Recent American politics have spurred various conversations around the notion of a rising populist movement. Populist ideology, as opposed to liberal or conservative ideologies, is not conceptualized as on one end of two poles, but rather an ideological horseshoe – a non-establishment ideology that exists outside the political mainstream, yet contains a union of some left-wing and right-wing beliefs. Populist beliefs often represent those that are meant to protect ordinary people from the system. Those such as anti-elitism and anti-pluralism are why political candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump had some overlap in support despite sitting on different sides of the political aisle. The core of the burgeoning populist movement in the United States is often thought to be derived from the increasing prominence of social media in the democratic process, which is often attributed to the unlikely successes of the Trump campaign in 2016. But, to understand its impact on the political process, we must first understand the social media ecosystem more broadly and what new affordances this developing communication technology.
As a media ecosystem, social media exists as a way to connect large number of people across different geographic locations. These users can contribute to conversations, create content, report news, and thusly expand discourse beyond what might be presented on traditional media sources. Social media liberates any user to speak freely and directly to a potentially large audience, including political actors, such as President Donald Trump. As Guess, Nyhan, and Reifler (2015) and Groshek & Koc-Michalska (2017), point out, there is a concern about to what extent this discourse exists in isolated echo chambers and creates a polarization of ideologies. In other words, are users seeking out and interacting only with content that reinforces their pre-existing ideas? If so, there is a threat that certain groups will form increasingly radical ideologies, which could in turn affect our democratic processes. An increasingly relevant concern revolving the dangers of echo chambers is the propagation of misinformation, or fake news, across social networks. If groups become isolated in continuing to consume this type of content, scholars worry that these groups may be compromised. Situations like Pizzagate – and on a larger scale, the success of Russian meddling in US politics – are the result of successful misinformation campaigns infiltrating social networks and incite serious offline consequences.
Guess, Nyhan, and Reifler (2015) considered the effect of social media on the consumption of misinformation and to what extent social media enables selective exposure to such content. Their study found that social media (specifically, Facebook) was the most effective disseminator of fake news, and that heavy users were far more likely to consumer fake news. That said, there was a relatively small subset of non-fact checked fake news consumers. Notably, this group was disproportionately more likely to support Trump’s arguably populist political ideologies. The results of this study call into question whether or not we should ultimately be worried about pro-Trump misinformation campaigns and their effects on the political process. It seems that despite the paranoia surrounding social media’s supposed enabling of populism in the United States, its effects are actually fairly minimum.
Results from Groshek & Koc-Michalska’s (2017) research builds upon the skepticism of social media’s impact on the growth of American populism, and actually finds support that social media might not be the channel we should be most worried about with regard to such growth. The researchers observed that social media network filter bubbles did not cause an inclination toward populist candidates. In fact, those who used social media actively more were less likely to support the some of the most populist candidates. Furthermore, television usage was actually the strongest indicator of support for the most populist candidates – both on the Democratic and Republican sides.
These studies suggest that fears about filter bubbles on social media networks are likely over-exaggerated. It seems that we should be more worried about traditional media filter bubbles, particularly with television’s increasingly partisan-leaning news programs. What’s more, these studies present a somewhat optimistic view of social media. Rather than isolating users, social media contrarily exposes users to a wide range of ideas that allow them to consider various points of view rather than polarizing them.
Works Cited
Groshek, J., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2017). Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1389-1407. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2017.1329334
Guess A, Nyhan B, Reifler J (2018) Selective exposure to misinformation: evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. Working Paper. European Research Council. Available at https://www.dartmouth.edu/∼nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf.