
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Computing / technology policy
    1. Censorship
      1. Political speech

Recommendations

Auditing the Personalization and Composition of Politically-Related Search Engine Results Pages
WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference

Search engines are a primary means through which people obtain information in today»s connected world. Yet, apart from the search engine companies themselves, little is known about how their algorithms filter, rank, and present the web to users. This ...
Could Facebook Influence Municipal Elections?: Tunisian Case Study
ICEGOV '19: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

Since the beginning of the Arab spring, Tunisians have asked for a new system with fundamental political, social and economic reforms. People have been revolting for dignity, liberty, social equality and for equity between regions through the equal ...
The 2014 Indian elections on Twitter

The study examines Twitter political campaigns in the 2014 Indian general election.It also examines the role of internet and first time voters in electoral success.New-and-upcoming parties used Twitter for self-promotion and media validation.The winning ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 3, Issue CSCW

November 2019

5026 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3371885

Editors:
Airi Lampinen
Stockholm University, Sweden
,
Darren Gergle
Northwestern University, USA
,
David A. Shamma
FXPAL, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2019 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 the author(s) 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

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 November 2019

Published in PACMHCI Volume 3, Issue CSCW

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

27
Total Citations
View Citations
579
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)76
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ulloa RMakhortykh MUrman AKulshrestha J(2024)Novelty in News SearchSocial Science Computer Review10.1177/0894439323119547142:3(700-718)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1177/08944393231195471
Cen SAlur R(2024)From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI AuditingProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization10.1145/3689904.3694711(1-14)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689904.3694711
Armstrong LLiu AMacNeil SMetaxa D(2024)The Silicon Ceiling: Auditing GPT’s Race and Gender Biases in HiringProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization10.1145/3689904.3694699(1-18)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689904.3694699
Wang SHuang SZhou AMetaxa D(2024)Lower Quantity, Higher Quality: Auditing News Content and User Perceptions on Twitter/X Algorithmic versus Chronological TimelinesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870468:CSCW2(1-25)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687046
Delmonaco DMayworm SThach HGuberman JAugusta AHaimson O(2024)"What are you doing, TikTok?" : How Marginalized Social Media Users Perceive, Theorize, and "Prove" ShadowbanningProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36374318:CSCW1(1-39)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637431
Perreault BLee JShava RMustafaraj E(2024)Algorithmic Misjudgement in Google Search Results: Evidence from Auditing the US Online Electoral Information EnvironmentProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658916(433-443)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658916
Birhane ASteed ROjewale VVecchione BRaji I(2024)AI auditing: The Broken Bus on the Road to AI Accountability2024 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML)10.1109/SaTML59370.2024.00037(612-643)Online publication date: 9-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/SaTML59370.2024.00037
Williams-Ceci SMacy MNaaman M(2024)Misinformation does not reduce trust in accurate search results, but warning banners may backfireScientific Reports10.1038/s41598-024-61645-814:1Online publication date: 14-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61645-8
Lam MPandit AKalicki CGupta RSahoo PMetaxa D(2023)Sociotechnical Audits: Broadening the Algorithm Auditing Lens to Investigate Targeted AdvertisingProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36102097:CSCW2(1-37)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610209
Srba IMoro RTomlein MPecher BSimko JStefancova EKompan MHrckova APodrouzek JGavornik ABielikova M(2023)Auditing YouTube’s Recommendation Algorithm for Misinformation Filter BubblesACM Transactions on Recommender Systems10.1145/35683921:1(1-33)Online publication date: 27-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568392
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents