Personalized media, polarized world
- Kara Holm
- Nov 30, 2016
- 4 min read
Last month I wrote about being a market segment of one in “The Age of Personalization.” I had been planning a follow-up blog, applying the principles of micro segmenting to the news media. Given recent events, this continued discussion seems more timely than ever.
Since the “surprise” results of the American Presidential election I have been hearing and reading a lot about the personalization of our news streams. The mainstream media and polling experts are reflecting on their failure to anticipate the outcome, after months of reporting what now appears to have been hopes and beliefs, rather than facts. Pundits and critics have been wondering how the ability to share “fake news” might have influenced voters. On a related note, it has also been observed that social media sites like Facebook create a feedback loop where we see our own views and beliefs constantly reflected, rather than a plurality of positions.
The Pew Research Center conducted a study earlier this year that found 62% of American adults source news from social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, and others.
The structure of these sites encourages users to “share” stories and the sites, in turn, promote content with more “shares” – without making any editorial decisions about the veracity of the story or the reliability of the source. In effect, the collective wisdom of the hive (“groupthink” that emerges from like-minded social media users) edits content for their fellow-users. The authors of content want their material to reach a large audience and therefore employ a variety of tactics, such as “click bait” (headlines designed to attract readers - "Kate Middleton Tells All" "Former Clinton Staffer Confesses") to increase the “share-ability” of their stories. Typically, the more sensational a story or headline is, the more shares it will generate.
This matters because your “news” feed on Facebook is curated just for you! According to Facebook’s
The stories that show in your News Feed are influenced by your connections and activity on Facebook. This helps you to see more stories that interest you from friends you interact with the most. The number of comments and likes a post receives and what kind of story it is (ex: photo, video, status update) can also make it more likely to appear in your News Feed.
The “editorial” perspective is not being chosen by Facebook, it is being determined by the users' behaviour. (A paranoid person might think that there is some mastermind behind the algorithm directing this process.) If online perspective is user-driven, one could argue that this is a more democratic process than having content curated for us by a member of the media “elite.” Assuming your “friends” are mostly people who share similar experiences and beliefs with you, the “news” cycle becomes self-reinforcing.
In an interesting contradiction, the personalization of our news has the effect of drawing us closer together in tribes. We have observed growing polarization in the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, the United States, and Canada.
In this personalized, social media universe two opposing narratives emerged. One negative about the Democratic party and demonizing Secretary Clinton, while idolizing Trump. The other perspective was anti-Trump, painting the candidate and his supporters as being reactionary bigots while glossing over Secetary Clinton’s weaknesses, such as the e-mail server issue. The tone on both sides was mean-spirited and divisive. But in hindsight, the split was the most accurate reflection of the actual mood of American voters.
The mainstream media apparently did not understand that Donald Trump could win the election. From polling aggregators www.fivethirtyeight.com to The New York Times to CNN the assumption was that all reasonable people will vote Democrat and therefore Secretary Clinton will emerge victorious.
Even during the returns the talking heads could not believe the results. In fact, the people at www.fivethirtyeight.com kept developing alternate scenarios showing how Secretary Clinton could still win, as the results came in for Trump. They were in denial about the truth, even in the face of facts, because it seemed to be an unthinkable outcome.
The week following the election, in an unprecedented gesture, The New York Times wrote a letter of apology to its readers in which the publication rededicated itself to “reporting the world honestly.”
Did The New York Times’ bias against Trump and distaste for his approach leave it blind to the public sentiments behind Trump’s rise?
The pollsters, the pundits and the journalists – all of whom are well-paid to help mortals like us make sense of the world – made a mistake. The same thing happened earlier this year in Britain during the Bretix referendum, and still the lessons have not been internalized by the experts.
We can make the facts tell the story we want to hear. Two different people can look at the same information and interpret its meaning differently. As we have reported in this blog before in "Polls are Power: The real word influence of applied research," polls are not objective. The very nature of the questions can be designed to re-inforce a certain outcome.
It is so important for businesses to be objective when assessing their issues and opportunities. That is why having an outside third party can provide a valuable perspective not apparent to those living their business each day.
So today’s advice for readers of www.itisadirtyjob.com is to reflect on whether you have selected the best advisors to support and advise you. Are you getting an accurate interpretation of the data? Is it possible you are being told what you want to hear? Or more importantly, what “they” want you to hear? Do your consultants have an agenda or perspective they are invested in promoting?
Businesses can miss opportunities because they are being informed by people who have chosen to ignore the reality of a situation because it does not affirm their worldview. Don’t let this happen to you. Make sure you hear the all sides of the issues, even those that may be unappealing.
Image sourced from: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com showing their forecast for the election outcome, on election day.
Comments